Ted A. Roberts's Blog, page 3

Explanatory Notes - PART 2 - for Chapter 4 of "New Jerusalem, the Mother of us all!"

Explanatory Notes for Chapter 4
The Garden Bride (this is broken up into two posts, for length is too long for only one)

*15. There were new births happening in the upper room...
No, I am not forgetting about the folks speaking in tongues that day. However (and, though this notion may sound crazy because of our subject matter), this is not the book to speak on that topic – which would be very dominating, and would overshadow a lot of things that I'm trying to say herein. I ask for patience, then, as I dance around this very important subject, for I've an entire book planned up ahead which will deal with that topic exclusively, called: "To Speak in Tongues or Not Speak in Tongues, That is the Question!" in which I will cover all such necessary ground. In the meantime, please be satisfied that I am not against speaking in tongues. Surely, in order for somebody to do this could only take the Spirit of God unctioning them; and, it certainly has its place in God's Kingdom ... Well, I should say, rather, that this only works if the person in question hadn't been pre-trained to do so by another human. I'm sorry folks, and I don't mean to insult anybody, but if the words that proceed out of your mouth have been taught to you to say by a man, then that's not speaking in tongues by the unctioning of God's Spirit. It's merely rehearsed words, and God had nothing to do with it. How else can it be a witness to the unbeliever if God hadn't prompted somebody, who knew nothing of that language that they are speaking in, to speak out? ... But, again, more on this in my upcoming book.

*16. Quicken [make alive!] your mortal bodies...
For many years, I really believed this passage to indicate that our fleshly bodies will become immortal. That is, the meat and bone body that I carry around with me today. But, later on, I was to discover that Paul wasn't meaning that, at all. But, what else could he have meant, seeing as the passage was phrased that way? The Bible can be very archaic when viewed with a modern mind. As I've spoken on before in other books, this has led many folks to run away from the King James Bible Translation on over to more modern, updated Bibles – such as the New International Version – and end up in more trouble than if they had stuck with the KJV to begin with. After all, not understanding is better than misunderstanding. Because, if you don't understand, you still have room to learn. But, if you misunderstand, you may have a more difficult time coming on over to the truth (and, yes, I am expressing negativity toward the NIV Translation; which, again, I'll expound upon in my upcoming book on Bible Translations; i.e.: "The Bible is Not a Buffet") ... So, as far as what "body" Paul is referring to, AMG's Annotated Strong's Dictionary (which is great for nitty-gritty "word" study) is quick to point out that the Greek word used for body here is not the same as one would expect to see for a fleshly, meat and bone body – such as the Greek word Sarx expresses:
Sarx, G4561, from Strong's Greek Dictionary: Probably from the base of G4563; flesh (as stripped of the skin), that is, (strictly) the meat of an animal (as food), or (by extension) the body (as opposed to the soul (or spirit), or as the symbol of what is external, or as the means of kindred, or (by implication) human nature (with its frailties (physically or morally) and passions), or (specifically) a human being (as such): - carnal (-ly, + -ly minded), flesh ([-ly]).
Restricting the meaning (mostly, that is) to the flesh body itself ... But, let's view the meaning to Paul's actual Greek word:
Body, Sōma, G4983, from Strong's Greek Dictionary: From G4982; the body (as a sound whole), used in a very wide application, literally or figuratively: - bodily, body, slave.
Which gives us a wider range of definitions to work with; including, as it says, figurative meanings also (i.e. metaphorical). But, even so, how can this help us understand what Paul actually meant? Well, before pinpointing a specific definition, let's also view the root word from which this one derived:
Sōzō, G4982, from Strong's Greek Dictionary: To save, that is, deliver or protect (literally or figuratively): - heal, preserve, save (self), do well, be (make) whole.
So saying, "saving a body as a whole" could very well be our meaning – of which definition is a combination of both Soma and Sozo; that is, pointing a finger as to the saving of ourselves, as a whole, and not particularly to the flesh body itself; but us as individuals – the lump sum of us as an individual. This should help us to understand the entire thought of Paul's sentence: "Quicken [make alive] your mortal bodies." That is, bringing to life that which was, at one time, only a mortal Being; and, is now an eternal Being.

*17. An application which points an obvious finger toward the Inward-Man...
Pais, Child, G3816, from Strong's Greek Dictionary: Perhaps from G3817; a boy (as often beaten with impunity), or (by analogy) a girl, and (generally) a child; specifically a slave or servant (especially a minister to a king; and by eminence to God): - child, maid (-en), (man) servant, son, young man.
One may think, by the expression holy child Jesus, that it specifically refers to the baby Jesus in the manger, who eventually grew-up to handle difficult matters, and was then victorious over them. But, that's not what's happening here. And, again, this isn't specifically pinpointing Jesus the historical man (as I'll point out in just a moment). Of course, the main reason for one wanting to believe this refers to Jesus in the manger is because the very definition of child "mostly" implies a youngster, and not somebody's son or daughter who could be of an adult age. Even though it's true that Jesus is referred to as God's Son throughout the Biblical text, He's hardly referred to as a child, or God's Child (except in an extremely few, rare cases) – unless, of course, it's in reference to Him being God's adult Son. However, Albert Barnes tries to make sense of this in his Bible Notes (1847-85, public domain) by trying to bring the thought back around to actually meaning the man Jesus:
The word “child” is commonly applied to infants, or to sons and daughters in very early life. The word which is used here, pais, is different from what is commonly applied to the Lord Jesus: huios. The latter [huios] expresses sonship without respect to age. The word which is here used [pais] also sometimes expresses sonship with out any regard to age...
He then ends the thought with this:
...the word “son” would have been a more happy translation [i.e. in the King James Version].
He then gives a scriptural example of pais being used for Jesus in another place:
Acts 3:26
Unto you first God, having raised up his Son [pais] Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.
Now, what may or may not surprise the reader is that I actually halfway agree with what Albert Barnes indicates ... halfway? ... He's absolutely correct in saying that, in Acts 4:27, the man Jesus was being indicated; yet, He was being indicated indirectly. But, he fails to mention that, in verse 30, when it says thy holy child Jesus once again, that it's not referencing Jesus the man, at all (even indirectly); yet, he does correctly recognize the workings of the apostles in the latter verse, but without contributing the holy child Jesus (again, in verse 30) to being those men's Inward-Man and not Jesus Himself ... What? ... Yes, I am declaring that verse 27 was only referenced in that strange manner (i.e. thy holy child Jesus) so that it could set up verse 30 for the reader, in showing how that verse 27 didn't literally mean Jesus the man, but was referencing what was inside of Jesus the man, because I believe Him to have had an Inward-Man* – the first one in history to obtain one; and that, as Him being our example, we too will share in that same experience; for, that's how we actually enter into the Second Heaven, because the Inward-Man is the Creature of the Second Heaven, just as the Outward-Man was the Creature of the First Heaven:
1 Corinthians 15:20
But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. [23] But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming [Just like He, we shall be born again, too!].**
So, what this means is that just like Jesus, through what God had given Him on the inside to handle His ministry whilst He was here on earth, the apostles also obtained an Inward-Man, too (on the Day of Pentecost) to do signs, wonders, and miracles ... But, let's see how this is referenced in our quoted scriptures:
Acts 4:26-30
The kings of the earth [not just the Romans; but, and more to the point, the Jewish, religious leadership] stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord [i.e. Jesus], and against his Christ [i.e. His anointing of the Inward-Man]. For of a truth against [again, against this anointing] thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed [i.e. they were against what God the Father had planted within Him for that ministerial purpose – against that born-again Inward-Man, of which birth we witness at His baptism by John – Matthew 3:16-17], both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel [i.e. those Jewish, religious leaders], were gathered together, For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done [i.e. to crucify Him]. And now, Lord [just like it was against Jesus, it's now against the apostles, and what they have to do], behold their threatenings [those same men are now against them that was against Jesus not too long before]: and grant unto thy servants [the apostles and disciples of God], that with all boldness they may speak thy word [from God, but issuing forth from their mouths], By stretching forth thine hand to heal [from God, but issuing forth from their own hands]; and that signs and wonders may be done by the name*** of thy holy child Jesus [i.e. through their Inward-Man, the true child of God within them – who not only works in the name/nature of Jesus (2nd Peter 1:4), but of whom also has the name of Jesus (Ephesians 3:14-15)].
Again, the holy child Jesus is not merely referencing the man Jesus Himself – for, it goes much deeper than just that – but, it's referencing what had been planted – first, within the man Jesus – and, then, on the inside of the apostles next. Granted, all this ultimately comes from God (and, without God's direct involvement, nothing could actually work), but God had set things up to be done through the hands and mouths of His people (Acts 2:43b). This is the exact reason why the apostles were given power after that the Holy Ghost had come upon them (Acts 1:8). If that's not the case, then why was it necessary to wait upon the complete submersion of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost for them to do these "greater" Works (St. John 14:12)? That is, if God doesn't use men and women as instruments, from whom people hear the Gospel (Romans 10:14c-15), and from whom people receive healing? Why does He educate us over time if we don't slowly grow unto the full stature of Christ (Ephesians 4:13), from child to adult (1st Corinthians 13:11)? Why does He give us of His Holy Spirit if we aren't to put it into practice? Why did the apostles have to wait until they received power from the Holy Ghost if it had absolutely nothing to do with their own participation (i.e. them being the instruments of distribution – through their own holy child Jesus)? ... What I'm really trying to get at here is that these strangely referenced scriptures (i.e. thy holy child Jesus) was purposely expressed this way (despite Albert Barnes' wishes for them to had been expressed another way) so that we can see there to be a deeper meaning here than just saying that Jesus was directly doing these things from His habitation in "Heaven;" but, that Jesus, through the participating bodies of His people, were doing these things for Him, but only after they received an Inward-Man to do so. For, without the Inward-Man (the true Son of God within us), we cannot do these "greater" Works (again, see St. John 14:12). Therefore, we can't ignore the fact that, as Jesus told His disciples that greater Works they will do, that they couldn't do these until after the Holy Ghost had "fully" come upon them, when they had received power (Acts 1:8 – i.e., again, with the planting of the Inward-Man within them). The holy child Jesus, therefore, certainly denotes the New Creature (again, whose name, like his Father, is Jesus – Ephesians 3:14-15), with whom (with this born-again Creature within them) the apostles were able to perform many miracles.
*I believe Him to have had an Inward-Man...
I had spent no less than nine pages, in my previous book "In the Beginning," in an Explanatory Note for chapter 10, entitled: "The start of a New Testament World...", explaining why I believe Jesus had not only obtained an Inward-Man (a born-again experience), but of how He was the first to do so; so, I will not say again here, but I will reference my readers to read those pages in my aforementioned book.
**Afterward they that are Christ's at his coming [Just like He, we shall be born again, too!]...
It may seem both very strange and absolutely wrong for me to have used this scripture to help prove my point concerning Jesus first receiving an Inward-Man, and then, afterward, God's children doing the same. But, I make no apologies. Not only, but (and, I will admit!) that I prematurely threw this in, because the full thrust of why I even used such doctrine at this time will not be covered within the pages of this book, but will come at a later time in some upcoming books in this Teaching Series. But, basically (and, I'll just throw this quickly upon the floor without any deep explanations), I'm seeing the referenced term, from this quoted scripture, which says "at his coming," as a personal experience for any particular individual, rather than a one-time, futuristic world event, which many End Time teachers allude to. In other words, instead of referencing Jesus' futuristic return to this earth, I'm seeing this speak of Jesus coming into our hearts by the Baptism of the Holy Ghost (St. John 14:18 "I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you." i.e. "I, Jesus, will come to you through the Comforter!"). Again, instead of being a one-time futuristic event, here, I'm seeing this verse happening to individual saints when it's their turn to be born again ... I promise to get into this deeper in the future.
***By the name...
That is, by the divine NATURE of Jesus (2nd Peter 1:4) ... Another thing that I had previously covered in my already published books was that the name of Jesus was not in how we can write down or pronounce it, but it's in living the true Christian lifestyle. Anybody can say that they are working in the name of Jesus, but this can only be proved by their Fruits (Matthew 7:15-20) or proper Works (James 2:14-26) – the which they display in front of others without them ever having to open their mouths. In other words, working in His name is actually working in His nature! This is another reason why I say that, in our quoted verse from Acts 4:30, when it says "that signs and wonders may be done by the name [nature] of thy holy child Jesus," that I'm specifically referring to the apostle's born-again selves, rather than the specific man Jesus; because, without that divine nature working within us, we are in danger of becoming nothing more than a worker of iniquity, and being nothing more than a vessel unto dishonor – whom, by the way (i.e. workers of iniquity), can also perform signs, wonders and miracles (Matthew 7:22-23), but are dead within themselves whilst doing so, being filled with dead-men's bones (Matthew 23:27-28).

*18. A Creature (i.e. created Being) named Jesus...
It shouldn't be surprising that this newly born child of God has obtained the name Jesus; for, as a lot of folks aren't aware, Jesus is not just the name of God's Son who had walked this earth at one time, but afterward, the Father actually made this name the "surname" of all those who are born again. It is now the heavenly, family name:
Philippians 2:9
Wherefore God [the Father] also hath highly exalted him [Jesus], and given him a name which is above every name.
Ephesians 3:14-15
For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named.

*19. The Body of Christ...
As we will be seeing in my Teaching Series hereon-out, there's more than just one meaning to the phrase "Body of Christ." And, no, I'm not talking about a single Church of believers. Or, I should say, a single denomination of believers (of which topic I went over in my book "The Church and the Five-Fold Ministry: Should we put our trust in man?"). Of course, it could reference all the children of God, throughout time, collectively – and, I have no problem with that interpretation; or, even all the contemporaneous believers the earth over at a single space in time. But, I'm also speaking of the Inward-Man Body with this reference, too. Again, it depends on scripture context at a given time of what it may be speaking of when we study them ... If this, indeed, is Christ in you, and it is a Body (i.e. a Container that holds God's Spirit – 1st Corinthians 3:16), then this too can certainly be referenced as the Body of Christ; though individually, as opposed to universally.

