4/2/2010 The Son of Man, exploring the Biblical concept

A Commentary on Immanuel
The Gospel of Truth

by Mel West

Chapter 19

Line 821— Every plant which God planted shall be rooted up

Compare this to Line 131 reported in Matthew and Luke and also the Gospel of Thomas:

Matthew 3.8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:
3.10 And now also the ax is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
3.11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire..

Jesus had assumed the Ministry of John the Baptist, voicing many of his teachings. Which teachings came from John and which came from Jesus would be difficult to ascertain. We do know, however, that Jesus's early mission was that voiced by John, the Baptizing of people unto repentance and preparing them for the Kingdom of God. But Jesus went further than John the Baptist: Jesus believed that the Kingdom of God was with Him ( even though we later see his vision of the Son of Man coming to claim His Kingdom in the Clouds after being in the earth three days).

We catch up with Jesus after the Transfiguration and he began talking about going to Jerusalem to suffer and be raised up the third day (see line 888). Peter rebuked him, says Matthew and Mark. Luke is silent here. Jesus responds in His Salvation person:

Line 896 — Whosoever shall save his life shall lose it; or, as Mark puts it, whosoever shall lose their life for my sake or the gospel's sake, the same shall save it. For what shall it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world or lose his soul?

The person who believed Himself to be the Lord of the Sabbath now focuses upon Salvation of Souls and the Salvation shall come through His Teaching. Those who believe in Him shall receive eternal life. No longer does He present Himself as the Intercessor, who will plead before the Angels of God to defend one who defends him, but now the guarantee of Salvation comes just by believing in Jesus. After mentioning how He must suffer and die for the atonement of sin, He concludes that He must yet come again in Judgment and all men will be judged according to their works (line 904). Paul took issue with this precept, saying that you are by Grace saved through your belief in Jesus; therefore, if you believe you will not be judged and your works will have nothing to do with your Salvation, says Paul. But Jesus adds:

Mark 8.38 Whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of Man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his father with the holy angels.

Here it is clear: Jesus is going to be the judge to come — the Deliverer Messiah — and He will judge those who were against Him. We can take this as being very scriptural. For it is implicit that the Deliverer Messiah judge with factors involving the Suffering Messiah in mind. The very fact that the Suffering Messiah of the Psalms and Isaiah chapter 53 exists requires that the main figure of that chapter be considered in the Final Judgment. This involves several things:

l. We are told in Isaiah 53 that because of the Wickedness of the Children of Israel the Messiah is bruised by God. Because of this there is inherently built into the story line the eventual demonstration that the Messiah was killed by God and that it was the Children of Israel's wickedness which caused it. This thesis, we have seen was initiated in the Psalms.
2. The Burden of Proof of The Suffering Messiah is implied in scripture and is offered only at the time Israel is restored to the Promised Land. Then we have a scene in Zechariah, reviewed earlier, where the people in Jerusalem are in tremendous grief, as a woman who had lost her only child. Connected with this are many passages which say that the Children of Israel shall be both confused and ashamed and in Ezekiel we are reminded:

Ezekiel 36.24 For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land.
36.31 Then shall ye remember your own evil ways, and your doings that were not good, and shall loath yourselves in your own sight for your iniquities and for your abominations.
36.32 Not for your sakes do I this, saith the Lord God. Be it known unto you: be ashamed and confounded for your own ways O House of Israel.

How is this done? Isaiah says:

Isaiah 60.15 Whereas thou hast been forsaken and hated, so that no man went through thee, I will make thee an eternal excellency, a joy of many generations.
61.6 But ye shall be named the priests of the Lord: men shall call you the Ministers of Our God; ye shall eat the riches of the Gentiles, and in their glory shall ye boast yourselves.
61.7 For your shame you shall have double: and for confusion they shall rejoice in their portion.

Clearly the burden of proof comes with the Deliverer Messiah. The proof He offers must, at the least, confirm what was done to the Suffering Messiah and that Confirmation ought to produce, at least for the moment, shame. Because Confusion is promised in both Ezekiel and Isaiah (and the Psalms) it follows that something associated with the Messiah is confusing, but for the sake of the confusion the Gentile shall rejoice in their portion! Something very marvellous is promised to occur before both the eyes of the Children of Israel and the Gentile. It is such that the Glory of the Gentile becomes a thing of note. What could that be? In the prophesies we have seen that the Deliverer Messiah is given as a Light unto the Gentile and a Covenant unto the people. We have also seen that He appears wheresoever the sheep are scattered (they are scattered midst the gentile) and would, therefore, appear midst the Gentile, even perhaps as one of them. Again, He we are reminded His Sign is that of Zerubbabel, who is born in Babylon, and, as the Psalm says, he is drawn out of many waters. This would explain why the Gentile could take Glory in the event.

3. Because Immanuel appears before the Scattering of Israel and because of the Sacrificed Messiah we also know that the Deliverer Messiah would be a follower of Him . To put it another way, the Deliverer Messiah is dedicated with the Burden of Proof to bring forth Truth and Judgment and this has to involve the establishment that Immanuel was killed and was innocent of any wrong doing. This has yet to be proven! And it only illustrates the significance of the problem in establishing that the Suffering Messiah had come already by the time the Deliverer Messiah comes. We have seen that a characteristic of the Deliverer Messiah is His Mouth and out of His Mouth cometh a sharp sword and He brings forth judgment unto the nations (Gentile). He appears at a time of the gathering of Israel, as seen above, and, like the angel with the book, mentioned by Ezekiel, determines the Survivors of the Tribulation to Come. Obviously, since there is the Suffering Messiah before Him, a good basis for this determination must be according to what the Suffering Messiah taught and was by example. The Suffering Messiah becomes a make-weight on the Scale of Judgment. Thus, we can conclude that Jesus had His words in order when He spoke of judgment and used Himself, as the Suffering Messiah, as the measure of judgment.

In the Hymns of the Dead Sea Scrolls we are reminded of this perception, that the Messiah is the means by which people are weighed and judged. We have seen that this perception was also reflected in the Book of Enoch. Jesus led the disciples to believe that when He returns it could be any moment and even that very same generation. He led them to believe this sufficiently that the Gospels recorded sayings by him of like manner. For instance he said:

Line — 912 Some of you here shall not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His Kingdom.

This was confusing. Jesus taught that the Kingdom comes not with perception, but as bread dough kneaded with leaven. Suddenly it rises. In the Gospel of Thomas a wonderful parable is remembered of a woman walking down a road with a cracked jar on her back. The jar is filled with grain, and as she walks it pours out behind her along the road. When she arrives home she discovers the jar empty! And the Kingdom is planted by her unawares! Thus, this is the way the Kingdom appears. It is within you all the time but is not recognized until one day, when it suddenly appears. In spite of these parables and others like them, the disciples were still led to believe that the Kingdom will come when Jesus returns in judgment. And at that time Elijah must first come. Here, again, as mentioned so often, was much confusion, since Jesus had already passed John the Baptist off as Elijah and yet spoke of a day to come where Elijah must yet first come. Furthermore, at the time of the Transfiguration, by which time the ideas just discussed had been formulated, Jesus had certainly not made it clear in the minds of the Gospel writers just what Elijah would do when Jesus returns for His Kingdom. Jesus said Elijah will restore all things, signifying either confusion on his part or a New Prophesy on Elijah. That was a Job clearly identified in prophesy as being an epitaph of The Branch or Deliverer Messiah (The Oral Torah has Elijah as the Deliverer also; we noted in our Song of Salvation how the Branch is the Son of Man who rules from sea to sea, etc.).

Jesus's Kingdom, until the time He returns, shall be in Heaven, so it appears he leads His disciples to believe. So they ask who among them will be the greatest in the Kingdom of heaven. This is when, perhaps in Peter's house in Galilee, that he called over a small child (perhaps Peter's son, Mark) and explained that in order to get into the Kingdom of Heaven one must be as this small child. He then says, signifying His person of Salvation:

Line — 981 Whosoever shall receive this child in my name receiveth me; whosoever receiveth me receiveth the one that sent me.

Now there is no doubt that Jesus believed He is the Direct Representative of God and carries the power of Salvation. If you receive Him you receive God. The next question then, following this logic, is what one must do to receive Salvation, or eternal life. He answers:

Line —1051 Thou knowest the commandments: love thy God with all thy heart and soul and the other is like it: love they neighbor as thyself.

On these, says Jesus with great perception, hang all the Law and the prophets. Here we have all of his teachings boiled down into one mission: He will teach men to love one another and through that one act they will achieve salvation. This is not new in Jewish thinking. The principal Feast of the Jews, besides the Passover, is the Feast of Atonement, about the second week of September. On that day a man must, to gain forgiveness from God, forgive all those who trespass against Him. We carry this Law even today in the vestige of forgiveness of debt after seven years. Then, and now, after seven years have passed, the government cannot prosecute you for a wrongdoing. The Jews knew this. But still they seemed to need an example from Jesus, how one would demonstrate his love and just who, they wondered, would qualify as one's neighbor. Jesus replied in his Salvation Person:

Line 1055 — If thou be perfect, give what thou hast to the poor and follow me..