*20. That Mind of Christ is a SHE...
As strange as that statement may sound, there's scripture to back this notion; and, certainly, is a new direction that I'll be heading toward in this book – a very important direction.
Jeremiah 31:22
How long wilt thou go about, O thou backsliding daughter? for the LORD hath created a new thing IN the earth, A woman shall compass [lead] a man.
Compass, Sâbab, H5437, from Strong's Hebrew Dictionary: A primitive root; to revolve, surround or border; used in various applications, literally and figuratively: - bring, cast, fetch, lead, make, walk, X whirl, X round about, be about on every side, apply, avoid, beset (about), besiege, bring again, carry (about), change, cause to come about, X circuit, (fetch a) compass (about, round), drive, environ, X on every side, beset (close, come, compass, go, stand) round about, remove, return, set, sit down, turn (self) (about, aside, away, back).
Sâbab, indeed, is a very curious word; and, of which has much debate about its correct translation:
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers (public domain, first published in 1905): A woman shall compass a man. -- The verse is obscure, and has received very different interpretations.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (published in 1810-1826; public domain): A woman shall compass a man - This place has given much trouble to Biblical critics.
Poor Man's Commentary by Robert Hawker: I do not presume to decide upon this passage, but I venture to propose my views of it to the Reader. I do not object to the comment of those who suppose the return of the people from Babylon might be implied in it. But I cannot but think an infinitely higher object was intended from what is here said. A woman compassing a man, cannot have the smallest connection with the mere event of the people’s returning from Babylon. Surely an eye to the incarnation of Jesus, is here plainly set forth.
Not every commentator nor Bible scholar can agree as to what this passage exactly means. Certainly, some take a very literal and historical approach to it, whilst others choose to examine it from an allegorical point of view. Of course, and from the themes of my books, one can see that I would also choose an allegorical approach. But, even so, no translation yet, as I've seen, agrees with my own interpretation. That is, by saying the passage actually means: "A woman shall lead a man" – insinuating that a woman will somehow become the headship to a man ... As the Bible implies (though some do not like to hear it), the man is always the head of the household; such an approach, therefore, toward the scriptures (i.e. a woman leading the way) is totally unacceptable for those who hold such positions in this present world. I would suspect that such an idea might have led some translators to choose another word other than "lead" – even though, and as we've seen, it certainly is a part of the Hebrew word's vast array of definitions ... At Biblehub.com we see a variety of choice interpretations:
(No copyright infringement intended) New International Version: the woman will return to the man; New Living Translation: Israel will embrace her God; English Standard Version: a woman encircles a man; Berean Study Bible: a woman will surround a man; New American Standard Bible: A woman will encompass a man; Christian Standard Bible: a female will shelter a man; Contemporary English Version: I will make sure that someday things will be different, as different as a woman protecting a man; Holman Christian Standard Bible: a female will shelter a man; International Standard Version: a woman will protect a man; JPS Tanakh 1917: A woman shall court a man; Jubilee Bible 2000: A woman shall compass the man; King James 2000 Bible: A woman shall protect a man; Brenton Septuagint Translation: for the Lord has created safety for a new plantation: men shall go about in safety; Etc.
As I continue my allegorical approach to this subject, it'll certainly be seen that this woman, this "Daughter," is no human female, at all. Again, she's the Mind of Christ within us. And, as we continue to learn about her, it'll make more sense of why she becomes the man's headship. For, again, as this female is no mere human, neither is the male! ... With those thoughts, let's reexamine our verse:
Jeremiah 31:22
How long wilt thou go about, O thou backsliding daughter? for the LORD hath created a new thing IN the earth, A woman shall compass [lead] a man.
The backsliding daughter in this particular instance isn't the Mind of Christ. She has never, nor shall she ever backslide. In an upcoming Explanatory Note for chapter 8, called: "Who, like her Mother, is a Garden," I will be going over whom this (or, rather these) daughters are in better detail; wherein I'll explain that in some passages of the Bible, the Daughter of Jerusalem is another name for the Old Israeli nation as a whole ... For instance:
Lamentations 2:15
All that pass by clap their hands at thee; they hiss and wag their head at the daughter of Jerusalem, saying, Is this the city that men call The perfection of beauty, The joy of the whole earth?
But, as we're also going to see, the term Daughter of Jerusalem eventually becomes synonymous (during the New Covenant) with New Jerusalem; which, being a spiritual city (instead of being a natural city as before) will cause this New Daughter to become spiritual, too – who is now without folly as the natural example was before her. This scripture, therefore (i.e. Jeremiah 31:22), is a prophesy of a new kind of Jerusalem (along with her born-again Daughters), who'll not only be perfect (mature and complete), but will also become the head of the New Man; for, she sits on top of him, and does his thinking for him ... Again, this passage insinuates that, unlike how Old Israel is making some very bad decisions (which had led to their destruction – for, they were thinking only with the Mind of Man), Jerusalem one day (i.e. New Jerusalem occupants!) will be thinking with Godly Thoughts instead, and will finally begin making the right decisions; yet, not that Old Nation as it was before, but a new kind of Israelite; i.e. a spiritual Jew (Romans 2:28-29) ... Again, we'll see all this come together as I continue to build my case.

www.SeekingTheGospel.webs.com

Explanatory Notes - PART 1 - for Chapter 4 of "New Jerusalem, the Mother of us all!"

Explanatory Notes for Chapter 4
The Garden Bride (this will have to be broken up into two posts, for length is too long for only one)