And, concerning the neighbor one must love:

Line 1250 — And who is my neighbor? Jesus responded with the parable of the Good Samaritan.

Peter replied that he and the other apostles had done what Jesus had asked and given up all they had just to follow Jesus. However, the gospels show that the person who asked Jesus for the example of loving one another was a rich man and became sorrowful over having to give up what he had. Thus Jesus responded to this young man, who appears to have been a ruler of the Jews, one named Nicodemus, who, with Joseph of Arimathaea, later buried Jesus :

Line —1060 It is easier for a camel to go through an eye of an needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of heaven.

Jesus then left for Judaea and Jerusalem going, according to Luke, by way of Samaria. In this Journey Luke has the pharisees pursuing the question, when the Kingdom of God would come. Jesus answers:

Luke 17.21 The Kingdom is within you.

For Jesus to arrive at this He had to become resolved that somehow the essence of the Kingdom of God would be seeded in the hearts of men, apparently through Jesus's teachings and works, which theme is reflected in His parables of the Sower, the Leaven, etc. On the way to Jerusalem He prophesied to His twelve apostles that he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles and shall be mocked and spitefully entreated and spit upon. And they shall scourge him and put him to death, and on the third day he shall rise again. What had earlier been an abbreviated message of Sacrifice now becomes fully described exactly in the language of Isaiah 53.

For Jesus to teach this He must have believed that He would be raised up and reign after three days. Otherwise, being raised up means nothing. We recall Daniel, where he speaks of the coming of the Son of Man, that at the time of His Appearance, which is the Judgment, the dead in the earth shall rise from the earth, some to eternal life and others to death. Surely He must have believed that this event would be far into the future, though he had shown indications, as noted above, that He would appear again to even those of His apostles before they die: For some of you shall not die until you see the Son of Man coming in his full glory, etc.. If He did not mean that He would not come at some late date but the immediate future, he unquestionably was not clear about it.

Line 1112 Then came the mother of James and John, the children of Zebedee, asking Jesus to reserve them good seats when he goes to heaven. Jesus replies in His Servant of God person:

Mark 10.40 It is not mine to give but the Father's alone...

Jesus took the occasion to express how He was sent to Serve them of the Father, that He would give His Life as a Ransom for many. This follows exactly the scenario of the Sacrificed Messiah. His Service to God and Man would be as a Martyr. Nevertheless, as they passed through Samaria, Luke records that Jesus was not well received. It is apparent that he ought not to be too well received because He had by then fully acquired the personification of a Divine Savior. Thus the disciples, awed by his behavior and nonplussed over the people's refusal of him, asked:

Luke 9.54 Lord wilt thou we command fire to come down from heaven and consume them as Elias did?
9.55 Ye know not what manner of Spirit ye are of
9.56 For the Son of Man is not come to destroy men's lives but to save them.

Again we have a clear representation of the thinking at that time, confusing Jesus in the aspect of Elijah, who is known for having brought fire down from heaven and destroying the priests of Baal. The thought here is also a revelation of their belief then that the Kingdom and Last Day was already come and the Wicked were about to be burned in fire. Jesus had told them in a parable that he would first send out his angels to gather the wicked and burn them in the fire, then the good would be gathered into the barn. So the disciples are asking here a natural outgrowth of this perception, whether the Gathering and Salvation for the Kingdom of Heaven were now at hand.

This is, therefore, a good representation of Jesus's perception of Himself. He, following in John the Baptist's form of teaching, believed that by baptizing men unto repentance He would save them for the Kingdom of Heaven (aka My Kingdom is not of this world). Again, Luke reminds us that at that time, as He and His disciples were passing through Jericho, the people believed the Kingdom of God would come any moment (line 1162). This folds in perfectly with the attitude of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which believed their Two Messiahs would come any moment. Their Scriptures and liturgy reflect an almost militant bearing waiting for the sign to take up their standards and march forth in victory over the sons of darkness. The keepers of the Dead Sea Scrolls, of course, were but a few miles down the road from Jericho.

Line 1174—When Jesus approached Jerusalem, at Bethpage on the Mount of Olives, Jesus ordered his disciples to go secure an ass. Matthew reads the scripture from which this act originates as being an ass and her colt, which two things Jesus, Matthew says, ordered to be brought to him. Mark, on the other hand, only talked about the colt, the foal of an ass. Prudent Luke did not buy into Matthew's mistake and stayed in line with Mark's record, saying he sent them for the colt of an ass. Matthew, we see in this example, as in other examples where he thought to show prophesy fulfilled, became too enthusiastic and burdened scripture and the gospel story with too much of his own point of view. Here we can see Luke not being overcome with the points Matthew made. This again illustrates that Luke had Matthew before him. Wherever there are differences between Matthew and Luke they are major and reflect considerable thought upon the part of Luke to omit major, controversial items, such as John the Baptist being Elijah, which confound scripture. Here we can see Luke judging Matthew's version of the number of animals carrying Jesus into Jerusalem into one animal, the foal of an ass (a grown man on a foal seems cruel). In as much as Luke had modified Matthew's gospel in many cases, showing, for instance that it was the right withered hand of a man that was healed, we can take it on good evidence that concerning some things that happened Luke was there and noted the correct record.

The belief that the Kingdom of God was at hand was pervasive in Judaea and Galilee. Certainly John the Baptist had spent a considerable amount of time (at least during the course of Jesus's first year of ministry) explaining that the Kingdom was at hand. The Essene community at the Dead Sea believed it, though they make no mention of John the Baptist, which, in turn, suggests a limited fame being attributed to John, who baptized at their front door.

In any event, we have the scene of Jesus entering Jerusalem upon the foal of an ass preceded by the people spreading palm branches before him and crying Hosanna to the Son of David, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord. Yet, Matthew says that when Jesus was come into Jerusalem the people asked, who is this? This tells us several things:

l. Jesus was not well known in Jerusalem; otherwise having had fame there no one would have wondered who he was.
2. The people who laid palm branches before Jesus and cried Hosanna, etc., were probably not citizens of Jerusalem but Jesus's disciples from Galilee. Thus we have the comment in Luke where the Pharisees told Jesus:

Line 1183 — Rabbi, rebuke thy disciples..

Luke records Jesus answering this pharisee by then prophesying about the city, how it would soon have a trench around it [like Elijah's altar] and then be leveled to the ground. This is very scriptural and accords with the later verse where Jesus prophesies of the Scattering of Israel, mentioned only by Luke. Again, Matthew and Mark are oblivious to these scriptures.

Jesus then went into the temple and scattered the tables of the money changers and sellers of doves. This illustrates a determined confrontation and a man who now had an ego which behaved like the prophets before Him. Jesus was exhibiting good prophetic behavior. He had followers and could demonstrate easily his power over the people. His reception was such that he could easily, as reported by Luke, line 1197, teach daily in the temple. And Luke says all the people were attentive to him.

Matthew has the priests acknowles's teachings and asking:

Line 1212—By what authority do you teach these things?

Jesus answered, The Baptism of John, was it from heaven or of men? How he arrived at this answer as a reply to the question of His authority is not clear. For one cannot jump right to that answer without some intervening logic which has been lost in the gospels. First of all, by referring to John the Baptist, John's memory has to have been in fairly recent history, still on the minds of those in Jerusalem. John had been beheaded by Herod for criticizing Herod's (adulterous) marriage to his brother's wife, while his brother was yet alive. In the mood established, John was not presented as Elijah resurrected. But the question asks the pharisees to deliberate upon the Source of the Baptist's anointing. He baptized people unto repentance, preparing them for the Kingdom of God. Baptism was not an unfamiliar act of the Jews. The fact is one was expected to go through a prescribed ritual cleansing. John the Baptist made the act to be less personal and more profound, a public proclamation of giving yourself to God. Again, we recall the nature of the Nazarite who upon being accepted back into the community, after wandering in the desert, is first required to bathe and then cut his hair, putting his hair into the fire upon his redemption to the community. Only Fire and Water could purify. We recall this precept in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Certain things must be purified by immersion in either fire or water. Locusts, for instance, must be put in either fire or water to make them satisfactory for consumption.

The way of a Nazarite involved living off the land, off of honey and locusts, etc., which thing is the description of John the Baptist. In line 946 we see where Jesus, after the transfiguration, cured a child of a devil. The child had fallen in fire and water.

The fire and water purification ritual comes from very ancient practices. At the time of Abraham first born children were thrown into a fiery pit before Baal. Later, under Moses, we see that things sacrificed to God in the Tabernacle were sacrificed by fire. This was an act of propitiation, asking God to be merciful. Bathing was another form of propitiation, signifying cleanliness. In scripture both acts of propitiation, the bath and fire, are turned into vehicles of punishment. For instance, God's Punishment, as in the generation of Noah, was by water: the flood. The flood, we might add, consumed all things on earth. After the flood God promised that He would never again take out his wrath upon the earth but upon man and his cities and towers. This latter Day Punishment, He said, He would do through Fire. So Fire and Water represented both acts of propitiation to God by man and Punishment of man by God.