*14. These are the First and Second Works of God; or, the First and Second Covenants...
This Explanatory Note is a follow-up to an earlier Explanatory Note, for chapter 1, called "I John SAW (past tense)..." I went over this notion pretty well in my book "In the Beginning: It was spiritual from the very start," in that 'Heaven' has to be reinterpreted for us. Why? Because, it's not as simple as the modern Church World makes it out to be. Again, why? Because, we cannot simply tell folks that when they die, they will be going to Heaven. Why? Because, there's not just one Heaven in scripture, but three ... Again, see Revelation 21:1 and 2nd Corinthians 12:2 ... Therefore, when we tell them that they'll be going to Heaven, we need to tell them which one they'll be going to ... 1st ... 2nd ... or, 3rd ... Then, we'll have to explain why there are three and not just one. Getting a bit deeper in study, I've heard some scholars explain that 1st Heaven is the immediate atmosphere of the earth, where we breath oxygen; that Second Heaven is the area we call outer space, which begins just outside of earth's atmosphere; and, that Third Heaven is the cosmic realm just beyond the reaches of outer space, wherein God actually lives, and that it is the famous Heaven, in which we ourselves will eternally abide. Now, however one may see these Three Heavens within the sphere of this sort of understanding (that is, tossing it around with different sorts of ideas that work together to form a similar thought), I must here contend that I do not agree with such theories, for I cannot see them match up to scripture. And scripture, it must be understood, has to be the final authority on all things doctrinal. Being so the case, we must consider the following verse, which speaks of Jesus' travels at His ascension:
Ephesians 4:10
He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.
John Gill, in his Exposition of the entire Bible, is quick to solve this problem for us:
John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible: [All heavens, which are] the visible heavens, the airy and starry heavens; Christ ascended far above these, and went into the third heaven, the holiest of all; and this is expressive of the exaltation of Christ, who is made higher than the heavens.
However, that's not what Paul said. He didn't specify that he didn't mean 3rd Heaven when he said "ALL" Heavens. Why skip 3rd in that equation, and mean only 1st and 2nd? Well, Mr. John Gill said this because to say otherwise would destroy a long Church history of a doctrinal teaching. And, even though the man was highly respected (and, even I have quoted him several times in my books!) that doesn't mean he was always correct in what he believed to be truth. Though, this isn't me particularly saying that he was wrong; it's just that I view the truth differently. Actually, Paul said "ALL" Heavens; and, we can't assume that he didn't mean 3rd Heaven when he said it. However, saying otherwise (that is, that 3rd was, indeed, included in Paul's saying) wouldn't make sense with scripture, would it? After all, the final reward is that we'll spend eternity in Heaven, right? And, to say or think otherwise would be anti-biblical, would it not? ... However, we have to also consider "heavenly conditions" and "heavenly places" in this; for, therein may lie some answer to the puzzle.
Ephesians 1:20
Which he [the Father] wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places.
Here's another scripture that speaks of Jesus' ascension. But, what is so strange is that instead of simply saying that Jesus sat at the right hand of the Father in Heaven, it says heavenly places instead. But why is that? Well, let's seek the Greek:
Heaven/Heavenly, Epouranios, G2032, from Strong's Greek Dictionary: From G1909 and G3772; above the sky: - celestial,* (in) heaven (-ly), high.
Of course, seeing as the word places is italicized in this verse, we could not look that word up, seeing as all words in italics in the King James Bible aren't actually emphasized words, but are words that were placed in by the KJV Translators for ease of sentence flow.** But, why in the world would they add a word here, when it would have been much simpler to say 'Heaven' only? After all, the Greek definition for the word Heaven in this instance (just above) is what we would expect to see if we believe in a Heaven that traditional, biblical Church teachings tells us about. Well, even though I would agree with many folks that sometimes the Translators added in extra words that they shouldn't have, in many instances (such as this) they did us a favor by doing so! And, why is that? Because, it truly should have read "heavenly places," instead of "Heaven;" for, I believe that this phrase actually expresses Paul's original thought better than what a single English word could have. Again, why? Well, in a few verses just above – in the same chapter of Ephesians – Paul used this same Greek word for Heaven there, too; and, the Translators, once again, translated it into "heavenly places" ... Not only so, but in Chapter 2 (of Ephesians, of course!) we see the very same thing happen a third time. That is, the Translators added in the word places in these other two instances, to where if they hadn't, the verses (as one will see by simple observation) would not have made any sense at all to have left this extra, added word out ... Oh, and by the way, I will again emphasize that Paul used the exact Greek word, epouranios, in these two other verses that he used in verse 1:20 ... Let's observe:
Ephesians 1:3
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us [present tense] with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ.
Ephesians 2:6
And hath [present tense] raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus.
Both times and in both places Paul had used 'present tense' phraseology, and did not imply anything that would happen to those folks after death – but, whilst they were still alive. But, what if we took out the word places in both of these other instances, and simply used the word "Heaven" instead? Well, that wouldn't work; for, they wouldn't make any sense, and they would not read correctly. And yet, the first verse that I had quoted from Ephesians, verse 1:20, is set smack dab in the middle between these other two; and, the Translators knew that they wouldn't be justified by using "Heaven" only in that verse (which would have been traditionally and doctrinally friendly if they did) when they couldn't use it for the other two. Again, they got it right when speaking of Jesus ascending to heavenly places rather than some celestial city with a sign post out front that reads: "Welcome to Heaven!" Therefore, many times in scripture, when it says Heaven, it could be insinuating a heavenly place, or a heavenly condition or situation; but, it doesn't have to mean the name of a certain place in the cosmos ... Colossians says some similar things:
Colossians 3:1-3
If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God.
Our clue as to what Paul meant is in verse 3, when he says "for ye ARE dead," present tense, is that it's metaphorically insinuating them being dead to sin (i.e. Romans 6:2;7;11; etc.), and dead to this ungodly world (Matthew 8:22; Romans 6:8; Romans 11:15; etc.), that's why they were "risen" with Christ (in their hearts, and not literally from a grave), and that they should seek things that are above (above carnality and fleshly thoughts). Again, not above in the clouds, or out in the cosmos somewhere; but, above earthly, fleshly, or carnal matters ... Is it truly possible, as I've been contending in this Teaching Series, that in order to understand many of Paul's words we will first have to learn how to understand the usage of metaphors? Or, indeed, even the words of Jesus in the Gospels? Or, surely, many passages of scripture in the entire Bible? Why does the abode or realm of God have to be way out in outer space somewhere? If God's actual abode is an invisible dimension (which I do believe that it is), then why does it have to be beyond the reaches of space? Why can't it already be here, all around us? After all, it is an invisible, heavenly realm, not being subject to the laws of nature, and neither should it be pushed up against a natural border. In fact, it really has nothing to do with a natural realm, at all. Neither is it attached to a natural realm. So, why be a part of it in any sense? Or, much rather, bordered along it's boundaries? ... So, by me saying all this, does it mean that I don't believe there's an abode for the dead saint to abide in for eternity after that saint has died and then lives again? Certainly I'm not saying that! I really do believe that there's life after death, and that it will be lived-out with God throughout eternity. That, I am certain of. But, I cannot buy into the theory that the abode has a specified name, nor that it can only be reached by a long journey through natural space. It's my belief that when we die, we simply slip into the True Reality realm (away from this Temporal Reality), which is just a doorway away. The promises are eternal life (i.e. St. John 4:36-37; Romans 6:23; Titus 1:2; Titus 3:7; and 1st John 2:25), and not that we will get to live in Heaven – despite some scriptures that may lead somebody to believe that:
Matthew 5:48
Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
Matthew 5:12a
Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven...
Etc ... I really have no problem with all such scripture; they do not throw a stumbling block in front of me or my views. They merely enhance what I already believe. Again, if we are to take these last two quoted scriptures at face value (and, not as a metaphor), then which Heaven do we apply them to? 1st? 2nd? Or, 3rd? Why can't we see (as we do in Ephesians 1:3 and Ephesians 2:6), and interpret these things as to being for us right here, and right now? The Father, as well as the Son are, indeed, in a "heavenly place" – that's for certain. In fact, while Jesus was on earth, He declared boldly that He was also in Heaven ... Watch what He says to Nicodemus:
St. John 3:13
And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which IS [present tense] in heaven.
So saying whilst upon earth; and even though the Day of Pentecost hadn't yet come, He Himself ascended unto the 2nd Heaven at His baptism by John. And, it had nothing to do with the natural water of the baptism, but had everything to do with the dove descending on Him. That is, the Spirit of God coming upon Him, pulling Him into the 2nd Heaven prior to anybody else. After all, He had to create the way for others to enter ... But, even so, what I had just quoted (St. John 3:13) certainly will raise some questions, such as: "Wouldn't that simply prove that Jesus was merely the Father in fleshly form – making Him the Father? And, in that way, it can explain how He was both in Heaven and earth at the same time!" I had briefly touched on this question in my first book, called "Brotherly Love," without getting into too much detail; and, had promised to address this issue head-on in my upcoming book, called: "The Godhead: How Many Gods Are There?" Of which I still plan on doing. But, in the meantime, allow me to quickly re-quote what I had said in my first book, then I'll round it all off with a new thought:
St. John 14:8-9
Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
Well, doesn't that last verse just prove that Jesus was the Father? No. Let's consider what it says next:
St. John 14:10 (Jesus speaking)
Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
If Jesus was the Father, it would make no sense for Him to add that He [Jesus] speaks not of Himself, and that the Father, that dwells in Him [through the Spirit], does the works for Him − unless we are to consider that Jesus was nothing more than an empty container that the Father merely occupied whilst on earth, and didn't have anymore need of it once Jesus ascended! But it makes much more sense to say that Jesus [a separate Being] was in His Fathers likeness and image − His ambassador on earth ... Even Paul himself throws in on this thought:
Galatians 4:14
And my temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus.
And we surely know that Paul was the ambassador of Christ:
Ephesians 6:19-20
And for me, that utterance may be given unto me, that I may open my mouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the gospel, For which I am an ambassador in bonds: that therein I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak.
And then, Paul hands that type of responsibility on over to the Saints of God:
2 Corinthians 5:20a
Now then we are ambassadors for Christ..."
Then, as a follow-up, in my book "In the Beginning," I added to that original thought:
"But, considering that Jesus had remained an important figure after His Resurrection, and that the Father didn't become one Being with Him (by adding the risen Jesus to His Person), then we should see two separate Beings called the Father and the Son – proving that Jesus wasn't just an empty, fleshly container that was disposed of once He ascended. Because, honestly, if both were one Being, what need would the Father have with His flesh and bone body anymore? Perhaps as a mere reminder of what His flesh had to suffer whilst upon earth, by showing others His wounds throughout eternity? Even if we try to justify a single Being that way, it would be very strange to see that He would remain one Being in two separate bodies for the rest of time! Again, actually having two separate Beings, called the Father and the Son, would make a lot more sense than to try and justify such an hypothesis. Besides all that, after His ascension we should take note that Jesus was still considered the Son of God, a title that shows Himself to being a lesser God than the Father. Not only so, but Paul stresses, in 1st Corinthians 15:24-28, that Jesus, at the very end (and this is way after His ascension), will become subject to the greater God by coming under Him in authority."
To which, I'd like to now add the thought that we must seriously consider that if Jesus was the Father in fleshly form (the same Being in two separate bodies), then why did Jesus have a separate will? A contrary will which He displayed in the Garden, near His last day on earth; for, showing us a separate will shows us a different mind, a different Being...
Matthew 26:39 (Luke 22:42)
And he [Jesus] went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed [praying to Himself?], saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.
St. John 5:30-31
I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me. If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true [because, He's not the Father].
And, too, why did He have to learn obedience by the things that He suffered if He were already the Father?
Hebrews 5:8
Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered.
Etc ... Again, I will go over these thoughts thoroughly in my upcoming book on the Godhead ... Now, as to me saying what I believe the Third Heaven to be, I will only say that I see it as a spiritual realm – which has nothing to do with the natural universe, at all; but, I won't really say herein what my views on it are, for I will be dedicating an entire book toward it in the near future, called: "St. Paul in Arabia: And of His Travels to the Third Heaven" ... Though, later on in this book, I will actually throw some more hints toward the reader as to how I see this Third Heaven when I will speak more on these Heavens.
*Celestial...
I wanted to point out that, in our dictionary meaning, we don't have to imagine that Heaven only means a city up in the sky somewhere. Heaven, no doubt, has certainly come to be known as a wonderful city in the clouds or cosmos, for that is what many folks believe. But, our word celestial, which is one of the definitions, can denote things that are just heavenly, or simply wonderful, without having anything to do with a city, at all. But, of course, this Greek word does have to do with God's Kingdom in general, and should denote anything that His hands touch and blesses; i.e. things that are heavenly.
**Words in italics ... were placed in by the KJV Translators for ease of sentence flow...
This is actually a well known fact amongst scholars, and can be seen as a reality by even a simple online search. However, opinions vary tremendously about why the Translators decided to do this, so if you are just wanting a simple fact expressed without massive opinions about it, you need not look any further than Cambridge's website's faq section on the Bible, at:
cambridge.org/gu/bibles/about/faq ...
Be careful, though, of what opinions you read online concerning this subject (well, be careful about anything you read online for that matter!), for some of those folks highly praise what the Translators had done – going as far as to say that the italicized words should now be counted as actual scripture! – and, some of those folks completely condemn the Translators for it, saying that the italic words shouldn't even be there at all ... As I've expressed several times before, even in other of my books in this Series, my own personal opinion is that, at various times, these italics both help and hinder the reader to or from fuller understandings (helping much more than hindering, though!); but, also, that they should never be counted as actual scripture. Why? Simply because the Translators were not the original authors of the text. They were, again, only the Translators, trying to help the rest of us to understand the original words in a single language ... However, again, as I've also expressed in other books in this Series, God did, indeed, have the Translators do the italics for various reasons – to both help us in our vernacular understandings, and to also obscure the pure truth from those who only wish to use the Bible for self-gain ... complicated? It's not when we understand that God wrote the Bible (through the hands of the original authors) to only His true children, and not to all the occupants of the entire world – especially not to Pharisaic, natured and minded men (i.e. like those false ministers of Jesus' day). Therefore, only God's actual children will truly understand what their Lord is saying within, and they will ignore what man says.
St. John 10:4-5*** (Jesus speaking)
And when he [Jesus] putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him [they will follow Jesus]: for they know his voice. And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers.
Matthew 24:24*** (Jesus speaking)
For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, IF it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect [i.e. it's NOT possible to fool God's true children].
But, even so the case (that is, that God ordained the italicized words to be in the Bible – for both good and decoying purposes), one still cannot say that the italicized words are actual scripture. Only what the original authors wrote down to begin with should be considered so. In fact, I could go as far as to say that even though I believe God ordained those italicized words (for the reasons I have just expressed), that we still don't actually need them; and can, if need be, simply ignore them when clear understandings come to us of what the original authors meant. Because (once more) the italicized words weren't in the original autographs (i.e. the original texts), and should therefore only be considered crutches to help us understand the original thoughts. But, seeing as a few of them (and, only a few!) actually hinder our full understanding (see Sub-Sub-Note just below for an explanation), that alone should prove they aren't canon. But, again, God really did oversee and had orchestrated the construction of the King James Bible, as I will thoroughly express in my upcoming book, called: "The Bible is not a Buffet;" and, as I had briefly went over in short detail about in my already published book: "In the Beginning: It was Spiritual from the Very Start." However, and even though expressed by my words (i.e. that God indeed ordained the KJV), that doesn't mean that I'm a King James Version only person – as I will also speak on therein.
***St. John 10:4-5 and Matthew 24:24...
I don't want to be misunderstood of why I chose these two scriptures to quote. My meaning is not for the reader to think that I believe the added-in words (i.e. the italicized words) of the KJV (or, any other translation for that matter) are just as bad as the words of a false teacher; my meaning was simply to say that even if the added-in words might throw a person off, God's true children won't be deceived by them – even if they don't completely understand what they're reading at first ... But, even so, is it really possible to be thrown off a true thought with them? Case in point (of which I had thoroughly went over in my book "In the Beginning") are the scriptures in St. John 18:3-6, where the religious leaders of that day were coming to arrest Jesus, and He simply asked them whom they sought. They answered: "Jesus of Nazareth." To which He had replied: "I am he." So, as one can see, the word he was italicized – insinuating that the word wasn't in the original letter by John.
St. John 18:3-6
Judas then, having received a band of men and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons. Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him, went forth, and said unto them, Whom seek ye? They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he. And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them. As soon then as he had said unto them, I am he, they went backward, and fell to the ground.
Of course, I'm not going to, once again, go over the pros and cons of this, but I will simply refer my readers to my other book for fuller details. But, I will say quickly that if we were to remove the word he in this instance, then we'll have a greater understanding of why all the men fell backward to the ground when He said it; for, He had claimed, with that one statement, that He was the great "I AM" of the Old Testament – especially from Exodus:
Exodus 3:14
And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.
And, even further in John:
St. John 8:57-58
Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I AM.
Is that even important to point out? It certainly is! For, it tells us of the pre-existence of Jesus prior to His natural birth on earth. But, with a reply like: "I am he," (i.e. leaving in and considering the added word) we get the impression that He made a simple statement like: "Yeah, I'm the guy you're looking for!" ... But, anyway, I am again not trying to point out any wickedness or evilness on the part of the Translators because of their intrusive words; for, again, I believe that God had a firm hand in the KJV's construction (even with it's added-in, italicized words!); and, that the Translators felt confident in what they had done ... The real problem, my friends, is that there are no pure 100% translations of the scriptures for us in English, and neither was there ever meant to be one ... what was that? ... God only meant for there to be a pure Bible in the original languages. And, as I had pointed out in my book "In the Beginning," I believe those to have been reserved in the Masoretic Old Testament, and the Received Text of the New Testament – the foundational texts of the King James Version, the William Tyndale Version, J.P. Green's Literal Translation, and even Martin Luther's German Version – though some scholars would firmly disagree with my assessment that those source texts are the best, as I will also go over in my upcoming book: "The Bible is Not a Buffet" ... It has been pointed out by author Benson Bobrick, in his wonderful, historical book (called 'Wide as the Waters, the Story of the English Bible and the Revolution it Inspired,' Penguin Books, 2002), that: "In the beginning was the Word, and that Word was Hebrew and Greek." Such a powerful statement, even if a bit cheeky in its delivery. From which we should understand that God had spoken to the world through those ancient languages; and, from which also we should understand that we can gain a clearer understanding of God's Word when studying them ... That brings about a big problem, though, because most readers of the Bible today can't read or speak Hebrew and Greek! So, that's why God had provided for us some wonderful study helps. And, if one truly wants to get nitty-gritty, and free themselves from a fleshly-minded teacher, then one must simply apply themselves to a deeper study; for, by doing so, we gain closer insights into God's thoughts ... Don't have time to study? Life too busy? ... Well, I have to ask a few questions to such statements. Why are we here in this world if it's not to follow God? If not to learn about Him? If not to study His Word? Did we just arrive here to make a family, get a job, and eat food till we die? If so, what then separates us from the animals? For, just like them, we eat grass then die!
Ecclesiastes 3:18-20
I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts. For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity. All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.
If something's important enough, we must find time to do it. Not only so, but praying about this situation (i.e. praying about finding the time to read and study) can surely open shut doors; for, it's sincerely God's desire for us to learn more and more about Him. Education, my friends, is the only thing that will make us truly free (St. John 8:32) – even if we are in bondage to a working system, or even to a Church system. Certainly, we can find time to simply read our Bibles for half an hour a day if we've got time to do any other worldly activity, such as watching Television, playing games, etc ... Now, having said such harsh things, allow me to point out some wonderful study tools for the English readers, which allows us to side-step a lengthy language study, and save us some time:
*The New Strong's Complete Dictionary of Bible Words, by James Strong, Thomas Nelson Publishers 1996, containing English, Hebrew, and Greek Dictionaries ... At the time of me writing this sentence (today is March 30th, 2019) I found about half a dozen copies online, at abebooks.com, for under $5! – which price includes shipping.
*The Interlinear Hebrew-Greek-English Bible, One Volume Edition, by Jay P. Green, which lists the original Hebrew and Greek words with the Strong's Dictionary numbers above each one for cross-referencing. Also, on the left hand side of each page, you'll find Jay P. Green's literal, modern translation. Again, he uses the same Hebrew and Greek source texts (the Masoretic OT and the Received Text NT) which the panel of the King James Bible used, and of which William Tyndale and Martin Luther used ... At the time of this writing I found copies ranging from $30 to $40 at both christianbook.com and amazon.com.
*e-Sword: the Sword of the Lord with an electronic edge, (The Ultimate Computer Bible Study Tool!) by Rick Meyers, Free PC study tools (free to download and free to use!). Download many Bible versions (including J.P. Green's Literal Version!), Dictionaries, and Commentaries, along with old, historical documentations. The Dictionaries include Strong's Greek and Hebrew – along with Strong's famous numbering system; and, also, Webster's Dictionary. This can be downloaded onto your PC, Mac, iPad and iPhone. But, if you have an android phone, like myself, there's a similar one to this that I use called 'MySword' – which is also free at the Google Play Store ... But, on my PC, I certainly use e-Sword. I cannot tell you how valuable this tool is for my own personal studies; and, I use e-Sword all the time on my PC ... And, if you've got a couple of extra bucks, maybe you can help support Mr. Rick Myers for his awesome contribution to our study life by forwarding a donation. Not only so, but also to the Green family, by buying from their personal website the Interlinear Bible, or other of their helpful tools ... And, no, I'm not in cahoots with either one of them, but am just a fellow-Minister who knows that a lot of spare time is contributed into helping others.
With such tools as these at your side (and, there's more to get, but I simply named off the one's that are the quickest to use, and the cheapest to obtain), then nothing can stop you from getting as deep as you can into God's Word – actually deciphering the original languages to as close to an understanding as we can possibly get ... Furthermore, I want to say (even if it seems apologetic for what I've just stated (but, it's actually not, because I stick with my guns on this issue!) that if one finds themselves studying an English Bible only, with no help from studying the original languages (or, any Bible study help tools, at all), that it certainly doesn't mean that those people are doomed! As it's stated in both St. John 10:4-5 and Matthew 24:24, God's true children will hear the voice of the Good Shepherd, and will not follow the voice of a stranger. Just as long as we are attempting to read God's Word is what truly counts ... As one who was raised on the King James Version Bible, I had left it entirely at one time (for reasons that I had briefly explained in my book "In the Beginning" – for, I was battling God over proper Bible Versions at one time, thinking that there couldn't be a good Bible since man's hands had composed it to begin with, and had corrupted any possible good translations – to which, by the way, God had proved me wrong about!), but I had eventually found my way back to it. For, even though I've stated earlier that I'm not a KJV only person (which, I'm not), I now actually prefer it as my #1 choice of translations for many, various reasons – of which, again, I hope to explore in my upcoming book on Bible Translations, in "The Bible is not a Buffet." But, in all actuality, I can truly hear the voice of the Good Shepherd within its pages. The simplicity of its construction, and the beauty of its passages can truly find no equal in English as that most famous version expresses. Therefore, if one wants to simply find a single Bible to read from, to study from, and from which God can give abundant truth from, then look no further than the King James Version. I believe it to be the most perfect possible translation on the market for the English reader. Forget all concerns, though, about its archaic, old-fashioned wording and expressions, and just simply learn how to swim through it. The rewards are beyond measure. It's a true, Godly blessing to the English speaking peoples. But, on the other side of that coin, if one cannot wade through the turbulent waters of Old English, then our best choice for a modern translation goes out to J.P. Green Sr. And, on that note, if you are not wanting to sift through all the Hebrew and Greek lettering in his huge single-volume Interlinear Bible – nor the easier to read (larger lettered) four volume set – then he has (well, his son and daughter now) a single volume traditionally leather bound Bible with only the literal translation inside, over at their website: sgpbooks.com (Sovereign Grace Publishers).

www.SeekingTheGospel.webs.com

Chapter 4 "The Garden Bride," from New Jerusalem

Explanatory Notes will follow soon in another post, for they are too long to add to this post. If any confusion comes to the reader from this chapter, the Explanatory Notes will help... Chapters 1-3, along with their Explanatory Notes are also available in my Goodreads Blog; or, all 4 can be read in order at my official webpage: https://seekingthegospel.webs.com/new...

Chapter 4 "The Garden Bride"
From my upcoming book: "New Jerusalem, the Mother of Us All;" 'End Time Prophesy, Part 1,' and 'The Old and New Creature, Part 1.'

Let's turn our attention back again to the Bride of Christ . . . The Song of Solomon is a good book to learn about her. But, before I can really get into speaking about her place therein, I must speak of the high symbolism of this book first. Again, as I mentioned already, I had spent a good deal of time, in a former book of mine (called, "In the Beginning: It was spiritual from the very start"), speaking of the obvious metaphors that the Bible has all throughout; so, I won't do so again here. But, I will quote a few commentaries of some highly respected ministers of the past who share similar views as myself as to how they saw this particular book in question:

John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible (1748-1763 & 1809, public domain): Christ, of whom Solomon was a type; see Song of Solomon 3:7; of his person, excellencies, love to his church, care of her, and concern for her; and of the nearness and communion he admitted her to, and indulged her with the Jews have a saying (m), that wherever the word Solomon is used in this song, the Holy One is meant, the holy God, or Messiah.

Matthew Henry's Commentary on the whole Bible (published in 1708-1714; public domain): This is “the Song of songs,” excellent above any others, for it is wholly taken up with describing the excellences of Christ, and the love between him and his redeemed people.

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown Commentary (published in 1871; public domain): “King of Israel,” or “Jerusalem,” is not added, as in the opening of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, not because Solomon had not yet ascended the throne [Moody Stuart], but because his personality is hid under that of Christ, the true Solomon (equivalent to Prince of Peace). The earthly Solomon is not introduced, which would break the consistency of the allegory. Though the bride bears the chief part, the Song throughout is not hers, but that of her “Solomon.” He animates her. He and she, the Head and the members, form but one Christ [Adelaide Newton].

Poor Man's Commentary by Robert Hawker (published in 1805; public domain): The Chapter opens with giving the title of the book. The Church then takes up the subject with expressing her love to Christ, and desiring fresh manifestations of his affection to her. She compares his love to the fragrancy of the richest ointment. She prays to be drawn by him, and professeth her readiness to run after him.

John Wesley's Explanatory Notes (1755-1766, public domain): The song - The most excellent of all songs. And so this might well be called, whether you consider the author of it, who was a great prince, and the wisest of all mortal men; or the subject of it, which is not Solomon, but a greater than Solomon, even Christ, and his marriage with the church.

One thing that is certain, amongst these quoted scholars, is the accepted notion that the Song of Solomon is a highly allegorical book, in that we shouldn't take it literally. Having this in mind, my own father, who, not only was a minister, but was a barber in his profession, liked to speak to his customers about the Bible whenever he got the chance. One day he happened to get a pastor in his chair. Not of his personal acquaintance, but of a local assembly in our area. When my dad asked him what he thought of the Song of Solomon (for, my dad not only believed it the way that I do, but he was the first one to point these things out to me), that pastor was quick to reply:

"Oh, that Solomon, he was nothing but a dirty old man!"

Such is the carnal thinking of many learned men. Why, pray tell, would God simply include a "dirty" book into His sacred texts for us to read and study from? Again, in order for us to successfully read this book, we need to leave all literalism aside; for, this is perhaps the deepest, most spiritual book in the entire Bible . . . So saying, let me introduce my readers to some curious passages; and, just as those commentators had suggested, let's imagine Jesus speaking here instead of Solomon:

Song of Solomon 4:12
A garden inclosed is my sister, my spouse; a spring shut up, a fountain sealed.

Song of Solomon 5:1a
I am come into my garden, [who is] my sister, my spouse...

A Garden is the Bride? How curious. And, does this Garden have anything to do with the Garden of Eden? Yes, it is similar; for, the Garden of Eden was the First Wife of Jesus . . . Again, see my Explanatory Note in chapter 1, called: "We will be comforted in New Jerusalem..." for an explanation of the two Wives of Jesus (i.e. Old Jerusalem and New Jerusalem); and, see again the prophesy of the divorce to the Old in Jeremiah 3:8a . . . It would make sense that His First Wife had to be Old Jerusalem, because His New Wife is the New Jerusalem. In the beginning, there was a Garden, and it was the Paradise of God; and, just like Old Jerusalem, New Jerusalem also is a Garden. The greatest difference being that in this New Garden man will not fail a second time; for, it is also the Second Heaven; whereas Old Jerusalem was the First Heaven; or, these are the First and Second Works of God; or, the First and Second Covenants.*14

Again, when Jesus had married New Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost, there were new births happening in the upper room;*15 but, certainly, I'm not belittling the presence of the Holy Ghost that day. Like I've already said, God's Holy Spirit wasn't new to the inhabitants of the earth. As I've also pointed out, through scripture, the prophets of the Old Testament had the Spirit of Christ within them when they were moved to either prophesy, or to even write down the words of the Bible. And, too, I've pointed out that the disciples were "breathed upon" by Jesus, after His Resurrection from the dead, and had bestowed the Holy Spirit upon them. And, then, I had asked that, since the Holy Ghost was no stranger to earth's inhabitants prior to that important day, then what was so special about its visit on the Day of Pentecost? But, then, I had also pointed out this verse (and, indeed, had promised to speak on it again):

St. John 7:39
But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.

When John had said that "the Holy Ghost was not yet given," I am not looking at this verse in the same way that a lot of other people have – in that the Holy Ghost was an absolute stranger to the folks of the earth prior to that blessed day. I'm looking at this verse as saying that the Holy Ghost was not given in an extreme measure before that day, to where a New Testament salvation could finally be possible. That's where the Inward-Man comes into play – the newly born child in question. He is the Container in which I have been saying that now, as opposed to what the Old Testament folks had, people of the New Covenant can finally "keep" the Holy Ghost within them (i.e. to DWELL), to where they would be able to have time to grow into the full stature of Christ; for, surely, the New Wine can now inhabit a New Wine Bottle! . . . Let me again quote a verse I had previously quoted, but this time let's really see the significance of its words:

Romans 8:11
But if the Spirit of him [the Father] that raised up Jesus from the dead DWELL [stay!] in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall ALSO [like He did Jesus] quicken [make alive!] your mortal bodies*16 by [because of] his Spirit that [now] dwelleth in you.

The words of Paul are obvious here, for they're saying that if the Spirit can actually dwell, or stay within us, it'll make us alive! Prior to the Day of Pentecost, though, the Spirit of God could not dwell in God's people, for they had no fit vessel in which to keep Him in. But, now, with the availability of the Inward-Man, who is birthed inside of a believer, it is certainly possible. Folks, this is that great mystery which had been hid for many generations, but is now (by the Day of Pentecost) revealed unto the saints of God:

Colossians 1:26-27
Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints [i.e. it wasn't available to the OT folks]: To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.

Do you think that this "Christ in you" is only speaking of the Holy Ghost? Friends, the Holy Ghost can't even stay within us without something to hold it within! Therefore, Paul's not here speaking of the Holy Ghost when he says "Christ in you," (i.e., and like Jesus before him, an anointed one of God – anointed by God's Spirit) he's speaking of the Inward-Man – the mystery that had only been revealed in New Testament times on the Day of Pentecost – of which it had been hid up until then (for, again, it wasn't even available until that time); and, with this New Creature, we now have the hope of being glorified, and of living for eternity. And, if there weren't births of this New Creature within those folks in the upper room, then how else can you explain why those people in the book of Acts had a Creature, named Jesus, inside of them?

Acts 4:26-27a
The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ. For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus...

And with this purposely expressed strange application (i.e. thy holy child Jesus), we should know that this can't be specifically, or directly pinpointing the man Jesus, who had literally walked this earth about 2,000 years ago; but, rather, was so named to differentiate the gift that's inside of us from the natural example (i.e. Jesus Himself) who was the firstfruits of this gift. That is, this is an application which points an obvious finger toward the Inward-Man.*17

Acts 4:30
By stretching forth thine hand to heal; and that signs and wonders may be done by the name of thy holy child Jesus.
Surely, this is speaking about what had been born inside those upper room occupants on the Day of Pentecost. For, with this new creation inside them, they could perform such miracles as they never had before – even when Jesus was with them . . . Remember what Jesus had told them prior to the Day of Pentecost:

Acts 1:8a
But ye shall receive POWER, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you...

Again, when the Holy Ghost came upon them, it caused a new birth; but, no, they didn't just have it come upon them as the Old Testament saints had; for, when the OT saints had the Holy Ghost come upon them, it was for temporal usages; but, when the apostles had the Holy Ghost come upon them, it produced a new birth: the birth of a Creature (i.e. created Being) named Jesus*18 . . . In fact, in scripture, this Creature has several names and applications:

Cistern
Holy Child Jesus
Jesus
Inward-Man
Inner-Man
Man Child
Jesus Christ
Temple
Tabernacle
House
Mansion
Etc.

These are just some of the names of the Body of Christ;*19 and, the head of that Body is Christ – that is, the Mind of Christ – the head of the TRUE Church; head of the Inward-Man Body. And, that Mind of Christ is a SHE,*20 and she sits on-top the Body of a HE; she's his head.

END OF CHAPTER 4 ... Explanatory Notes will follow in another Goodreads Blog post soon; or, you can read it all, along with Chapters 1-3, at my official webpage: https://seekingthegospel.webs.com/new...

Chapter 3: "The Mind of Christ," from upcoming book 'New Jerusalem'

END NOTE WILL FOLLOW...

Everything, it seems, is done through the mind. A change of mind is a change of heart. For, we know that our heart is actually our mind, because our natural heart does nothing but pump blood – so, how can that really be affected with the ways of God? But, the heart of our mind can certainly be affected . . . Let's quickly observe some very interesting definitions from Webster's Dictionary. And, these references will help us to better understand what we'll need to know further in this book:

Heart, from Webster's Dictionary: 4.) The seat of the affections and passions, as of love, joy, grief, enmity, courage, pleasure &c. 5.) By a metonymy, heart is used for an affection or passion, and particularly for love. 6.) The seat of the understanding; as an understanding heart. 7.) The seat of the will; hence, secret purposes, intentions or designs. There are many devices in a man's heart ... Sometimes heart is used for the will, or determined purpose. 9.) Courage; spirit; as, to take heart; to give heart; to recover heart. 10.) Secret thoughts; recesses of the mind. 11.) Disposition of mind. 13.) Conscience, or sense of good or ill. Etc.

Paul says, in Colossians 3:9-10, that our minds are renewed – made fresh; a new way of thinking. Yet, at the same time, it's currently sharing space with another mind – another way of thinking; for, unfortunately, the ways of the Outward or Old Man do not cease right away, and he's there the whole time trying to destroy what God has given us. It's a battle, folks . . . Nay, a war!*13

Since we are currently observing in this chapter that everything for us takes place in our minds (that is, everything's comprehended in life because it has to first process through our minds – else, we're simply brain dead and unaware!), then we should know that that's where God decides to work with us primarily. But, you, my friend, are set right smack dab in the middle between both the Mind of Man and the Mind of Christ, sitting there in hope that God will win this war for you. But, at first (when you first come into God's Kingdom), you may be completely unaware that all of this is happening, or will happen, inside of you. That is, this battle between God's ways and our own carnal ways. Eventually, the Mind of Christ can even move the members of our natural bodies, and will cease it from – not only worldly sins – but, from worshipping God in carnality and natural manners; of which techniques and observations belong strictly to the natural man.

Romans 8:20-21
For the creature [this New Man – created Being, born of God] was made subject to vanity [has to share space with the Old Man], not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope [hope of life eternal], Because the creature [this created Son of God in us] itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty [freedom] of the children of God.