In the Scattering Scenario of the Children of Israel, what happens? They are purified by fire, melted, as Ezekiel puts it, as one melts silver and gold to refine it and remove the dross. They are literally put into an oven and melted in a crucible. The Dead Sea Scrolls pick up on this comparison of something being formed out of the crucible of a fire, and were quite aware of Ezekiel's prophesy of the Last Days and the rain of fire and brimstone. The fire and brimstone comes from the imagery used in the judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah. Thus, we can see the background of Judgment by Fire and Water. And just as the Children of Israel were, at the time of Jesus, about to be purified by Scattering and Fire (which Luke [alone] reported Him prophesying of Jerusalem), so too can we see the same application of Judgment [punishment] being applied to all the nations who were against My People Israel.

So the pharisee asked Jesus by what authority He taught the things in the temple. He responded, asking where John the Baptist got his authority. After all, Jesus and many others, so it appears in the gospels, were baptized by John and that Baptism was [a propitiation] unto repentance in preparation for the Kingdom of God at hand. Perhaps (and most probably so) the pharisee had been one of them who had been baptized by John the Baptist. Having been through the ritual gave one the security of being selected for the Kingdom of Heaven. This act of baptism, as preferred by Jesus, was described as a mystery: how God would cleanse you from your sins. It represented a person coming to the Baptist dressed in clean white linen with nothing on underneath. In the Secret Gospel of Mark, Clement records that the presentation of the naked disciple to the Baptist [Jesus] was important to the purification of his soul. At the eve of the Passover Jesus is reported in that gospel to have received a man dressed in linen and wearing nothing under his robe. The vestige of that event is recorded in the Gospel of Mark, where at the time of Jesus's arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane, one of the disciples is seen fleeing away naked, as a guard had grabbed his robe and, holding on to it, left the disciple running away naked. Later scribes began to speculate as to what Jesus was doing with naked men and wondered whether there were any justification in the reports that Jesus laid with a naked man — naked man to naked man. Clement, who was a disciple of Peter, though he was born too late to meet Jesus, clearly denies any possibility that Jesus was a homosexual, etc. The Mystery of the Baptism explained the reason for the nakedness. One comes into this life as a naked child; one enters the Kingdom of God as a [naked] child. So disrobing was important in a soul's admission that he comes naked before God and has given up all material things. This is reflected at line 1155, concerning the healing of the blind man in Jericho:

Mark 10.46 And they came to Jericho. And as they left Jericho, a blind man, BarTimaeus, son of Timaeus, sat by the highway, saying: Jesus, thou son of David, have mercy on me. He then cast away his garments, healed.

This last comment about the casting away of his garments was not reported by Matthew and Luke. The Gospel of Thomas provides several examples of this point of view of purification. For instance:

Thomas (76) The kingdom of the father is like a merchant...You too seek his unfailing and enduring treasure where no moth comes near to devour and no worm destroys.
(36) Do not be concerned from morning until evening and from evening until morning about what you will wear.

The gospels record that the pharisees were afraid to answer Jesus concerning the ordination of the Baptist. Why? Because they said that the people all held John to be a prophet. A Prophet is a man sent by God and out of His Mouth floweth the Word of God. Since they could not answer, Jesus answered, then neither tell I you by what authority I do these things. Here Jesus basically compared Himself to the person of John the Baptist, a Prophet of God. At this point in Jerusalem, the issue is that John the Baptist was considered by the pharisees as a prophet and, perhaps more importantly, a Nazarite of God. No one in Jerusalem knew Jesus was a prophet, even though way back in Galilee it is recorded all the followers (many of them the grief stricken disciples of the beheaded John the Baptist) believed Him a prophet or even Elijah raised up.

Jesus then proceeded to argue the case that the Children of Israel would be in a manner of speaking disinherited, for He said:

Line 1226 —Therefore the Kingdom of God shall be taken from you and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

This is a passage unique to Matthew. Mark did not report it nor did Luke, who would have been following in Matthew's steps, report it. Why is it unique to Matthew? It became a foundation from which Paul taught the transfer of the inheritance of the Children of Israel to the Gentile; and Paul has been following Matthew's Gospel. Luke, we have seen, has a record for being biased towards the Hebrews and has, to this point, carefully sidestepped controversial and unscriptural presentations in Matthew. So Luke's deference to avoid quoting this passage is consistent with his previous point of view. He recognized the Children of Israel would be scattered but as to taking their Inheritance away from them we doubt Luke would have bought into such a prospect.

Although the transfer of the inheritance of Israel to the Gentile [through the ingrafting of Jesus] is the keystone of Paul's Gospel, it is interesting to note here that Paul did not refer to Jesus's comment, recited in Matthew, but rather to the direct prophesy in Isaiah where God said He would turn his face from Israel to another and call his Chosen by another name. This became the very foundation of all Paulist Doctrine. Though Paul did not quote Jesus, as He had quoted other comments made by Matthew's gospel, Paul had a legitimate claim to make the quotation; and it would have been better, certainly more convincing on his part, had he quoted Jesus in this matter. Even quoting the Parable of the Vineyard, where Jesus said the Lord of the Vineyard would destroy the husbandmen of the Vineyard and give it to another, would have been a welcome comment Justifying Paul's position through Jesus's own Word. Why? Paul based his legitimacy on the fact that the Spirit of Jesus spoke to him from Heaven and ordained him to preach to the Gentile the things which he preached. These things, we have seen, were Anti-Semitic, posing the Uncircumcised Church of Paul against the foundation of the Circumcised Church ordained by Jesus and led by Peter and the eleven apostles in Jerusalem.

We are curious why Paul did not latch onto this saying of Jesus recorded in Matthew. The answer, we presume, was that the full Gospel of Matthew had not been written in Paul's time, even though Paul quotes essential elements of Matthew's gospel. The other consideration is that Paul was shooting from the hip and relied more upon Old Testament Scripture to Justify his position (even though he taught that it is at most types and shadows of Jesus and really of no significance apart from that). This would allow for his use of the Old Testament prophesy of God turning His Face to another and calling His Chosen by another name, rather than working from the Source of His Authority, which ought to be the Gospel of Jesus. Nevertheless, Paul's Gospel to the Gentile, teaching Uncircumcision and eating whatsoever you wish, would have been a more legitimate argument had he quoted Jesus's words reported by Matthew. Mark and Luke do not report this passage attributed by Jesus and it may very well be a later interpolation by a Paulist scribe trying to vindicate Paul through the back door so to speak.

The next real issue in the gospels arises out of this important incident. The pharisees of Jerusalem then became determined to get rid of Jesus. So they attempted to entrap him, so the gospel says. They watched him and sent forth spies, says Luke. Then they sought to lay a hand on him but they feared the multitude who took him for a prophet, says Matthew. The scenario does not speak of a long period between the time Jesus entered Jerusalem and the time of the Passover. The Gospel of John tells us, in fact that it was five days before the Passover when the palm branches were laid before Jesus as he entered the city. A certain amount of acclaim went with him in Jerusalem, however, which was through the teachings in the temple, which teachings must have gravitated to the question whether He was the Messiah. He is recorded as reading Isaiah 61 in the temple (The gospel of John questions how Jesus could do so not being able to read) and saying, This day these things are fulfilled. This, of course, would be the proverbial, final straw that broke the camel's back to the priests. At first the pharisees sought to entrap him by asking him whether it is lawful to give tribute to Caesar (Line 1236). He answered, Give to Caesar what is His and give to God what is His. In the Gospel of Thomas Jesus adds, and give to me what is mine. Having followed Jesus's sayings in His Savior Personification, we can see that it would have been completely in his character for him to say what the Gospel of Thomas recorded, and give to me what is mine, placing himself on an equal plane with God. This, in fact, becomes the very issue which develops, where the pharisees complain, and Paul even acknowledges in his epistles, that Jesus thought to be equal to God!! This issue begins with the conversation over the Psalm of David which refers to the Anointed, or Messiah, as God's Son.

Line 1263—Jesus said, How then doth David call him Lord? Luke clarifies the conversation, saying, How say they that Christ is DavidÕs Son? How can the Messiah, or Christ, be a Son of David when David Himself calls Him Lord? In the Gospel of John further commentary is made on the conflict between Jesus's claim to be the Messiah and the people's perception of that claim.

Finally They Ask, Who is This Son of Man ?

What appears to have been a total lack of insight in the synoptic gospels, not having the curiosity to ask who the Son of Man is, finally surfaces in a long awaited capture in the Gospel of John. We say it is long awaited, because someone familiar with scripture ought to have asked who the Son of Man is; even those who were unlearned, hearing Jesus call himself the Son of Man, ought to have at some point of time asked this extremely important question:

John 12.34 The people answered him, We have heard out of the law that Christ abideth forever: And how sayest thou, The Son of Man must be lifted up? Who is this Son of Man?

It is true, isn't it? That the Messiah abideth forever? But this question is a very important question, finally revealed. For it admits to the fact that the priests and scribes were really not aware of the Suffering Messiah signature in Isaiah 53 and the Psalms. It also admits to the precept that the Books of Adam and Eve were not commonly known. They did not know that the Messiah must be lifted up (after three days); this, in turn, tells us that Jesus had latched onto a piece of scripture which was not well known. The Pharisees were anticipating, in fact, the figure of the Deliverer Messiah.

John 12.35 Then Jesus said unto them, yet a little while is light with you..
12.36 While ye have light, believe in the light, that ye may be children of light. These things spake Jesus and departed and did hide himself from them.
12.37 But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him.
12.38 That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord whom hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? [Isaiah 53.1]

John had done a marvellous thing. He had concluded Jesus was the Light of God (he is a Light unto the Gentile) and that Light comes through his Salvation through blood atonement. What is shown in Isaiah 42.1, a Light unto the Gentile, who does not go into the streets and is in fact the Deliverer Messiah, becomes transfigured by John into the Sacrificed Messiah.

Because of this conflict between Jesus and the Scribes and pharisees, who apparently could not answer his question concerning the relationship of the Messiah to David, as David's Son (nor can we easily answer it), Jesus then went into a pogrom against the pharisees, etc.

Further confusion over just who Jesus was claiming to be is recorded in the Gospel of John who says, at the time Jesus is in Jerusalem teaching in the temple before the Passover, the people asked Him who the Son of Man is! The Law and the prophets said that the Messiah truly lives forever. Daniel's version of the Son of Man confirms his dominion and eternal kingdom. Yet, Jesus then, as before, had become preoccupied with the description of the Son of Man being put to death and then raised up after three days. The question recorded in the Gospel of John at this late date — just before Jesus's crucifixion — rings true that Jesus, though He taught much of his death and resurrection, said nothing to straighten out the confusion on the Son of Man. And here, rather than explaining the Son of Man in terms of what is said of Him in Daniel and Isaiah chapter 53, or even the Psalms, the only place He records prophetic scripture of Himself is in terms of the Light of the Gentile, mentioned in chapter 61 and 42 of Isaiah. These chapters, we have seen, concern the Deliverer Messiah who appears at the Last Days and does not go into the streets! John's gospel records Jesus following the form mentioned in chapter 61 of Isaiah. Jesus is the Light which showed unto the Gentile, and John has Him answering a very important question in terms of that Light. The answer causes us to pause for a moment: How would you answer it?

Our thesis from the beginning is that the Gospel writers ought to have begun their stories of Jesus with the quotation from Daniel on [One like] the Son of Man, how He comes in the clouds of Heaven to reign eternally on earth. Jesus, since the transfiguration, had realized that the Son of Man must first suffer and be killed and lay in the earth three days, then be raised up. The question posed in the Gospel of John hits right at the root of this teaching. How can the Messiah which reigns eternally be killed and lifted up? Where do you, Jesus, get that Scripture? To answer them more precisely He would have to show how the Messiah comes unto Israel, is put to suffering as described in Isaiah, and the nation is scattered and at the time they are then gathered He will then appear again in the clouds of Heaven — as one like the Son of Man — to claim his throne. And somewhere, in all these facts, he has to leave them with the knowledge that the people of Galilee had seen a great light, that the Messiah was a great light unto the Gentile. So He answered, while ye have the Light believe in the Light...

Frustrated, perhaps out of his own inability to draw the Psalmist's perception of the Suffering Messiah who is raised up to claim his Kingdom, he taught against their high handed behavior and emphasized humility, saying by example:

Line 1289 — be ye not called rabbi or master
Line 1290 — Call no man your father (you have but one father: the Father in Heaven)
Line 1292 — He that is greatest shall be your servant
Line 1294 — Whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased
Line 1298 — He gave a pogrom against Lawyers and Scribes who lead men into problems which they themselves do not enter; who are like open sepulchers (a very scriptural saying), like graves which appear not, who strain at gnats and swallow camels.
Line 1315 — From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple, verily, I say unto you, it shall be required of this generation.

John 12.47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not; for I came not to judge the world but to save the world.
12.31 Now is the judgment of this world: Now shall the prince of this world be cast out.
12.32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

Jesus had realized that his very essence, as Savior of the World, relied upon his death and resurrection. The gospels then hung on this thesis. The disciples ought to have thought that his Resurrection was immanent; however, all gospel accounts show the disciples being sceptical of reports of Jesus's resurrection. Only after they had time to think about his teaching, death, and reports of his resurrection, did the meaningfulness of his life finally sink in: His death is Salvation for man and it is proved through His Resurrection.

John 12.33 This he said, signifying what death he should die.
12.45 He that seeth me seeth him that sent me.
12.46 I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness.
12.49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, He gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.
12.50 And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the father said unto me, so I speak.

Once again Jesus repeats the point of view of the Savior Messiah, a prophet who must see the same fate as those other prophets before him who, like Abel, are innocent. He is a Servant of God, doing only that which God had commanded Him. In referring to Zacharias above, he may have been talking about the prophet Zechariah who was murdered in the temple. But we have a report in the Gospel of James the story of John the Baptist's father, Zacharias, a priest who was also murdered in the temple. So Jesus may have been referring to an event involving his cousin's father in recent memory. Matthew, we see, does not report this and merely has Jesus commenting how Jerusalem likes to kill its prophets. And then, speaking as if He were God, Jesus says:

Line 1356 — How often I would have gathered thee beneath my wings but ye would not.

Here Jesus is speaking as a prophet, as God. He is in full form and reflecting the person we have reviewed who believed that He had been commanded of God to speak, to heal, etc. for God. After he finished his pogrom against the scribes and the pharisees, he then cursed the temple, saying not one stone of it shall be left upon another (line 1363). This reflects his knowledge of the Latter Day eschatology. He knew that Jerusalem would be desolated and its temple destroyed. How could he prophesy this without prophesying of Himself? Very simply, if He knew scripture He would know that the temple is destined to be destroyed. This is clearly reflected in the Psalms, just reviewed. Furthermore, the Branch, the Deliverer Messiah, is charged with building the Temple of the Lord in the Latter Days! He cannot build it unless it had not previously existed or lay in ruins! This, in fact, becomes an illustration compared by Zechariah and others, who made Zerubbabel, who restored the walls and temple of Jerusalem, the sign of the Latter Day Messiah. Like Zerubbabel (born in Babylon or midst the captivity) the Messiah would come and build the temple of the Lord . It is a very simple precept prevalent among the prophets. The prophesy of Isaiah even says those who are far away shall even come to build the temple of the Lord. When they see the Messiah, even, they shall behold the land far off. And they shall fear the Name of the Lord from the West and His Glory from the east and the rising of the sun. They say that when the decree comes it shall come from far off.

As noted earlier, the scribes and priests asked Jesus for a sign. He answered no sign shall be given this generation except the sign of Jonas, whom he said laid in the belly of the whale for three days. As Jonas came to warn Nineveh of impending doom, so too would Jesus be a warning unto Jerusalem of impending doom, and, like Jonas in the whale, he would lie in the earth for three days, then be raised up.

The Gospel of John records a similar response, answering to being laid in the ground three days as a Sign of God:

John 2.18 Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?
2.19 Jesus answered and said unto the, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
2.20 Then said the Jews, forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
2.21 But he spake of the temple of the body.

John records these sayings not in Jerusalem, five or six days before Passover, but rather in Galilee. But they do relate to the same theme, how Jesus can be a Sign of God by laying in the ground three days and then raised up. Matthew drew upon the Jonas story and John drew upon the comparison to the temple, how Jesus' body now became the Temple of God (a rather sophisticated precept only realized later in the ideas of the Body of Christ). Jesus as the New Temple of God would be raised in three days.

That this precept became a late introduction in the gospels is evident. For Paul would have grasped onto this precept in the gospel like a fly to honey. The statement confirmed Paul's thesis that the temple is no longer valid, the Law is no longer valid, and the only True Temple of the Lord is inside your own heart, made pure and spotless through the blood of Jesus. Jesus, then, is the True Temple of the Lord, according to Paul, and the Gospel of John reflects that thinking, which ultimately rooted in the Precept that by eating bread and drinking wine in the Mass Jesus' Body became transformed into your own body.

Through a sort of cannibalistic imagery one acquires the Body of Jesus, or to put it more accurately, becomes a part of the Body of Jesus. And wheresoever there are two or three who call upon the Lord in His Name, there will He be between them. This is a quite complex precept far beyond the imagination of the apostles at the time of the Last Passover of Jesus. They could barely grasp onto the idea of the Son of Man, let alone understand how the Passover Mass would one day become translated into a congregation known as the blood and body of Jesus, ruling in this world on His Behalf, until such time as He appears in the cloud(s) of heaven in great glory to claim His Kingdom.

Nevertheless, knowing that His time was drawing near, having infuriated the Pharisees and scribes with his manners, Jesus then prophesied to his assembled disciples, as Matthew concludes this teaching:

Line — 1393 And this Gospel of the Kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

He repeats that God will provide for them, as the lilies of the field are provided for: Seek ye the Kingdom of God and all things will be given unto you. The thesis recalls Elijah who was provided for by God (as a Nazarite), as he fasted in the desert and a raven supplied him with his daily food.