When we become free from the ways of sin and death – the thoughts of man – What a glorious day that shall be! But, for now, the New Creature has to share space with a heathen – the Old Man . . . But, even so, what does all this have to do with the Day of Pentecost? What does this have to do with the Baptism of the Holy Ghost? What does all this have to do with New Jerusalem? Well, very much everything! The Mind of Christ, as we will eventually see in the upcoming chapters, plays a very vital role in the understanding of New Jerusalem. I won't make that direct connection now, for we've much more ground to cover first so that all this will make a great amount of sense. So, for now, we'll be satisfied in saying that with this Mind, we'll have a fresh, new way of thinking; whereas, whilst only in the flesh, we think of nothing but carnal, fleshly matters.

Certainly, the mind is directly where God decides to strike! It simply has to be; for, where else are we, as sons of men, struck so much with the ways of the world if not through our minds? We have been living with a bad adviser of how to make the right decisions for far too long. And, now, it's high time that we allow another advisor to give us some good advice. If we've had the wrong knowledge, wisdom and understanding, then we've truly have had a bad advisor, and we suffer death for the same. But, if we have the right knowledge, wisdom and understanding, then we shall live . . . Again, see Romans 8:6.

Let us see some more differences of bad minds and good minds; or, rather, of bad thoughts and good thoughts...

Romans 1:28
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient.

Romans 7:23-25
But I see another law in my members [Law of sin and death], warring [see, it is a war!] against the law of my mind [Mind of Christ], and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members [of this Outward-Man body]. O wretched [Outward] man that I am! who [if not God giving us a new Mind] shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then WITH THE MIND I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh [Mind of Man - fleshly knowledge] the law of sin.

Romans 8:27a
And he that searcheth the hearts [our minds] knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit...

God can see when we choose the best advisor and when we choose the wrong advisor; and, He discovers this when He searches our hearts; for, the Mind of Man and the Mind of Christ are stuck directly in the middle of the heart of our thinking. And, if our heart is in our head (i.e. our thoughts), then this also can be called a spiritual belly...

Philippians 3:18-19
For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ: Whose end is destruction, WHOSE GOD IS THEIR BELLY, and whose glory is in their shame, who MIND earthly things.

The Greek word used here for the word belly, in this scripture, is Koilia, which Strong's Greek Dictionary tells us that, figuratively, it means the heart.

Belly, Koilia, G2836, from Strong's Greek Dictionary: From koilos (hollow); a cavity, that is, (specifically) the abdomen; by implication the matrix; figuratively the heart: - belly, womb.

This makes a lot of sense, because men, who are guided by their own knowledge, wisdom and understanding, allow such to become their god . . . The Holy Ghost is also known as the Spirit of Truth, in that it is our teacher; so, having this knowledge would explain a lot of things, for if we are to put on the Mind of Christ, it has to have a teacher; it has to have an instructor to give us God's knowledge, wisdom and understanding, as opposed to what we've only known up until then.

St. John 14:26
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance [in your mind], whatsoever I have said unto you.

Again, with the Mind of Christ (through the teachings of the Spirit of Truth) we learn God's ways; and, our spiritual bellies get filled with Godly knowledge, wisdom and understanding; so that, in turn, the human teachers of God can feed the people through the Holy Ghost and not the Mind of Man:

St. John 7:38
He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

Directly from the Mind of Christ, the Holy Ghost (Rivers of Living Waters) will feed the people. There is no room for the Mind of Man in this instance.

END NOTE FOR CHAPTER 3:
*13. A war...
Galatians 5:17
For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
This war, of which I'm briefly mentioning now, will become a reoccurring theme throughout this very book. A war in which we should become extremely familiar with; for, as we'll see, this war isn't fought in any particular city, state, or country; but, indeed, is a war that's fought within our own selves.

Official webpage for this upcoming book: https://seekingthegospel.webs.com/new...

Chapter 2: Receive ye the Holy Ghost; for, New Jerusalem, the Mother of Us All

Chapter 2: Receive ye the Holy Ghost! An upcoming, Christian, Theological book by Ted A. Roberts ... EXPLANATORY NOTES will follow at the bottom of this page...

After His crucifixion, and after He rose from the dead, Jesus appeared unto His disciples in a room, where they were all gathered. This is what happened:

St. John 20:19-22
Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side [Proving to them that he was Jesus that was crucified on the cross]. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord. Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, RECEIVE YE THE HOLY GHOST...

Now, that's very curious. Didn't the Holy Ghost only come on the Day of Pentecost?*? Well, it seems here that it may have come to the disciples sooner than that! . . . However, look at what happened after this, and just prior to the Day of Pentecost:

Acts 1:8 (Jesus talking with His disciples)
But ye shall receive power, AFTER that the Holy Ghost is come upon you [future tense; i.e. at the beginning of Acts chapter 2]: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

This is throwing the Holy Ghost experience forward to the Day of Pentecost once again; for, and as we see in Chapter 2 of Acts, the Holy Ghost did indeed fall upon them just as Jesus had predicted in the first chapter, in verse 8 . . . So, then, was the passage in St. John 20:22 a mistake? In that Jesus didn't actually breath the Holy Ghost upon them at that time? Which, again, was before the Acts 2 experience. After all, I've had some ministers tell me that what John was actually trying to say, in St. John 20:22, was nothing more than a future prophesy of what was going to happen to them not too long in the distant future. And, yet, with how John worded it, that explanation doesn't seem to match up for me . . . Let's consider these next, following passages from Peter, and see how other folks from the Old Testament actually had the Holy Spirit:

1 Peter 1:9-11a
Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls. Of which salvation the prophets [of the Old Testament] have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time THE SPIRIT OF CHRIST WHICH WAS IN THEM did signify...

According to the logic of these verses, all throughout the Old Testament, people did have an experience with the Spirit of God – for, how else could the prophets of the Old Testament write with holy inspiration except that they were being led by God's Spirit? i.e. the Holy Ghost. Which, according to Peter, was actually in them. If that was really so, then what was so special about the Day of Pentecost? What was so different about the Holy Ghost experience that day?

Perhaps we should say that, unlike the saints of the Old Testament period (with their Holy Spirit experiences), on this day (in circa AD 30 – on the day which opened up a New Testament period*?) there was then a complete submersion into the Spirit; and, therefore, we should call this new experience a Spiritual Baptism . . . But, even though they may have been fully submersed into the Spirit of God on the Day of Pentecost, did it then mean that the Holy Ghost could actually (as opposed to how the Spirit operated during the Old Testament period) stay upon these newer folks long enough to actually save their souls? Or, on the other hand, in order for this wonderful experience to now operate properly, and actually stay with them, did these New Testament saints need an actual Container in which to now hold the Holy Ghost inside, so that the Spirit of God could, again, stay in them (as opposed to how it happened with the Old Testament saints) without ever departing? Insinuating, of course, that what the OT folks had experienced (and, even though the Spirit did, indeed, come into them), was really only temporal and occasional. And, certainly not an actual, Spiritual Baptism. i.e. not a full submersion . . . Sound confusing? Well, before I get ahead of myself (for, I'm certainly trying to lead this to an actual conclusion), let's explore some more verses to where all this can be more clear and make more sense . . . Also, I'll later connect all these sparse thoughts with a better formation, and eventually swing back around to New Jerusalem being the mother of us all.

Romans 8:11
But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead DWELL IN YOU*? [i.e. stay forever!], he that raised up Christ from the dead [i.e. the Father] shall also QUICKEN [make alive!] your mortal bodies by his Spirit that DWELLETH IN YOU.

This is speaking of the Holy Ghost actually living, and staying, on the inside of us – something that wasn't even possible for the Old Testament saints . . . Why? . . . Because, unlike the participants on the Day of Pentecost, those folks of the Old Covenant had no Container in which to allow the Holy Ghost to DWELL within them; to actually stay, without ever departing (well, that is, they didn't have a durable Container – as I'll speak more on in just a moment). As Peter had pointed out in 1st Peter 1:9-11a, the Spirit of Christ did indeed come inside them, and they were inspired (by this same Spirit) to do and say things as they were led by it; but, that doesn't mean that the Spirit ever actually lived within them, or stayed. But, if this is really so, as I am here contending, then just exactly what was that mysterious Container that was needed in order for the Spirit of God to thereafter DWELL within a saint (i.e. to stay without ever departing)? That is, staying within them long enough to actually quicken them (make them alive), to where salvation could then be possible prior to the grave? . . . Also, to be considered in all this, if there really is a New Testament Container, then perhaps there was an Old Testament Container, too – one which, however, wasn't as powerful as the New, and to which the old saints could not obtain eternal salvation through. In fact, the old Container, if what I'm saying here is really true, would have had holes in it to where when the Spirit came into a child of God, that it would eventually leak out, like as water leaks from a broken cistern...

Jeremiah 2:13
For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me [for, I am] the fountain of living waters [i.e. The Holy Spirit], and hewed them out cisterns [Containers], broken cisterns, that can hold no water.

There is a Container that can't hold water; and, in scripture, it does has a distinctive name/application: OUTWARD-MAN; and, also, SON OF MAN; and, SON OF ADAM. Certainly, if this type of body is actually referenced in the Bible (that is, a body that has holes in it!), then we cannot be speaking of any natural, earthen body. But, this would have to insinuate something metaphorical. And, yet, at the same time, something very real. That is, in the sense that man has built himself something (without God being the builder) that would eventually crumble, and never fully work properly.

Psalms 127:1a
Except the LORD build the house,*? they labour in vain that build it...

And, of course, this would have to be in reference to a man's work in the Kingdom of God; of what he himself tries to build without God's divine and ultimate approval – as I will continue to explain during the course of this book . . . And, yet, to be quite fair with the scriptures, the Outward-Man body can also be a reference to our own natural bodies, too. Just like anything else in the Bible, we must use scripture within context of the subject matter wherever we may be reading them . . . But, in our Jeremiah reference, just above, we must observe that if the Outward-Man body has been hewed or carved, then surely it must have been done by someone else other than God; instead, it has been done by the spirit of man. Man has made themselves a body for religious worship which will worship God in their own way, and on their own terms. And, as far as God is concerned, the ways of the Outward-Man are nothing but evil, and is a road that will lead to death and destruction.

Proverbs 21:8a
The WAY of [the Outward, Son of] man is froward and strange...

Proverbs 21:16
The [Outward] man that wandereth out of the way of understanding [of God] shall remain in the congregation of the dead.

Proverbs 14:12
There is a way which seemeth right unto a [Outward] man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

Proverbs 8:13
The fear of the LORD is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate.

Therefore, God straightforwardly tells this Outward, Son of Man:

Isaiah 55:9
For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

So, what's the solution? Well, we'll just have to make God's ways ours. And, how do we do that? By putting on the Mind of Christ...

Philippians 2:5
Let this MIND be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus.

The Mind of Christ is the thoughts of God - mindful of His ways.

1 Corinthians 2:16b
...we have the mind of Christ.

Hebrews 10:16
This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their MINDS will I write them.

Romans 12:2
And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

Romans 8:6
For to be carnally minded [thoughts of man] is death; but to be spiritually minded [thoughts of God] is life and peace.

But, is it a good idea to place this new mind (or rather, these Godly thoughts) on top of our old, Outward-Man body?

Luke 5:36-39
And he [Jesus] spake also a parable unto them; No man putteth a piece of a new garment upon an old; if otherwise, then both the new maketh a rent, and the piece that was taken out of the new agreeth not with the old. And no man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled [remember our verse in Jeremiah about the broken cisterns], and the bottles shall perish. But new wine must be put into new bottles; and both are preserved. No [Outward] man also having drunk old wine straightway desires new: for he says, The old is better [for, that's what he was initially made for; and he knows no better].

So, what then is the new Bottle? What is this new Container? What is the new Cistern that can actually hold the wine without leaking out?

Ephesians 4:22-24
That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old [Outward] man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; And be renewed in the spirit of your mind; And that ye put on the new [Inward] man, which after God is created [born again!] in righteousness and true holiness.

Colossians 3:9-10
Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds; And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him.

Yes, folks, I'm speaking of the Inward-Man as opposed to the Outward-Man; I am speaking of the New Creature of the New Covenant, as opposed to the Old Creature of the Old Covenant; I'm also declaring, quite boldly, that this was the significance of Revelation 21:1-3 – of which we've already gone over verses 1 and 2; but, then, I made a reference to verse 3, but didn't say too much about:

Revelation 21:3
And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.

This Tabernacle is none other than the body of the Inward-Man; a Container that can certainly hold water; that is, a Container that can hold the Spirit of God within, and never leak out again. This is the New Creature that was first born on the Day of Pentecost (one in each participant) from its new parents – the Lamb and the New Jerusalem. It's a product of that marriage, and is in the image of God.

EXPLANATORY NOTES for Chapter 2...

*?. Didn't the Holy Ghost only come on the Day of Pentecost?... After all, we do have this verse to consider:

St. John 7:39
But this spake he [Jesus] of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive [future tense]: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.

Even though I've already quoted this verse earlier in another End Note, I'm not really done with it yet. It will produce some further interesting thoughts. However, it'll be just a bit later that I will actually discuss it in this book...

*?. The day which opened up a New Testament period... Already, I've been giving some pretty good clues for us to make this connection. That is, that the Day of Pentecost was the specified day of when the New Testament commenced. However, the apostle Paul gives us another:

Hebrews 9:17
For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

So saying, the New Testament only came into existence after Jesus had died on the cross. However, His death on the cross wasn't the specific event that got folks into the New Testament, it took having a born again experience to really do so; and, that didn't occur until the Day of Pentecost. Therefore, this is why I'm saying that the New Testament actually commenced with the new births on that specific day. For, even if we can say that by Him dying on the cross that the NT period technically commenced, nobody got into that New Heaven until a New Creation was being formed within them, to where they could officially then say that they were children of God; i.e. children that were actually born from Him.

*?. Dwell in you... I cannot over-emphasize the importance of the little word 'dwell' within an English language Bible study.