This follows, of course, the commandment to love God with all your heart and soul. Being impressed with these teachings the apostles and even Paul ultimately concluded:

1. Whatsoever any two or three of them agree upon will be confirmed in heaven.
2. The disciples of Jesus have but one mission: to preach the Gospel of the Kingdom to all the nations. What is that Gospel? It is the Gospel of Salvation, to make as many people as pure and without spot, prepared for the King when He comes to judge the earth.

Again, speaking of His Return, He repeats:

Line 1437–And a sign of the Son of Man shall appear in heaven. They shall see the Son of Man coming in the clouds (or in a cloud according to Luke) and He shall send forth His angels to gather His Elect.

Salvation, then, became identified with being one of the elect. Paul used this as a basis of his gospel and concluded that Jesus would appear in the Clouds to gather His Elect and His Elect, would, therefore, be raised into the Clouds with Jesus and returned to heaven. It is a veery primitive precept and lacking in much study of the scriptures.

The scene of the coming of the Son of Man in the clouds or in a cloud is a scene of judgment. Two shall be in a field and one shall be taken; two in one bed, says Luke, and one shall be taken; He would appear as a thief in the night; and, as Luke says, perhaps mimicking the book of Adam and Eve and Enoch, he cometh at an hour when ye think not. But in Luke's Gospel [alone] Jesus breaks the eschatology of the Last Days into their proper Two Events:

Part 1. Line 1492 — The Scattering of Israel: When ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies then know the desolation thereof is nigh...and they shall fall by the edge of the sword and shall be led away captive to all the nations;
Part 2. The Gathering and Redemption of Israel: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles until the time of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

This eschatology reported from the mouth of Jesus is alone reported in Luke. Matthew and mark are oblivious to it and Paul most certainly is ignorant of it. Paul, in fact, clings onto the precept that Jesus will appear at any moment in the Clouds and catch all of the elect away into the Clouds with him and take them to heaven. This, of course, does not take into consideration the verses of Matthew which hint at Luke's precepts:

Matthew 25.31 When the Son of Man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the Throne of Glory.
25.32 And before him shall be gathered all nations; and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats.
25.33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
25.34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye, blessed of my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.
25.46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment; but the righteous into life eternal.

In Matthew there is a claim of a Kingdom and the Throne of Righteousness. By comparison to Old Testament Prophesy we have to say that this, at the least, envisions a material kingdom claimed by Christ in the very terms described so clearly in the Old Testament prophets.

This teaching was done two days before the Passover and Christ's death. Some of the teachings, according to Luke, were done in the temple, to ten men (ten men represent a minimum quorum, according to the Essenes), and others on the Mount of Olives. Others, we can see in our matrix, Luke shows were taught early in Jesus' Ministry, when he realized he must go to Jerusalem to suffer. We compare his comments in Luke which were about the time of the Transfiguration but incorporated in Matthew at the Mount of Olives pre-Passover teaching and prophesy:

Line 1533 — I am come to send fire on earth. What will I if it be already kindled?
Line 1535 — Suppose ye that I come to give peace on earth? I tell you nay, but rather division. Henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, father shall be divided against son...

Compare in the Gospel of Thomas:

Thomas (10) I have cast fire upon the world, and see, I am guarding it until it blazes.
(16) Men think, perhaps, that it is peace which I have come to cast upon the world. They do not know that it is dissension..for there will be five in a house..and father divided against son..

Here we have a confirmation from the Gospel of Thomas the comment recorded by Luke alone of the synoptic gospels. The perception in Luke was a profound awareness that Jesus' visitation would result in Jerusalem being desolated and the purification, so to speak, of the people with fire — which thing is exactly how the Old Testament prophets perceived the Scattering Event of Israel.

Matthew and Mark do not really catch this vision. But correlated with the vision is the fact that Jesus' person become the thing which creates the judgment of Israel. This, again, is very scriptural and is evidenced in the prophesy and parable of Hosea concerning Jezreel and his brother-Messiah, Loammi. Jezreel is murdered and God decides to take out his vengeance against hose perpetrators of his death: Israel. Then the day comes that God sends forth Loammi to stand in the valley of Israel to proclaim, Thou art not my people. This follows the scenario of God turning His Face from Israel and unto another and call His Chosen by another name. Then, however, God sends Loammi forth in that very same day when He declared Thou art not my people to declare, Thou art now my people. Loammi becomes, then, the figure of redemption. He represents, in fact, the Deliverer who in prophesy is charged with standing in the valley of Jehoshaphat and declaring: Thou art my people.

It so happens that Jesus compared the Second Coming in his prophesy in like terms!

In Matthew, after separating the sheep from the goats (the Messiah shall judge between cattle and cattle, says Ezekiel) the goats are condemned to eternal fire and damnation.

Luke 13.25 When once the master of the house is risen up, and hath shut to the door, and ye begin to stand without, and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, Lord, open unto us: and he shall answer and say unto you, I know you not whence ye are.
13.27 But He shall say, I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity.
13.28 There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the Kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out...And they shall come from the east, and from the west, and from the north, and from the south, and shall sit down in the Kingdom of God.

Luke is aware of Scripture! More importantly, we hope, he has remembered Jesus remembering scripture including the validity of the prophets and the Law! Paul, again, seems to be oblivious to this Kingdom of God where all men gather from all the corners of the earth and sit down in rest and Peace.

The gospel here presented shows a Jesus addressing the people of the Latter Days, separating the sheep from the goats (as Moses separated Jethro's sheep) and calling forth all men to come to Him and sit down! This is Scriptural. Be still. Sit down and listen.

Salvation Comes Through Jesus

For two thousand years Christians have been preaching this message. They believed that through belief in Jesus alone one achieves Salvation. Peter agreed, but felt that one's works had an affect on Salvation. It was not enough to believe in Jesus. One must also be a good Jew. That is, one must become circumcised and obey the food laws. Paul taught the contrary for the reasons mentioned earlier.

The evening of the Passover (probably the second Passover of Jesus' ministry — not the third) Jesus said that one of those among the twelve apostles would betray him. The one who would betray him was Judas, who was entrusted to carry the congregation's money and being perhaps a relative of Jesus. Jesus said of him: Woe unto him who betrays me; better he be not born (Line 1619). This is recorded by all three synoptic gospels but not by the Gospel of John. The Gospel of John records Jesus not as a condemning person but rather with more passion.

After this all four gospels record Jesus performing the breaking of the bread and serving the wine ceremony described earlier in the Dead Sea Scrolls. First, as shown in the Dead Sea Scrolls tradition, He brake the bread and passed it, and then took a cup, drank from it, and passed it. In doing so, he said some remarkable things, which, incidentally, are in full character of the Salvation Personality reviewed earlier.

Line 1625 — Breaking the bread, He said this is my body, eat it.
Line 1630 — Drinking of the cup, He said, this is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for [the remission of sins] you.

Everything Jesus had said prior to this occasion led up to these statements. He believed He was the Suffering Messiah and being that thing knew that His Blood, which was about to be claimed by the pharisees, would be for Atonement of sins. From the Transfiguration until this moment the gospels say he kept talking about this all the time. Now it is one thing to talk about oneÕs martyrdom being for the atonement of sin; it is another thing to translate that martyrdom into the one feast which meant to all Jews, Salvation: For He translated His very being into the Sacrificial Lamb of Passover. We recall that God, through Moses, told the Children of Israel to mark the lintels of their doors with the blood of a lamb and precook the lamb, being ready to leave in the middle of the night at any moment. Salvation, in the scenario out of Egypt, could come at any moment and the children of Israel were told to be prepared to leave any moment.

We have seen Jesus's teachings along the same lines: Salvation, when the Son of Man returns in the Clouds of Heaven, or with the Cloud of Heaven, could be at any moment. Only God knows the day and the hour. Be ready, He said, for He could come as a thief in the night.

Peter recalled these sayings, as did Paul. Peter also reminded his readers that one day in the day of the Lord is as a thousand years (referring to the Book of Enoch indirectly). Paul believed he would see Jesus soon. But until that time comes, what are you to do?

Line 1630 — Remember His Testimony which is His blood shed for the remission of sins!

Then Jesus said:

Line 1637 — I will not drink of the vine henceforth until I drink it new with you in my Father's Kingdom.


Luke 22.18 For I say I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the Kingdom of God shall come.

Here we have received the pledge of a Nazarite! Until this moment Jesus was a wine imbiber, not capable of being put in the same holy class as John the Baptist, who refrained, as a Nazarite should, from cutting his hair and drinking wine. The fact that Jesus has proclaimed that He would not drink another drop of wine until the Kingdom of God shall come answers to our point that He expected the Kingdom to come in the future, that in reality the Kingdom could not be seen until Judgment time, even though, as He believed, the Kingdom is within you and comes not with perception.

Drawing upon a prophesy of Jeremiah and even, perhaps of Zechariah, Jesus then compared himself to the thing which causes the scattering of the Word of God. Smite the shepherd, he said, and the sheep shall be scattered abroad. This piece of scripture really applies to the scattering of the Children of Israel among the nations. Through the Scattering so is scattered the Word of God. And then, in another place of prophesy, God says that when the power of the people is diminished He shall then bring them back to their Holy mountain. This compares to the gospel's perception of until the time of the Gentile be fulfilled...then will the Children of Israel be restored to their land.

Jesus knew that the Children of Israel would be scattered and probably identified Himself as a cause by which they are scattered. It is apparent in history that He was not the cause, but, for the wickedness of Israel, which had to have been demonstrated in the scenario of the Suffering Messiah, the people are scattered. Again, we refer to Hosea for this expectation. And ironically this expectation still exists today. The Oral Torah anticipates that through the blood of Messiah ben Joseph (at the hand of Gog) the Restored people will be momentarily exiled in the desert of Sinai (for forty years) and then gathered together by none else than Messiah ben David!

Then after supper Jesus and his apostles went to the Garden of Gethsemane to pray. Luke adds, line 1684, that He kneeled down about a stone's cast away from them. That is quite a distance away. Somehow, however, his prayers were overheard, in spite of the great distance. There are scenes, in the other gospels, however, which show Jesus coming back to Peter and the others, on several occasions, and chastising them because they had fallen asleep while He was earnestly praying. Somehow, in spite of the fact that the apostles were sleeping, we know what Jesus prayed while they slept (we also know he sweat blood).

Luke confirms some things upon which the Gospel of John elaborates: Jesus prayed that the disciples would not be led into temptation, something that He had previously put in the Lord's Prayer. Then John says:

John 17.18 As thou [Father] hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.
17.21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

What is not so obvious but well hinted at in the synoptic gospels the Gospel of John reaches right to the point: Jesus and the Father are One in being. Yet, he says, as in John 16.26, I will pray the father for you, and sets himself as the intercessor between man and God. In the Gospel of John there is no doubt that Jesus is the intercessor and that He is the model by which Judgment shall come:

John 14.11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very workÕs sake.
14.12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

Here Jesus has followed the doctrine we have seen earlier. His blood is Salvation and for the remission of sin. If you believe in him, even, you can cause mountains to move. Whatsoever you wish, in fact, He will cause to be done for you. Thus, as seen earlier, as illustrated at the end of the Gospel of Mark, there was a profound impression upon the disciples that even if they drank poison they would be protected from it. Jesus had made such an impression on these men that they felt, after his death, whatever they did He would intercede for them on their behalf. He had become, in their minds, not only their intercessor but a guarantee from God. This was clearly not invented by gospel writers trying to personify a powerful personality — a man — into God himself. This is the record of a man who believed without a doubt, and showed it thoroughly in all of his teachings, that He believed He is a Servant of God which is the same as God Himself. That is, to draw the best comparison, though the Son of God epitaph is used, we prefer the epitaph As God, (used by Clement) used by God Himself to describe Moses's mission. For the Messiah Deliverer is created as another like Moses, whom God said shall be [in my stead] as God. You cannot get closer to describing God in the flesh than this.

John 14.13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
14.14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

What a remarkable statement! This is the same personality that said Drink this blood of the New Testament which is shed for the remission of sins. The man clearly understood or bloomed into the very thing required by chapter 53 of Isaiah! Having the power of being that thing, gave Him the power, from His own point of view, to forgive Sins — a thing only bestowed upon God Himself. Jesus had most definitely conveyed the image that through the Father He carried the powers of the almighty God. The greatest power, of course, is to forgive sins! Why not? He was designed, from His point of view, as the Forgiveness of sin. That is what Isaiah chapter 53 talks about. We can see here how Jesus had to have thought quite a bit about this mission. If his blood is shed for the remission of sin, then while alive, at least, His Word ought to also be good for forgiveness of sin. This, in fact, became one of the first charges against Jesus. When He came across Mary Magdalene, who was possessed of seven devils, he freed her; then, on another occasion he forgave a woman who was about to be stoned for adultery. He replied, He who is free from sin, let him cast the first stone at this woman. There was no man who could answer to this. The woman thanked him for saving her life. What did he answer? These men did not condemn thee; neither can I. So go thy way and sin no more. The Pharisees rose up against him over this, asking how it is that this man can claim to forgive sins!

John 14.15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.
14.19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me; because I live, ye shall live also.

The crux of the matter, as relating to Jesus, is that He gave His Word that if you believe in Him you will have eternal life. You will, in fact, be saved unto the Kingdom. Though He prophesied that people would hate his disciples for his name's sake, and though they would be scattered, and though, as the gospel of John puts it, men would consider it a good deed to kill his disciples, Jesus asked them to remain true to his teachings! He promised those who would remain true to him that they would receive as their reward eternal life. For we have the precept of his resurrection:

because I live, ye shall live also!

Nevertheless (line 1687) Jesus prayed that what would come out of his teachings would not be his death. For he prayed, contradicting our thesis of blood atonement, that if thou be willing remove this cup from me. Jesus, in this representation, was an unwilling Messiah! Consider it.

The Conflict leading to Jesus's martyrdom

Line 1720 — Jesus is betrayed by a kiss. The gospels seem to break down once again here. We have seen where Jesus was reported to have been teaching daily in the temple (Luke 19.47); therefore he ought to have been easily recognizable from that standpoint. The interchanges between Him and the High Priests over violations of the Sabbath and even overthrowing the tables of the money changers in the temple are other reasons why Jesus ought to have been easily recognizable. The business about Jesus being betrayed by a kiss, which Judas used as a sign to point out Jesus to the priests, does not seem in order. We know that Joseph of Arimathaea, perhaps the co-leader of the Sanhedrim with Joseph Caiaphas, as well as Nicodemus, another leader of the Sanhedrim, ought to have known where Jesus hung out. Since they were secret disciples of Jesus, it is furthermore strange that they did not send someone to warn Jesus of those coming to arrest Him. His presence in the temple was quite frequent and certainly brought to the awareness of the priests, who overheard him speaking on things in which they disagreed. For we are informed by Jewish scholars that the temple priests were basically Sadducees and the gospels (line 1242) tell us that they did not believe in the resurrection of the dead, as related in the book of Daniel. They believed in following the Law of Moses but stopped at the belief that one's life does not end with death. When one dies, they believed, one becomes nothing more than a habitat for worms.

The argument against the Resurrection does not seem to be the major conflict between Jesus and the priests, however. The conflict arises not so much between Jesus and the Sadducees but the pharisees and the scribes and Jesus. The pharisees believed in the basic tenentes which Jesus believed. Or, to put it another way, if Jesus were raised in any Jewish sect, His teachings indicate that He probably was raised as a Pharisee (we note that His Aunt Mary and Uncle Cleophas (his father's brother) were pharisees). His objection to the pharisees was that they did not practice what they preached and they raised tithes well beyond that authorized in the law. They had become fat cats who lived off of the pork barrel of the temple, wearing fine clothes and having rich homes. To Jesus the pharisees were more concerned about good seats in the synagogue or great names in the market place than they were concerned about God. Their teachings probably justified their lifestyle and pursuit of riches. By comparison, the modern ministry of America pretty well follow in the footsteps of the pharisees. The Television Ministers' violations of trust -and lust for wealth — in our day are well known and far too prevalent to be needful to mention here and well describe what Jesus objected to in His Day. Few ministers would survive Jesus's critical eye today.

The Scribes are often protagonists mentioned in conflicts between Jesus and the priesthood. The most apt description Jesus used against them was as whitened sepulchers which lay in wait to entrap men to their death. The Scribes, we understand, were the Lawyers of the day who were professionals in the Law. Like lawyers of our day, they probably encouraged people to go to court. Jesus said they would lead people to enter into a conflict but not enter in themselves. This description fits perfectly what most lawyers in America do in this day.

Jesus's Kingdom is not material

Beginning with line 1234 we see the entire entourage of sects coming to Jesus, each with a question. Each question deals with the main issues producing the conflict leading to Jesus's death: certain pharisees (and Herodians) came to him asking whether it was lawful to pay tribute to Caesar, hoping to catch Him in an act of disloyalty, or treason, They began, saying,

Luke 20.21 Master we know that thou sayest and teachest rightly, neither acceptest thou the person of any, but teachest the way of God truly:
20.22 Is it lawful for us to give tribute unto Caesar, or no?
20.23 But He perceived their craftiness, and said unto them, Why tempt ye me?
20.24 Shew me a penny. Whose image and superscription hath it? They answered and said, Caesar's.
20.25 And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's.