Dwell, Oikeō, G3611, from Strong's Greek Dictionary: From G3624; to occupy a house that is, reside (figuratively inhabit, remain, inhere); by implication to cohabit: - dwell. See also G3625.

In fact, I love the quick definition of 'remain' in this description. It certainly indicates something coming in a permanent manner, and not leaving. At the beginning of the description, it also implied that this Greek word originated from another: G3624.

Oikos, G3624, from Strong's Greek Dictionary: Of uncertain affinity; a dwelling (more or less extensive, literally or figuratively); by implication a family (more or less related, literally or figuratively): - home, house (-hold), temple.

Look at these wonderful descriptions: an extensive 'family' dwelling-place; a temple. Can we not catch the obvious theme here?

1 Corinthians 3:16
Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

St. John 14:23
Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

Make their abode with him? Does that not indicate the filling of a residency? And, just how does this happen? It happens by the indwelling of the Spirit of God.

1 John 4:13
Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit.

*?. House...
As one can see, I am linking such terms as BODY, CONTAINER, and HOUSE together. And, indeed, will continue to observe other, upcoming references of similarity. Basically, and what all this boils down to is an absolute reference to something that has the ability to hold something else – just like the Temple in Jerusalem (as well as the Tabernacle in the Wilderness) was built to hold the Spirit of God (well, not literally, but in principal); and now, there's another House (which the Temple and the Tabernacle metaphorically stood for) that holds God's Spirit, as well. As I had gone over in a couple of my past books, this new Temple/Tabernacle/House is designed to hold God's Spirit within us.

1 Corinthians 3:16
Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
That is, your temple/house/container holds God's Spirit inside you ... As one has probably guessed by now, I am running toward the goal of explaining that this new Container, House, Building, Temple, Tabernacle is actually the new Body of a born again new Creature...

END OF CHAPTER 2... For more, please visit our official website: www.SeekingTheGospel.com

New Jerusalem - END NOTES for Chapter 1

END NOTES for Chapter 1: Jerusalem Above...

*1. Perhaps, that was a new birth... Believe it or not, this saying of Paul's can be looked upon in several ways. Some scholars sincerely feel that he's meaning his natural mother here; being separated unto the Gospel (Romans 1:1) from conception, like Jeremiah was (Jeremiah 1:5). Or, this can be looked upon as he being separated from his Jewish, Pharisee religion, which he was raised in – therefore, making his mother, in this instance (and, once again), the Jewish, Pharisee religion (i.e. Old Jerusalem); having grown up, he therefore got separated from her afterward by God's grace, and because of his experience with Jesus. Or, lastly, this could mean his mother New Jerusalem (Galatians 4:26), from whom (once born) he could now preach in the Second Heaven. In fact, just after saying that he was separated from his mother's womb, he then mentions that God called him by His grace; and then, afterward, God's Son, Jesus, was revealed in him – indicating a very spiritual experience. So, with this spiritual aftermath having been expressed (again, God's grace, then Jesus coming in him), I truly feel that the mother in this instance (again, in Galatians 1:15) was New Jerusalem; because, once he was "born again" from her (or, as it says: "separated"*), he found, not only God's grace, but found that Jesus was now living inside him in a very personal, spiritual way ... We'll continue to see, throughout this book, how all this matches up.

*Separated... The word separate can be a tricky business for us. But, before getting into the pros and cons of what this could mean in our scriptural reference, let's first define the Greek word:

Separated, Aphorizō, G873, from Strong's Greek Dictionary: From G575 and G3724; to set off by boundary, that is, (figuratively) limit, exclude, appoint, etc.: - divide, separate, sever.

In my own interpretation of Galatians 1:15, this definition doesn't really seem to fit. At least so at first. In fact, it would almost fit my second forwarded explanation; namely, that Paul was separated from his old religion. Consider the clues in the Greek definition: exclude, divide, sever ... However, before settling in to the second idea, of what this verse could mean, let's reason together that, in like manner of a natural birth, we do, in fact, get separated from our mother's womb so that we can have life for ourselves. Therefore, we could say, in that instance, that being separated is just another way of saying "delivered." And, that can be true enough – except for the fact that our Greek definition doesn't seem to be pointing in that direction. However, the root Greek words (G575 and G3724), from which this word derived, may help give us some more clues. Let's quickly define those, as I highlight some interesting definitions:

Apo, G575, from Strong's Greek Dictionary: A primary particle; “off”, that is, away (from something near), in various senses (of place, time, or relation; literally or figuratively): - (X here-) after, ago, at, because of, before, by (the space of), for (-th), from, in, (out) of, off, (up-) on (-ce), since, with. In composition (as a prefix) it usually denotes separation, departure, cessation, completion, reversal, etc.

Horizō, G3724, from Strong's Greek Dictionary: From G3725; to mark out or bound (horizon), that is, (figuratively) to appoint, decree, specify: - declare, determine, limit, ordain.

A huge problem with translating has always been the multiple meanings that a single word can produce. Of course, this is problematic with English definitions as well. It amazes me how a person can translate words to begin with, let alone an ancient language! These folks (translators) really help us with their tasks ... However, that being said, we should take note that there have been many mistakes made over the years in the attempt. Certainly, this doesn't mean that we can't trust Bibles, but we should know that there are corrupted English versions on the market. I've already spoken on these ideas in my published book "In the Beginning," and I will continue to do so throughout this Teaching Series; and, I also plan on covering the topic more thoroughly in an upcoming book, called "The Bible is not a buffet." So, I won't do so again at this time, but I will say that an acceptable English can be found, and one which has been ordained by God. In fact, I will say briefly that the right track was founded in the early 1500's AD with the Godly ordination of a single man – William Tyndale. Whom, by the way, also uses the word "separated" in his translation; of which, we must take note, the King James Translators made approximately 80 to 90 percent use of (that is, using Tyndale's wonderful translation as a model) for their own task nearly a hundred years afterward. Of course, as one can tell, I rely upon his initial efforts, and of those who followed his course of translating for my own studies: namely the King James Version Translators, J.P. Green Sr.'s Literal Translation, and of James Strong's extremely helpful dictionary meanings ... Anyway, and in consideration of the two root words from which our main Greek word derived, I will say that the two words that I had highlighted (completion and ordain) can certainly be taken into account when considering a proper meaning. As in, being separated from his mother's womb, it represented a completion (as in, being born a second time), and as in being ordained by God for the task before him – which can certainly fit, and of which can help us see how, after being delivered from New Jerusalem, he was ready to set out on his ministry and preach a solid Gospel message ... However, and despite all my efforts here, I will certainly admit that the passage remains a bit obscure; that is Galatians 1:15, and of what Paul really meant by his wording. And, the funny thing is, at the end of the day, any of the three forwarded suggestions can actually match up! He could have been ordained since natural conception (I'm certainly not against such a notion, as I will tackle the issue in future book projects); or, he could have been ready for the Gospel once he was separated from his old mother's umbilical cord (i.e. away from Old Jerusalem), in that now being free and separate, he could go preach a New Testament message; or, lastly, he could have been birthed (delivered) by the New Jerusalem, and therefore was ready to tackle the world head-on with spiritual enlightenment ... Certainly, it may seem that my studies are a bit thin by my admittance, and that I need to go and study more (which, it wouldn't hurt anybody to study more! – myself certainly included). And, yet, after all's said and done, I still stick to my guns on my personal beliefs that the best answer is the latter – the one that I had initially forwarded as the answer – that, after being delivered by New Jerusalem, he was now ready to preach the Gospel ... We'll continue to see the wonderful possibilities as we travel this road step by step.

*2. He carried me away in the spirit... In consideration to a few questions that I had just posed, in the main part of the book (here in chapter 1 – namely: "Is this mother referencing a new kind of Jerusalem? One which cannot be seen with the natural eye? One which cannot be lived in with a natural body?"), I present the case of John having to be carried away in the spirit in order to see the New Jerusalem. Now, this point may not stir every mind, nor that everybody will agree with such an assessment (i.e. that even we have to be in the spirit in order to see New Jerusalem), but I do think it a matter worth considering. Again, we'll continue to explore the possibilities in the upcoming pages.

*3. I John SAW (past tense)... The book of Revelation consists of things from the past, the present, and the future...

Revelation 1:19
Write the things which thou hast seen [past*], and the things which are [present], and the things which shall be hereafter [future].

And, to know this, is extremely important in biblical research. So, let's quickly analyze ... When verse 19 says "Write the things which thou hast seen," one could quickly conclude that the speaker is referring to the Revelation which is about to be given to John – which the apostle jots down, and it becomes the book of Revelation. However, that's not what's being said here. First of all, let's consider that this was spoken very early in the book (i.e. in chapter 1), and the full thrust of the Revelation hasn't had time to be seen yet by John. Therefore, when the speaker tells him to write down the things which the apostle hast (had) seen – past tense* – then this could very well be specifically referring to things that John was a firsthand witness to in the past ... However, one could certainly say that such reasoning doesn't necessarily present itself to what John saw in Revelation 21:2; which, logically, could be speaking of what he was presently seeing in a futuristic vision – despite the fact that it's not worded more specifically, such as: "And, I John was seeing [present tense];" though we can certainly say that when John finally wrote the book (or, at least the final draft of it) that he was simply reminiscing about that specific time of seeing the Revelation ... No, I'm not trying to complicate things here, even if it may seem that I am. What I'm driving at is that when John says "And I John saw," in verse 2, that he could just as easily had been saying that he witnessed this particular event in the past, just as easily as many other scholars have said that he was seeing a vision of the future. Certainly, my conclusions indicate that he was speaking of a specific past event, which he was the witness of. Something in biblical history that stands tall as an unprecedented event. An event which was never seen since the foundation of the world, and one not to be matched in the future. Certainly, I am referring to an event which I believe occurred on the Day of Pentecost – specifics, of which, I fully intend on covering in this book; events, that is, which haven't been voiced too often in doctrinal observations ... But, as far as to whether or not John was speaking of a past event or of a futuristic vision depends on how we interpret what specifically he saw. I think the key lies in determining when the First Heaven departed, from verse 1; because, the bride never came down out of Heaven, in verse 2, until the First Heaven went away.

Revelation 21:1 - And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

According to this, and just prior to the bride, New Jerusalem, getting married to the Lamb, the First Heaven had departed, and the Second Heaven came into existence. Therefore, logically, we have to conclude that the blessed marriage between New Jerusalem and the Lamb is a Second Heaven event. In fact, there's another place in Revelation which speaks of the First Heaven departing; and, during that dialog, it gives us some more, very necessary hints and clues as to when this actually occurred; and, it specifically connects the event with something that had happened in the past – particularly on the Day of Pentecost in circa AD 30 ... Let's watch it unfold:

Revelation 6:12-14 - And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood; And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind. And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.

Certainly, at first, it will be hard to see what I'm saying with a quick read-through; but, let's break this down ... In verse 14, we find our first connection; specifically when it says "And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together." In scripture, there are three Heavens spoken of. Our first two can be seen within a single verse; one which I've already quoted:

Revelation 21:1 - And I saw a new heaven [2nd heaven] and a new earth: for the first heaven [1st heaven] and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

This is the only verse in the Bible which specifically names a Heaven that passes away (i.e. 1st Heaven). No where else do we see either 2nd of 3rd Heaven going away. Actually, there's only one scripture in the Bible that even mentions the Third Heaven:

2 Corinthians 12:2 - I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven [3rd Heaven].

It's safe, therefore, to say that it was the 1st Heaven, in Revelation 6:14, that passed away; and, of which connects the passage with Revelation 21:1. Besides, when we make clear the other events of Revelation 6:12-14, it'll be seen that it can only be speaking of an event which had happened in John's past; of which he was there to witness; and, in turn, will connect to when the holy marriage took place. In fact, those verses not only speak of the Day of Pentecost, but also of the few days just prior to it which ultimately led to that wonderful event ... Our biggest clue as to when this took place is from verse 6: "The sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood." Let's make our connection:

Acts chapter 2 (summarized) - [14] But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words: [15] For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day. [16] But THIS [of what you are witnessing today] is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel. [verse 20a – which is also included in the list of things that we're prophesied by Joel to happen on the Day of Pentecost] The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come.**

Even if we need to specify each event to understand them in these passages from Acts, the fact remains that the Sun turning into darkness and the Moon into blood was an event that those folks in Acts were a witness of; and, of which they saw happening. It was an event that wasn't going to be repeated in the future; and, this specifically connects both Revelation 6:12-14 and Revelation 21:1-3 to events that happened on the Day of Pentecost. However, what will throw most people off is the fact that there were no natural phenomenon like this recorded or reported from sometime around the Day of Pentecost that these things happened in the natural sky above. I had spent an entire book, which I called: "In the Beginning: It was spiritual from the very start," trying to explain the hidden metaphors in scripture – specifically for such passages like these. Yes, I'm saying that the event of the Sun and Moon are to be metaphorically understood! I'm going to be spending time in another book explaining the details of the Sun and Moon (which, will be called: "The Sun, the Moon, and the Stars: Glories in the Heavens; The Spiritual Side of Creation, Part III."), therefore, I won't be spending too much time, here, in deep discussions about this Sun and Moon occurrence (for, it would take up too many pages to do so). But, for the sake of argument, I will say what I believe those events to mean. The Sun (the greater light), representing the New Testament, became, to those strict ministers of the Old Law (specifically the biblical bad guys – i.e. those who had crucified Christ), as black as darkness, and it could shed no light of enlightenment and understanding unto them; and, they could not see the New Testament, for they were blind (2nd Corinthians 3:14 and Matthew 23:26, etc); and, the Moon (the lesser light), which represents the Old Testament, was bleeding; insinuating that the life of it was bleeding out (i.e. that specific Heaven dying – for, I believe the First Heaven was simply another name for the Old Testament period); it was, as I said, dying out, and going away. Therefore, those ministers under the Old Covenant, who couldn't change when God moved away from Old matters unto a New Testament era, had (spiritually) died with it (...don't worry, I will get into better detail, in an upcoming chapter herein, of why I see the Heavens this way). Knowing this will help explain other matters from chapter 6 of Revelation. And, as I quote, I will add some of my own notes within brackets:

Revelation 6:12-14 - And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake*** [when Christ died on the cross, there was a literal earthquake – Matthew 27:50-51; 54]; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair [these men of the Old Covenant couldn't see any light of God or the NT], and the moon became as blood [for, all the life of the Old Covenant was bleeding out; anything without blood has no life – Leviticus 17:11a]; And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind. And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.