In the Gospel of Thomas Jesus adds: and render unto me that which is mine. To understand this inquiry in its proper perspective we ought to rearrange the order of the questioning. A Lawyer (line 1250) was, according to Matthew and Mark, later reported to have asked, What is the greatest commandment? (Luke has the question occurring ten chapters earlier). The answer was to love thy God with all thy heart and soul. Tithe only to Him and no one else. But upon the Roman coins was an image which required worship. As discussed earlier the Roman emperors were often deified. The emperor, Vespasian, who would (in less than forty years hence) sack Jerusalem, was one who was deified. What was on the face of the coin was a deified emperor. It would be disloyal, even treason, to deny worship of him as a god. The Jews, of course, spurned the requirement of worshipping Caesar. Likewise, Jesus wisely avoided the trap they had set for Him and acknowledged that Caesar ought to be given that which is his; and God, being of the Immaterial world, must be rendered things of the Spirit. Again, Jesus's entire perspective of His Mission was to convey the merits of God's immaterial interests in earth. This is illustrated in John's Gospel when Jesus is asked whether He is the King of the Jews (the synoptic gospels are silent concerning this answer):

John 18.33 Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus and said unto him, Art thou the king of the Jews?
18.34 Jesus answered him, sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?
18.35 Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?
18.36 Jesus answered, My Kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

Unlike the Deliverer Messiah, whose Kingdom is over the whole earth, where all men would bow down to him, Jesus saw himself at the head of an immaterial kingdom of God. All of His teachings pointed in that direction. His disciples desired to have Him reach for the Throne of the Kingdom; rather than striving directly towards that end, he fled from them. Frequently we see Jesus, in fact, fleeing away from the press of people around Him. From the gospels we see a man often leaving the maddening crowd to a place by Himself to pray.

Though Jesus's answer to Pilate was clear, posing Himself as a Spiritual King over a Spiritual Kingdom, the Gospel of John finds it necessary to press the issue to converge back with the synoptic gospels concerning the issue of being a King of Israel.

John 18.37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness to the Truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.

Here Jesus saw Himself as the King of Truth or, as the Scriptures would write it: King of Righteousness. That name belonged to Melkizedek! Pilate then asked what Truth is, but denying Jesus the opportunity to answer went out to the people and said that he could find no fault in the man at all.

Leading up to the accusation, Jesus had previously entered Jerusalem with his disciples going ahead of him, laying palm branches before Him, crying Hosanna to the son of David. The Son of David is the prophetic epitaph for the Messiah. Although we know this from the many Scriptures of the Old Testament, others not so familiar (typically the Gentile) would not be expected to know this. So the Gospel of John makes the statement clear:

Confusion over the Son of David

John 12.9 Much people of the Jews therefore knew that he was there: and they came not for JesusÕs sake only, but that they might see Lazarus also, whom he had raised from the dead.
12.10 But the Chief priests consulted that they might put Lazarus also to death;
12.11 Because that by reason of him many of the Jews went away and believed on Jesus.
12.12 On the next day much people that were come to the feast, when they heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem,
12.13 Took branches of palm trees, and went forth to meet him, and cried, Hosanna: Blessed is the King of Israel that cometh in the name of the Lord.

The response of the priests, seeing this, would have been expected to be one of reprimand. What did they say? At first they asked, Who is this? The multitude answered (Matthew 21.11) This is Jesus the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee. Fine, Jesus is a prophet in the minds of the same people who just earlier had called him the Messiah (Son of David)!

Compare, then, the difference between line 1181, Hosanna to the Son of David, to Hosanna: blessed is the King of Israel. The name, Son of David, acknowledges Messiahship, The Anointed One of Israel. The name, King of Israel, on the other hand, can imply Messiahship or simply a political acclamation towards Him who ought to be king. We suspect that King Herod would have appreciated being called King of Israel. Being called as such would not necessarily have implied an acknowledgement of Messiahship. We suspect, to make the acclamation clear, the disciples ought to have said, Hosanna, thou Son of David, King of Israel. This then would have pointed, without a doubt, to the combination of His Political and spiritual charge in One name, Messiah King, and therefore a rival to both Herod and the Roman government. Without a question the Messiah King of Israel, as anticipated in the Dead Sea Scrolls and by the Oral Torah, is both a Spiritual King and Political Head of Israel. He is both High Priest and Lawgiver. Thus we may recall Genesis 49.10 which has been interpreted to relate to Jesus:

Genesis 49.10 The Scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the Lawgiver from between His Feet, Until Shiloh come and unto Him shall the gathering of the people be.

This verse strikes at the core of our argument and acknowledges that the Messiah will hold both the Scepter over Israel and also the Lawgiver. Since all Law cometh from God, the Messiah King is also expected to be the Mouth of God and reign, as Moses before Him, as God on earth. This is reflected in the name, Immanuel, meaning, as we have so often noted, God is with us. Anyone pointing to such a man must acknowledge that He is as God on earth.

Now the man, Israel, set the inheritance after Abraham. Genesis 49.10 sets that inheritance in Judah first and then, when Shiloh comes, in Shiloh. Shiloh, being identified separate from Judah, becomes our mystery man and a thing much debated by the rabbis from Hillel's time — and before the time of Jesus — until now. Because the prophets, Isaiah and Jeremiah, for instance, agree that the Messiah shall be the Son of David, and, as Malachi reported, even born in Bethlehem, Judah, as David was born there before Him, there can be no doubt that the Messiah King is expected to be a Son of David. There also can be no doubt that any appellation implying one ought to be King over Israel which is said with the epitaph, Son of David, automatically must be understood as an acknowledgment that that person is the expected King Messiah of whom all the prophets spoke, including Israel's prophesy in Genesis 49.10. And, furthermore, just as Psalm 2 says, He is also the Son of God: for thou art my son; this day I have begotten thee. So acclamations towards such an individual could clearly be made as the Son of David, or even Son of God.

As argued earlier, however, it is probable that the precept, Son of God, was not a frequent appellation said of Jesus and probably did not really become an acknowledgment of His Divinity until after His Death, when the Disciples had time to sort out who He was. This, as mentioned earlier, is evidenced in comments acknowledging Him as a prophet of God or even another Elijah. Even when reports of His Body being missing from the tomb came forth, the gospels show disbelief (that He is risen) among the disciples and apostles. These reports which tend to doubt Jesus's Person and resurrection testify to the fact that He was not recognized as anything more than a prophet among his family and disciples. In turn we can add that the comments in the Gospels, about Jesus being the Son of God, are probably later interpolations, inserted by overzealous scribes after the disciples had time to think about his death and reports of his resurrection. It seems, in fact, that Only Peter, at the time of the transfiguration, realized that Jesus was the Christ which is the Son of God (He argues this case in His Second Epistle). Only Matthew, following perhaps Paul's lead, reports Jesus at that time as being identified as both Messiah and Son of God. Mark and Luke, we have seen, reported the event differently, with Peter acknowledging Jesus simply as the Messiah (Christ).

The fact that the gospels do not acknowledge Peter's comment with the same report, agreeing that they understand Jesus to not only be the Messiah but also The Son of God, tells us that even when the Gospels of Mark and Luke were written there was some confusion over Jesus's divinity. Had they known, for instance, what we know, they would have had no hesitation identifying (and explaining) the Messiah as also the Son of God. But they did not know what we, you and I, know.

In any event, there is no doubt that the Messiah is expected to be both King (holding the Scepter of Israel) and Lawgiver, as Moses. And these things shall reside in Judah, said the prophesy of Israel, until Shiloh comes. And Shiloh means peace. When Peace comes the Scepter and Lawgiver may be changed from Judah to another place.

Other rabbis, from time eternal, have had trouble sorting this out and in fact reworded the prophesy to reflect a continued expectation that the Scepter and Lawgiver will never depart from Judah and that, in meeting this expectation, Shiloh must be of Judah. The emphasis on such rewrites of scripture is, of course, to reassure the hearer that the Messiah King in all events will be of Judah, meaning, therefore, The Son of David. The Dead Sea Scrolls and Oral Torah resolve the expectation of Another, such as Shiloh, in the doctrine of Two Messiahs, of one the Son of David and the other of Israel. One is Messiah King and the other is Messiah High Priest. This expectation, in fact, allows us to read Israel's prophesy in this manner:

The Messiah King shall be of Judah, truly a Son of David; and the Scepter and Lawgiver shall be in Him until Shiloh Comes.

Shiloh, following this thesis, need not necessarily be of the Son of David and may carry the appellation of Son of Israel or simply, Israel. In the Dead Sea Scrolls and even the Oral Torah there is a Lay King of David and a Priest King of Aaron and Israel (because the Psalms bless Aaron and Israel as well as David). Then, as we have seen earlier, the Dead Sea Scrolls identify this Priest King as Melkizedek, King of Righteousness. We have seen in the gospel presentation of John that Jesus answered Pilate that He was born a King to bear Witness to the Truth. This follows the thesis from John that the Messiah is really a character called The Word of God — which lives eternally — and, as seen in Revelation upon The First Resurrection appears to judge the World. This Character, The Word, has an inscription upon His Thigh which signifies what He really is: He is Faithful and True.

The Word is a character who is faithful and True to the Bible, the Word of God! It is noteworthy that this character, as the character in Ezra 4, has a mouth which is as a flaming sword or, as in Isaiah, his mouth has a two edged sword with which He defeats the nations. We have seen in Isaiah concerning this character whose mouth is a sword that He is called Israel. Now correlated with the character The Word, in Revelation, is a prior scene of an Angel sitting upon a cloud; and he is called, one like unto the Son of Man — whose robes are stained from the winepress of the Lord — and is asked to extend his sickle and reap the world. He carries the epithet of the Deliverer Messiah in Isaiah: one who comes from Edom, whose robes from Bozrah, are stained from the winepress of the Lord. The Deliverer Messiah, called The Word, who is Faithful and True, appears at the time God takes His Wrath out against the nations, after the Children of Israel had been gathered back to the Holy Land, from exile, again. We have seen from the Oral Torah that rabbis writing as late as the fifteenth to seventeenth centuries believed that at the moment the Jews are returned from exile to the Holy Land their Messiah King would come. This Messiah King would have to be the character called The Word, whose name in Isaiah had been identified as Israel. Thus, with the character called The Word mentioned in Revelation and Isaiah we have the acknowledgment that He is of Israel and, in order to be Faithful and True, knows the Bible or Word of God and defends it. This character would not, therefore, be expected to agree with Paul and the modern ministry that the Bible is by inspiration and subject to interpretation. Furthermore, as we have seen so clearly spelled out in the Psalms, he must fully support the Torah, the Law.

Only Jesus claimed Messiahship on the basis of being the Son of David. This is clear in the Gospels. Only Jesus has claimed, to date, to hold the Scepter epitaph in His hands, fulfilling a prophesy of Genesis 49.10. As for Him claiming the epitaph of the Lawgiver, it is important to note that the Lawgiver epitaph came from Moses. For what, then, is Moses remembered? as Deliverer of the Children of Israel from exile and provider of the New Covenant of God. Therefore, in order for Jesus to claim the Lawgiver epitaph He had to provide a New Covenant at the time the Children of Israel were returned from exile. He neither provided a New Covenant in His Time nor were the Children of Israel returned from exile at his time in 33 A.D. Nor could He claim to be Messiah named Peace unto whom all the gathering of the people shall be, since he had eliminated himself from that characterization by responding to the name, Son of David.

While it is apparent that Jesus had not sorted this out completely in His Mind before the transfiguration, afterwards, having contemplated the fate of the Suffering Messiah, He concluded He would appear in the Deliverance as Judge, the Son of Man coming in the clouds of Heaven, in the Last Days. The Gospels of John and Luke understood this message, and John had it down almost to perfection in His composition of Revelation. These gospels, we might add, since they Defer the Messiah Deliverer Judge to the far future, had to recognize that Jesus had not brought a New Covenant and it would come with Him in the future. Otherwise, with the New Covenant being in Jesus, the Deliverer Messiah would be robbed of his official duty of bringing a New Covenant at the time Israel is gathered and restored to its land, as today.

We don't know what John was thinking when he wrote the character The Word who is Faithful and True. We hardly could expect him to think, however, that The Word would agree, as Paul had argued, that the Law (the Torah) is now passed away and circumcision is no longer required. Otherwise The Word — as we saw clearly spelled out in the Psalms — could not be called Faithful and True! While we know that Luke's Gospel seems biased to the Jews, concluding how the apostles continued (faithfully) to worship in the temple from then on), the Gospel of John seems to avoid the issue of the Law altogether and focuses upon Jesus from a different perspective: as The Word Himself who had come to save souls and give the Promise of Everlasting Life, which, without naming itself as The New Covenant, has the potential of a New Covenant. All of the gospels do agree upon this fact, that Jesus believed that those who believed in Him would be granted everlasting life in His Spiritual Kingdom of God. This, in fact, is the thesis of Jesus's Kingdom: that He will rule on earth as Spiritual King until the great and terrible Day of the Lord, which is a day of judgment and, therefore, the Promised Day of Peace. The prophets and, once again, the Oral Torah, agree that one of the Names of the Messiah is Peace. It is the Deliverer Messiah of the Latter Days (The Word) who in fact brings an everlasting Peace to the world.

When Jesus was asked whether He is is that Messiah King of Israel, or even king of Israel, like Herod, He replied that His Kingdom was not of this world. This reply, however, cannot be maintained as an answer by the Latter Day Messiah. For the Latter Day Messiah brings forth Judgment unto Truth (as Isaiah chapter 53 says By His knowledge He shall justify many) and convicts the wicked to death. Contrast this with Jesus's statement that he had come to Save men's lives. Unlike Jesus's mission, the Deliverer Messiah presides at a time when all the nations are brought forth into battle together in judgment, when the Lord rains down fire and brimstone upon them. All of those who were against My People Israel are judged. So the Messiah King of the Latter Days, who brings forth Peace out of His Judgment, has an interest in not only the Spiritual Kingdom of God but the enforcement of God's Truth upon all men. His Kingdom is both Spiritual and Material. And He cannot acknowledge any other King or sovereign greater than Himself. He cannot answer, for instance, that one may give to Caesar what is His and to God what is His. For God, in the Latter Days, makes it clear that all men will bow down to Him. Kings and Princes will Marvel at God's Messiah King and will acknowledge His Sovereignty over them. This, in fact, is reflected in the promises of Making a New Covenant, or even giving the Messiah as a New Covenant, in the Latter Days. We have shown clearly that the Latter Days of the New Covenant are Days in which Israel is restored to the map again. The New Covenant Messiah appears as The Lawgiver, as Moses before Him, and He appears to the Scattered Sheep of Israel.

We have seen that before the Transfiguration, while Jesus passed through Samaria, in the issue of the Syrophonecian woman, Jesus answered her that He had been charged to appear to the scattered sheep of Israel. At that time Jesus acknowledged that he believed that He was fulfilling the Latter Day Messiahship, appearing wheresoever the lost sheep of Israel were scattered. His perspective, then, points to the fact that some of Israel thought that the prophesies of the scattering of Israel, as reported by Isaiah and Jeremiah, etc., had been fulfilled. Jesus was no less confused on this issue than the common priests and rabbis. Like the Dead Sea Scrolls, Jesus thought that the Latter Days were coming at any moment and that His Mission involved the End of Days (Paul really became focused upon this and argues that Jesus as Christ, having come, had so to speak closed the book, justifying a New Gospel or New Testament of God). But after the transfiguration Jesus realized that He must be sacrificed as the Suffering Messiah in Isaiah 53 and therefore must be raised up again to claim His Kingdom from death.

Thus he began speaking of Himself coming again as The Son of Man in the Clouds of Heaven, as described by Daniel. The hitch here, however, is that Jesus had all along called Himself the Son of Man. The Messiah King described by Daniel, and being without a doubt a King ruling over all mankind, materially and spiritually, is not called Son of Man. He is called One Like the Son of Man! Here, then, is a problem for you: By what name will Jesus on His Second Coming, in Judgment, to reign as King Messiah, fulfilling Daniel's prophesy, call Himself? If He calls Himself the Son of Man (as suggested in Line 904) He has a problem, doesn't He? He in truth must say, I am One Like the Son of Man. And once He says this He indicates a separation between Himself and the Son of Man, Jesus. Simply speaking, by saying He is One like the Son of Man, He admits He is Another. What a dilemma! The Latter Day Deliverer Messiah, to fulfill prophesy, must be called by those who observed Him as One like the Son of Man!

Now those who are familiar with this distinction, that the Deliverer Messiah is One like the Son of Man, would wonder whom Jesus was talking about when he referred to the Son of Man. Who is this Son of Man, the pharisees finally did ask. Only JohnÕs gospel, appreciating the difference between the Son of Man and One like the Son of Man, mentions the pharisees questioning Jesus on his name, Son of Man. Jesus answered the question concerning the Son of Man as being The Light [of God], which is understood to be The Word and:

John 12.35 While ye have light, believe in the light, that ye may be children of light. These things spake Jesus and departed and did hide himself from them.
12.37 But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him.

Thus we have the Son of Man ending his expression of himself in the context of the Light of God, which is The Word of God. This expression comes from the Psalms and is traced to the books of Adam and Eve and Enoch.
When Jesus commented in his pogrom against the Pharisees, the chief priests and scribes, He said in Matthew:

Matthew 23.29 Ye shall not see me henceforth Ôtill ye shall say, Blessed is he who cometh in the name of the Lord.

JohnÕs Gospel modified the acclamation made before Jesus when He rode into Jerusalem, changing it from Hosanna to the Son of David to Hosanna: Blessed is the King of Israel that cometh in the name of the Lord. JohnÕs Gospel, unlike Revelation, concludes at the moment Jesus entered Jerusalem that it was the Day of Judgment:

John 12.31 Now is the Judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.
12.32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.
12.33 This he said, signifying what death he should die.
12.34 The people answered him, We have heard out of the law that Christ abideth forever: and how sayest thou, The Son of man must be lifted up? Who is this Son of Man?
12.35 Then Jesus said unto them, Yet a little while is the light with you...

The speech recorded by John continues talking about Judgment and the Light of God. This necessarily points to Isaiah 41 and 61 which pertain to the Latter Day Deliverer Messiah who is a Light unto the Gentile and appears when Israel is Restored to the land from exile. While commenting upon the fact that now is the prince of this world judged and cast out ( a comment referring to The WordÕs act, at the time of the First Resurrection, in Revelation) the speech then transforms itself into a projection of the Son of ManÕs Role in the Future Judgment, transforming Jesus's role back into the role of Salvation, rather than Judgment:

Please beam me back up to Son of Man Table of Contents.html
Please beam me up to Maravot.home.html


Launched: 1.15.05 — |

Updated: 3.20.06; 4.02.10

Copyright © 1990-2010 Maravot. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 1990-2010 Mel Copeland. All rights reserved