As for these other events (which I didn't make any quick notes to in this second quoting of these verses), let's start with the first one: "The stars of heaven fell unto the earth." That is, those bad ministers of the Old Covenant fell from their place in 1st Heaven, and fell back to the earth – or, specifically, back to carnality; or, back to the ungodly ways of the earth. We find that, in Jude, men are sometimes referred to as stars; especially when Jude is talking about these very same men that I am speaking of. That is, those religious leaders of the Old Covenant who couldn't accept Jesus; and, who were the ringleaders of His crucifixion.

Jude 1:4 - For there are certain MEN crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. [verse 11 – speaking of these same men] Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core. [12] These [same men] are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots; [verse 13 – these same men are] Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.

Learning that men can be compared, metaphorically, in scripture to stars is a key that can unlock other truths from the Bible for us ... However, these 'stars,' of which Jude spoke of wandering (i.e. wandering away from the truth!), not only fell from their place in Heaven, but they fell smack dab into carnality and ungodliness. And, then, if that wasn't proof enough, Revelation 6:13 continues to say that these stars, that fell unto the earth, were cast down "even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind." Oh, the picture that's formed for us here! Can we not see the Mighty Wind of Acts chapter 2, verse 2, being represented here – i.e. the Holy Ghost – when it came into the house, where all the saints were gathered to receive the Baptism of the Holy Ghost on the Day of Pentecost? Not only did it put those folks into the Second Heaven, it also blew the bad guys from their place in First Heaven. And, not only so, but the picture of the fig tree is brought before us, as well. Do we not remember Jesus desiring to see some good fruit on the fig tree, and found none? And, then, he cursed the fig tree because it could produce no good fruit thereon (see Matthew 21:19). Are we really imagining Jesus being a natural gardener here? Can we not see that he found no "fruits of the Spirit" (see Galatians 5:22-23) amongst the ministry of the First Covenant?

Luke 13:6-7 - He [Jesus] spake also this parable; A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none. Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree [i.e. the approximate time of Jesus' ministry on earth], and find none: cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground?

Friends, Revelation chapter six, with the opening of the sixth seal, is screaming for us to recognize the significance of the events presented. Of which, again, John was a witness of. That is, of what he had seen with his own eyes not to long before he had his vision of Revelation. Yes, he was there in the upper room on the Day of Pentecost. He was also there during Jesus' ministry, and during His crucifixion. The Day of Pentecost was a day that the earth had never seen before, and of which hasn't been seen since (that is, within the same magnitude and importance). It's certainly worthy of a few mentions in the book of Revelation! ... There's more to be said (and, I'll certainly be covering this in upcoming book projects in this 'Seeking the Everlasting Gospel' book series), but I want to concentrate again on John's words in Revelation 21:1-3, and of what exactly he was describing. Again, I am taking his words "And I John saw," as a past event, and am linking it to the Day of Pentecost, of when the First Heaven departed as a scroll, and of when the Second Heaven commenced; and, it also was the day of the blessed marriage of the Lamb and New Jerusalem, and it's also the day in which people were being born again for the very first time in history. For, as Isaiah had prophesied about, in chapter 66 of his book, people were being birthed in a single day – as opposed to the many months it takes for a natural woman to give birth ... Of which 'quick' birth I'll be speaking more on in the main part of this book ... Also, and once again, I'll speak more on the different Heavens, and of what they possibly mean in scripture, in another End Note for chapter 4, called: "These are the First and Second Works of God; or, the First and Second Covenants..."

*Thou hast seen [past]... Even though the J.P. Green Literal Translation has, instead: "Write what things you SAW" (indicating, perhaps, a past tense application), some commentators insist that what he "saw" was the current vision of the Son of Man, starting from verse 10 on down. Not that this conclusion is a bad one – for, after all, even verse 11 has the Son of Man (Jesus, of course!) telling John to write "what thou seest" in a book (or, really, a letter) – and, we could certainly conclude that what John was to write was simply a present tense wording of a futuristic prophesy. With assurity, that's what a lot of scholars believe; for, indeed, that's what the wording seems to indicate. However, that's not really what I see – especially when we have wording such as verse 19 contains – which makes me seriously question such a conclusion: "Write the things which thou hast seen [present tense?], and the things which are [present tense again?], and the things which shall be hereafter [future tense?]." Indicating, maybe, that John was to write the things which are, the things which are (again!), and then the things which will be thereafter. Hence, present, present, then future. Though, a lot of scholars will interpret this to say: write what you just saw me look like (i.e. how I appeared unto you), then write the things which I presently am telling you, then write the things which will be happening from hereafter. And, yet, such reasoning, at least to me, seems to be far-stretched. There's nothing wrong, in my opinion, of Jesus telling John that He's, not only going to speak of things which will effect the New Testament folks in the present time, but also of what will happen in the future, and then add in things which happened in the past that both currently effects what's happening today, and will also effect what's to come in the immediate future. We cannot say, with a foregone conclusion, that such beliefs are too far out of sight to be possible! ... Now, one may think me over-cautious for getting so meticulous – especially over a single-word study like this, but such sifting has to be done, for many theologians will insist that nothing recorded in Revelation deals with past events, and therefore (in my humble opinion) cripples solid teaching which insists that we seek events of Revelation's past to answer some questions. Therefore, I stick with my guns when I say that the vision of Revelation deals with past, present, and future events. Besides, we have Strong's Greek Dictionary admitting that the word in question sometimes indicates past tense happenings:

Thou hast seen, Eidō, G1492, from Strong's Greek Dictionary: A primary verb; used only in certain past tenses, the others being borrowed from the equivalent, G3700 and G3708; properly to see (literally or figuratively); by implication (in the perfect only) to know: - be aware, behold, X can (+ not tell), consider, (have) known (-ledge), look (on), perceive, see, be sure, tell, understand, wist, wot. Compare G3700.

So saying, one could, not only be justified in saying that what was being seen was a current happening, but one could also be justified in saying that the happening was from the past. But, since our sentence reads thus: "Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter," I actually feel more than justified in saying that the events recorded in Revelation by John are from the past, the present, and the future.

**Before that great and notable day of the Lord come... As to what this great and notable Day of the Lord is, I will certainly be speaking on it a bit more within the upcoming chapters of this book. Right now, though, it's not time to get into it, for I'm just starting to make our biblical connections, which will make more sense later on; and, besides, it's still pretty early in the book, so, as promised, I will be digging more deeply into the Word as we progress along...

***There was a great earthquake... It may seem strange that I am pointing to a natural event (i.e. the earthquake during Jesus' passion), and then say that the event of the Sun and Moon were spiritual events. As one can see, I'm not seeing the events of the earthquake, the Sun, and the Moon as events that happened in succession together, or all at once, as natural events of catastrophes; but, I am saying that when Jesus died on the cross, it caused a natural event of great magnitude (a natural earthquake), which in turn triggered some spiritual occurrences afterward. The earthquake, though natural, opened up a whole new spiritual world. I will speak quickly of the obvious first occurrence – it split the veil in the Temple in two:

Matthew 27:51 - And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent.

Even if the earthquake was mentioned after the veil being torn, I believe that it was extremely possible that it was the earthquake which caused the curtain to tear, though not mentioned chronologically. No other natural phenomenon mentioned at this time could have caused it (if, perchance, a natural phenomenon even ripped that curtain to begin with!****). And, just because this passage mentions the earthquake secondly (like an afterthought), that's not a forgone conclusion that they happened in that precise order. So, again, I'm seeing the earthquake as a great possibility to have caused these things to happen (or, at least one event, anyway – the rocks renting. Please see the sub-subnote following), along with the graves splitting open – of which other event I'll speak more on in later chapters of this book (that is, about why the graves were split open; and, of why that's important for us to know). Right now, though, I want to speak of the veil being torn in two. What exactly did that mean? It was a declaration (naturally observed, of course, of a deeper, spiritual meaning) of, not only that the way of the New Testament (2nd Heaven) was fixing to be made available to the saints, but also that we (in this literal symbolism) can now go into the holiest part of the tabernacle without it being only once a year, and without us having to be a high priest of the old law to do so.

Hebrews 10:19 - Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest [compartment] by the blood of Jesus.

Insinuating, of course (as the Tabernacle in the Wilderness is being used as a metaphorical example here), that we can enter into the second compartment now by the blood that, not only was shed at the cross, but – indeed, and much rather! – by the Blood of the Everlasting Covenant, the Holy Ghost coming into us; that is, the Holy Ghost being this Blood of the Everlasting Covenant. Therefore, the veil being rent (torn), naturally, it symbolized a New Testament possibility that wasn't available until Jesus died on the cross. So, in conclusion, the earthquake, in Revelation chapter 6, is our natural link to these "spiritual" events and meanings; and pinpoints, specifically, an actual time of when the sixth seal was opened. Or, at least of what that sixth seal represented in hindsight: a natural-symbolic event which triggered a New Testament World. Not only so, but the natural earthquake also triggered the metaphoric Sun and Moon event, too. So, what I'm saying is that God decided to use this natural occurrence (i.e. the natural earthquake) as our guide, in these Revelation passages, toward a literal timeframe, so that we can know when these events in Revelation took place in history.

****If, perchance, a natural phenomenon even ripped that curtain to begin with... Certainly, with how Matthew phrases it, we could separate the veil event from the earthquake. That is, in saying that the veil was not ripped by the earthquake. Let's review that verse again:

Matthew 27:51 - And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent.

Even so, I truly feel that a solid case can be made for at least the earthquake causing the rocks to break apart. And, that alone, in itself, is a worthy mention; because, and as I will get into detail about later on, it was how the Old Testament saints got out of their tombs just after their natural resurrection. But, even so, let's step back a bit, and see this entire event unfold from a wider viewpoint:

Matthew 27:50-53 - Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost [died on the cross]. And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

Friends, this was no small event! And, worthy of a mention in Revelation; which, as we've already seen, speaks of events of great magnitude that, not only will happen in the future, but of things that also had happened in the past – events which effect the lives of a New Testament audience ... However, and not to throw another monkey-wrench into the works, some of the verses which I just got through quoting happened a few days apart from each other; namely, that the Old Testament saints arose out of their tombs and graves. Our hint lies in the fact that it said that they came out of their graves after His (Jesus') Resurrection. And, we certainly know that He Himself didn't rise until the third day. But, the first part of these passages were certainly in correspondence of each other; that is, a few events happened simultaneously and at the exact same time – i.e. the earth quaking, the rocks tearing, and the veil ripping. And, since our main (forgive the pun!) earth-shattering, catastrophic event was the earthquake, then I go back to my original thought that the veil tore at the exact same time, making the earthquake a grand possibility of the cause of the rip. But, we can at least say, rather, that the two events happened at the same exact time, for the timing of them doing so would be perfect, and would make much sense. Therefore, whether the earthquake did it, or whether it didn't (because, the hand of God could have simply ripped it!), the fact remains that the earthquake was a part of a series of events that changed history forever. Again, it was smack-dab in the middle of the veil ripping and the rocks renting: two events which hold tremendous scriptural possibilities; 1) the veil tearing represents (naturally) that the way into the holiest compartment is now available for the saints to enter into (spiritually done, of course); and, 2) of the tombs breaking open of the Old Testament worthies, who experienced a literal grave-opening on the third day, and therefore fulfilling an Old Testament prophesy of a natural resurrection. Therefore, the earthquake was stuck right in the midst of an Old Testament fulfillment, and of an initial event which could only happen for the New Testament. Can we not see of how the earthquake, therefore, plays a vital role in these events, and of how it's a worthy mention in Revelation? Even though a natural event, it opened the doorway to spiritual possibilities, and was both the exit of the Old Covenant, and of the opening of the New Covenant – of which topic I will further speak on in these very pages of this present book.

*4. Man Child... As I had explained in a previous book of mine, I am saving the topic of the Man Child for another book for the immediate future, called: "Behold I show you a Mystery: The Inward-Man, The Resurrection; The Old and New Creature, Part II." Though, and I must admit, that I keep throwing many hints and clues as to how I see him in other, previously published books in this Series, that by the time I do get to completely writing this already begun book, I'll have already said everything about him to where there won't be anything left to say! But, seriously, I doubt that it'll ever come to that, for there is much to say about him ... Nevertheless, and as I make mention in the upcoming pages of this present book about the Inward-Man, I will simply say here that I am viewing the Man Child as just another way of saying Inner-Man. I know that by me simply saying this, that it won't satisfy many Bible scholars who see him as a very different thing, indeed! And, neither am I specifically saying that they are wrong for their views; but, as I always say in my books, my views will simply have to be considered with how they flow with solid scripture; which, again, should be the final say on any subject. Not only so, but seeing how Isaiah had used him in reference to this new birth (that is, that he is the newly born creation of the New Jerusalem), it should already show us how we should consider him as to being the new creature which Paul mentions several times in his writings – i.e. 2nd Corinthians 5:17 and Galatians 6:15 – which is born from that most holy union of the Bride and of the Lamb.

*5. Earth... We're dealing, here, with high symbolic wording. Again, I had set up such metaphoric language to be understood in my previously published book: "In the Beginning," in showing how we can't naturalize every scripture that speaks of natural elements. And, I had further shown that that's just exactly how a simile* works – using natural elements to describe something spiritual; yet, still being literal at the same time ... At this exact moment, it's not the time to get into exactly what Isaiah meant, for I will do so as I slowly build my case in this book; but, I promise to do this in the pages to come. In the meantime, please remember this End Note, because, once explained, it'll be seen why he had used such a curious phrase as this: "Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day?" Again, we're not speaking of the natural planet earth in this instance...

*Simile... Webster's Dictionary (published 1828, public domain): Simile, n. sim'ily. [L.] In rhetoric, similitude; a comparison of two thing which, however different in other respects, have some strong point or points of resemblance; by which comparison, the character or qualities of a thing are illustrated or presented in an impressive light.

*6. Like a river; i.e. from the flowing of the Holy Ghost... For instance:

St. John 7:37b-39a - Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. But this spake he of the Spirit [i.e. comparing the Holy Spirit with Living Waters]...

Isaiah 44:3 - For I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground: I will pour my spirit [that same water] upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine offspring.

1 Corinthians 12:13 - For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

*7. We will be comforted in New Jerusalem... It may seem presumptuous that I'm calling this referenced Jerusalem 'New Jerusalem.' Because, after all, Isaiah didn't say that it was the New Jerusalem, but only Jerusalem. Therefore, somebody would, perhaps, feel justified in saying that the prophet was merely speaking of the old nation located in ancient Palestine. However, in proper detective work, we must make use of the clues in front of us before dismissing the bold possibilities. Our biggest clue, as I will presently discuss in the next few paragraphs in the main part of the book, will be Isaiah's usage of the word Comforter. This can't be a coincidence – especially since he used the word no less than three times in verse 13 of chapter 66! ... Well, that is, in variant forms: comforteth, comfort, and comforted. This certainly gives us our connection with the Day of Pentecost, since it was on that day that Jesus said the Comforter would come; and, especially we should consider this when we know that the folks of the Old Testament period didn't even have the Comforter.

Ecclesiastes 4:1 - So I returned, and considered all the oppressions that are done under the sun: and behold the tears of such as were oppressed, and they had no comforter; and on the side of their oppressors there was power; but they had no comforter.

Restricting the arrival of the Comforter to the New Testament period ... Like I pointed out in a previous End Note, we cannot imagine that His arrival was some small event in biblical history! On the contrary, this is perhaps one of the biggest events which the Bible speaks of, for it was the day that ushered in a whole new biblical world. That is, it ushered in the New Testament period (Please see my upcoming End Note for chapter 2, called: 'The day which opened up a New Testament period...') ... Let's analyze:

St. John 14:26 - But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

First of all, Jesus tells us exactly whom the Comforter is in this verse. It's just another name for the Holy Ghost. That is, the Holy Spirit of God, which was to come to the people in full force on the Day of Pentecost:

Acts 2:1 - And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. [4a] And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost...

Prior to that day, the Holy Ghost hadn't yet come (in its fullest sense and capacity, that is!):

St. John 7:39 - But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.

So insinuating that the Comforter (i.e. the Holy Ghost) wouldn't come until Jesus had both died on the cross, and had risen on the third day. Therefore, after those two things happened, then the day of the Holy Ghost's arrival would come ... Jesus makes this clear in another verse:

St. John 16:7 - Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away [i.e. ascend to the Father]: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

But, of what I believe that experience completely meant for the early church saints (and, even for us!), I will discuss further in chapter 2 of this book; and, indeed, throughout the rest of the book, too. But, for right now, I simply wanted to make the connection between Isaiah's prophesied, futuristic event, and of its fulfillment on the Day of Pentecost. Again, that connector is the mentioning of the Comforter by the OT prophet, and of its connection with Jerusalem – also mentioned by him ... Our next big clue by Isaiah was that this Jerusalem was giving birth to some children. We must believe that in order for her to give birth to legitimate kids, she would have to already been married. And, we know, from scripture, that the husband of both Old Jerusalem and New Jerusalem was the Lamb – Jesus Himself! ... At the time of Isaiah's writing, though, Jesus was presently married to Old Jerusalem...

Jeremiah 3:14a - Turn, O backsliding children, saith the LORD; for I am married unto you...

And, yet – even before He confirmed this – He had already said, also through Jeremiah, that divorce from that nation was imminent.

Jeremiah 3:8a - And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce...

Of course, before he could marry a new bride, he would have to get divorced from the old wife first ... Did He get divorced yet? Or, is He still married to Old Israel/Jerusalem today? Actually, we see this divorce happen prior to the Day of Pentecost – which, in turn, left the door wide open for a new marriage to be possible ... Let's watch this happen, as we see, briefly, what the Old Mosaic law says about divorce:

Romans 7:1-2 - Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.

What does this tell us? It tells us, that once the husband dies, he is then freed from the marriage law of the wife ... Did Jesus die? ... Certainly ... Did that loose Him from marriage to Old Israel/Jerusalem? ... Certainly ... Did that mean, then, that He was free to marry another once He came back to life? ... Certainly ... Is it possible, then, that He could have taken a new bride on the Day of Pentecost? ... Certainly! Again, John was an eyewitness to that blessed event – of which testimony we've already seen:

Revelation 21:2 - And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

But, again, how do we know that this was an eyewitness event of the Day of Pentecost, and not some futuristic vision? Well, I've already covered this question in a previous End Note for this chapter; but, there's another hint that I hadn't covered just yet. It's from the very next verse...

Revelation 21:3 - And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.

Well, how does that help? It's when we realize that this verse is describing the birth of a new creature! Verse 2 shows the marriage, and verse 3 shows the births – and, all on the very same day ... Really? ... And, how, pray tell, does verse 3 describe births? By its description of the Tabernacle of God being with men. This certainly was a new event. This was something that had never occurred before in biblical history ... But, I'll be discussing this New Tabernacle in chapter 2, and there make my connection; so, stay tuned! ... Next, Isaiah describes how that this flowing river of life (which is the Holy Ghost – see my prior End Note for chapter 1, called: 'Like a river; i.e. from the flowing of the Holy Ghost...') even being extended to the Gentiles.

Isaiah 66:12a - For thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will extend peace to her like a river, and the glory of the Gentiles like a flowing stream...

And, we know, by scripture, that salvation was also extended to the Gentiles not too long after the Day of Pentecost ... We'll explore more clues in the upcoming pages.

*8. The Comforter fell on the Day of Pentecost... Please see previous End Note, called: 'We will be comforted in New Jerusalem...', for a fuller explanation.

END OF CHAPTER 1 ... More chapter at www.SeekingTheGospel.webs.com

New Jerusalem, Chapter 1: Jerusalem Above

END NOTES WILL FOLLOW THIS CHAPTER IN NEW BLOG POSTS...

Galatians 4:26 (Our main Scripture) - But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

What did the Apostle Paul mean with this scripture? Is he insinuating that Jerusalem is our mother? For us now? Or, is this statement a future reference? And, which Jerusalem was he referring? The old city of Jerusalem, from which we have histories of King David, Solomon, and even the historical Jesus? Or, is it deeper than that? Is this mother referencing a new kind of Jerusalem? One which cannot be seen with the natural eye? One which cannot be lived in with a natural body? In this book, I hope to answer all such questions...

Galatians 1:15 - But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace.

Paul here is speaking about being separated from his mother's womb. What was he talking about? Is he referring to the same mother that he was speaking of in Chapter 4, verse 26? If we analyze this verse, we see that directly after mentioning having this separation that he's talking about being called by God's grace. Perhaps, that was a new birth*? . . . Certainly, we shall learn of us having a new birth within the upcoming pages of this book. But first, let us learn of the blessed marriage itself; that is, of our spiritual parents...

Revelation 21:2 - And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

Revelation 21:9-10 - And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife. And he carried me away in the spirit*? to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God.

When does this great marriage take place? Has it already happened? Or, is it still yet to come? . . . Before answering these, we must ask ourselves some other questions first, such as: Are we children of God? And, if Godly children, were we born a second time? That is, did we have a spiritual birth? If so, who then are our spiritual parents? And, some final questions are: If we were born again, was our mother New Jerusalem? And, if New Jerusalem's our mother, it should make sense that her and the Lamb were already married. For, if they were not married at our conception, then we just may be illegitimate – being born out of wedlock! Why? Because, as we shall see, that particular marriage does produce children; and, those children are the born again saints of God.

Think about this: if we are children of God, having been born of God, then we must have spiritual parents; and, if Paul (in Galatians 4:26) said that Jerusalem's our mother (not going to be, but is – 'present tense'), then that means the Lamb is already her husband, and we are their born again children. So, that certainly has to mean that they must have already been married. Wouldn't that make sense? But, if that's really the case, then when did that marriage take place? If that marriage did occur in the past, was there at least one eyewitness of that blessed event who recorded it? Why, yes! I've already quoted you a scripture from an eyewitness; and, I will quote it again...

Revelation 21:2 - And I John SAW (past tense*?) the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

What usually happens when two people get married? Well, in the Old Testament, the first thing new couples did to confirm that they were married was the practice of having children. And, that's exactly what the Lamb and the bride did – and on the self-same day of their marriage. They birthed children on the very day that John witnessed the event ... Let us see how this metaphorical event was possible with a futuristic prophesy that Isaiah had made...

Isaiah 66:7-8 - Before she travailed, she brought forth; before her pain came, she was delivered of a man child.*? Who hath heard such a thing? who hath seen such things? Shall the earth*? be made to bring forth in one day? or shall a nation be born at once? for as soon as Zion [i.e. New Jerusalem] travailed, she brought forth her children.

Now it seems that I may have stretched it a bit far in my bracket quotation when I called Zion 'New Jerusalem.' However, we must remember that Zion is the holy hill in Jerusalem, so New Jerusalem can also be called New Zion. Besides, as we read further in these same set of scriptures, Isaiah himself calls this Zion 'Jerusalem.' Let's see:

Isaiah 66:9-13 - Shall I bring to the birth, and not cause to bring forth? saith the LORD: shall I cause to bring forth, and shut the womb? saith thy God. Rejoice ye with Jerusalem [he's now calling Zion 'Jerusalem'], and be glad with her, all ye that love her: rejoice for joy with her, all ye that mourn for her: That ye may suck, and be satisfied with the breasts of her consolations; that ye may milk out, and be delighted with the abundance of her glory. For thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will extend peace to her like a river [i.e. from the flowing of the Holy Ghost*?], and the glory of the Gentiles like a flowing stream [The Holy Ghost experience of Acts 2 was, not too long afterward, also delivered unto the Gentiles; see Acts chapter 10]: then shall ye suck, ye shall be borne upon her sides, and be dandled upon her knees. As one whom his mother comforteth, so will I comfort you; and ye shall be comforted in [new] Jerusalem.

Through Isaiah, God said that, just like one whom their mother will comfort, He will comfort us; and, that we will be comforted in New Jerusalem*? . . . And, how does God comfort us? Of course, He comforts us with the Comforter...

St. John 14:16 - And I [Jesus] will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever.

The Comforter fell on the Day of Pentecost*?...

St. John 14:26a - But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost...

Now, we know that, from the writings of Isaiah (as we've just seen in Isaiah 66:7-13), that with the coming of the Comforter, the New Bride would come also, delivering in that self-same day new children of God, being born of Him . . . Let's watch this prophesy, through scripture, being actually fulfilled:

Acts 2:1-4 (in circa AD 30) - And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

But, something strange happened in between the time Jesus had told His disciples about the Comforter coming (in the Gospel of John, chapter 14), and the Day of Pentecost (in Acts chapter 2). But what was it?...

www.SeekingTheGospel.webs.com

New Christian Theology Book Coming Soon!

A new, upcoming Christian Theological book on New Jerusalem, the mother of us all - coming soon! I will update soon with more information and chapters.

Now Available! New Christian, Theology Book!

The Church and the Five-Fold Ministry: Should we put our trust in man? New, Christian, theological book now available!


Is the modern-day Church exactly what it should be? Are pastors and various other ministers doing their job correctly for the saints of God? Have the ministers that we find ourselves under truly been ordained by the Lord? Should we put our trust in man? Is it okay to be organized, or to be under a denomination? Are all the saints of God equal in status, or even equal to the ministry that they find themselves under? Are we able to find the pattern of the modern Church addressed in the New Testament letters? Are we supposed to be rebuilding the early church, or the Temple of Jerusalem, or even the Tabernacle in the wilderness? Or, have those days already come and gone? Should we advance beyond what has already been in the past? Is the modern church building the only thing left for us this day and age? And, are the practices and rituals that we perform within the church building the ultimate goal of the modern-day Christian? Or, are we supposed to advance beyond the building to see what God may have in store for us in this vast world? These are some of the questions that will be addressed in this book . . . Follow along with Christian, theological author Ted Roberts as he explores these ideas, and more, in "The church and the five-fold Ministry: Should we put our trust in man? Carnal ordinances, part 1, A guide for both Minister and Layman.

Available in both ebook and trade paperback at amazon(dot)com

New book almost upon us!

Files for my new book are in review at my publishers. I will keep all of you updated ... The Church and the Five-Fold Ministry: Should we put our trust in man? Carnal Ordinances, Part 1. A guide for both minister and layman. A book that is almost upon us! ... Is the modern-day church exactly what it should be? Are pastors and various other ministers doing their job correctly for the saints of God? Have the ministers that we find ourselves under truly been ordained by the Lord? Should we put our trust in man? Is it okay to be organized, or to be under a denomination? Are all the saints of God equal in status, or even equal to the ministry that they find themselves under? Are we able to find the pattern of the modern church addressed in the New Testament letters? Are we supposed to be rebuilding the early church, or the Temple of Jerusalem, or even the Tabernacle in the Wilderness? Or, have those days already come and gone? Should we advance beyond what has already been in the past? Is the modern church building the only thing left for us this day and age? And, are the practices and rituals that we perform within the church building the ultimate goal of the modern-day Christian? Or, are we supposed to advance beyond the building to see what God may have in store for us in this vast world? . . . These are some of the questions that will be addressed in this book ... Coming very soon