Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: The Father's house

Expand Messages
  • george.smith
    Amen! Great post! In Christ, George... ... the scriptural meaning of Father s house. The word house, with Father, or God, or Lord, attached, in some
    Message 1 of 7 , Oct 6, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Amen! Great post!

      In Christ, George...

      --- In Biblical_Unitarian@yahoogroups.com, "Bruce" <brucelyon1942@...>
      wrote:
      >
      > The Father's House: John 14:2
      >
      >
      > This passage is commonly misinterpreted, so let us endeavor to find
      the scriptural meaning of "Father's house." The word "house," with
      Father, or God, or Lord, attached, in some places denotes the
      tabernacle; in other places the temple; and still in others the church,
      because God is specially present, and these in a special manner belong
      unto Him. So Jerusalem, owing to its Theocratic relationship, containing
      the throne of David, being the capital of the Messianic king, being the
      place where God will dwell again, etc., is called "the house of the
      Lord," Ps. 122, Zech 8, etc., just as Nebuchadnezzar designated the city
      Babylon (Dan 4:30) "the house of the Kingdom."
      >
      > It is His "habitation" or "dwelling place," because it is specially
      covenanted to Him, Ps. 132:13,14 "For the Lord hath chosen Zion; he hath
      desired it for his habitation. This is my rest forever; here will I
      dwell for I have desired it," etc. Here it is that God will again
      through his Son - who is also the promised seed of David to occupy
      (according to oath) David's throne - manifest his rulership. In the
      prophetic delineations, this idea of "a house," "a dwelling-place,"
      etc., is inseparably connected with that of the Kingdom; that is, it is
      the house of the Kingdom in which the regal representations are
      exhibited, and to which all must look for the central place of dominion.
      It must not be separated from the Kingdom; it being the head of the
      Kingdom and designed for its establishment and perpetuation. So closely
      are the two united, that the Kingdom itself - flowing out of this
      "house" - is called "the house" that was found and left desolate by
      Jesus (Matt 23:38 etc.) "the tabernacle of David fallen" and in ruins,
      or the royal house of David (called "house" and "mine house" i.e.
      adopted as God's in 2 Sam 7:1 and 1 Chron 17:11-27).
      >
      > To express ourselves more accurately, "the house" of David becoming
      God's "house" in virtue of His Son being incorporated to constitute the
      Theocratic King contemplated, it and the Kingdom are associated (compare
      to Gen 41:40) ideas, with which Jerusalem as the place of special royal
      manifestation and residence is annexed; the one virtually and
      necessarily recalling the other. This, therefore, explains why in the
      prophecies they are interchangeably used; the one suggesting and being
      contained in the other. The word "house" linked with God, naturally
      suggests a particular relationship; that He in some manner is identified
      with it; and this is fully sustained in the position that Jerusalem will
      occupy (Zech 8:3) in the restored Theocratic arrangement.
      >
      >
      > Let us closely follow the guiding of Scripture and see the result.
      Turn e.g. to Micah 3:12 and Zion shall "be ploughed as a field, and
      Jerusalem shall become heaps, and the mountain of the house as the high
      places of the forest." Here the once favored city of God and the Kingdom
      is described as fallen. "But (Micah 4:1-3) in the the last days" all
      this is to be changed; a restoration is asserted of the same Zion, the
      identical Jerusalem and mountain, and notice, it is expressly affirmed,
      when this restitution takes place, to be God's "house," in the
      expressions, "the mountain of the house of the Lord," "the house of the
      God of Jacob," with the location definitely fixed in the words: "for the
      law shall go forth of Zion and the Word of the Lord from Jerusalem"
      (comp. Isa. 2:1-4 "the mountain of the Lord's house," etc.) No wonder
      that Jews acquainted with prophecy understood Jesus by "the Father's
      house" to refer to these very predictions where it is geographically
      portrayed (for evidence, see, e.g. the opinion of the disciples, who
      heard Jesus, indirectly or rather directly given Acts 1:6)
      >
      > Just as Jerusalem is called "the throne of the Lord" (Jer. 3:17),
      being "the city of the great King," "the city of our God" (Ps. 48:1-2)
      "the holy mountain" and "the mountain of the Lord of hosts" (Zech 8:3)
      "a crown of glory in the hand of the Lord and a royal diadem in the hand
      of thy God" (Isa. 62:3) because "the delight" of God and married to Him
      (i.e. intimately united to Him) - so Jerusalem is designated "the house
      of God," etc. The word "Father" joined to it specially recalled the fact
      that God the Father is there as promised; that the Father is the One who
      bestows (Dan. 7) "the throne of the Lord" upon the Son; that He (by
      covenant) acknowledges David's Son as His Son ruling in His might so
      that Theocratically the Kingdom then established is properly named the
      Kingdom of the Father and also of the Son (comp. e.g. Matt. 26:29; Rev.
      11:15; 2 Pet. 1:11, etc.). Hence the apostles and early Christians,
      placing these predictions in the future at the Second Advent, and well
      knwoing that God the Father would again dwell om and "rejoice in
      Jerusalem" when "the new heaven and new earth" (Isa. 65: 17-19) were
      created, thus making it His Habitation or House, could not interpret
      Christ's language in any other way than as applicable to that period.
      >
      > Let us notice that John gives this promise of the Father's house after
      the determination of Judas to betray Him, and in view of His approaching
      death (see my previous article on how John's gospel reconciles with the
      rest of the New Testament); now if we turn to Luke, we find
      substantially the same promise given in other phraseology which
      corroborates our interpretation. In Luke 22:29, 30, Jesus appoints unto
      them a Kingdom as the Father appointed unto Him, etc., which when
      compared with Matt. 19:28 and other Scripture is, "when the Son of Man
      shall sit on the throne of his glory." The spirit or intent of the
      promise is thus confirmed, and this will be strengthened by considering
      the numerous promises given to the righteous of inheriting, dwelling in,
      abiding in Jerusalem, this Lord's house in the future, and of their
      securing such extraordinary exemption from evils and the reception of
      positive blessings such as can only be attributed to the state of
      believers after the Advent. "The Father's house" and "the Lord's house"
      established at the Second Advent are one and the same. An overwhelming
      stream of prophecy indicates the identity; and Jesus sustains it in the
      most delicate manner by calling it, in view of the relation that he
      sustains in the Theocratic order, "the Father's house," which the
      prophets, in their relationship, did not directly employ, but
      substituted "The house of the Lord," "The city of the Lord, the Zion of
      the Holy One of Israel," etc. The only correct method of dealing with
      the passage under consideration is to regard it as in unison with the
      previously given statements concerning "the Lord's house," which is to
      be witnessed and realized in all its glory in the renewed earth.
      >
      > The Oriental usage must be observed in this connection, which
      represented a Kingdom under the figure of a "house," with the evident
      idea of presenting the notion of a paternal government a relationship of
      parent and children in the headship and obedience, etc. It is only
      necessary to direct attention to Heb. 3:2, 5,6, where it is asserted
      that Moses was faithful in his "house," or government or headship, which
      "house" we, if persevering to the end, shall become, i.e. having
      reference to our associated rulership with Christ, being exactly
      equivalent to Luke 12:32, etc. The tabernacle of God, the tabernacle of
      David incorporated as His, is this house, and it is restores here upon
      the earth - for God dwells in it as Ruler, the Sovereign Head - it being
      a Theocratic house. Note that a "mountain" denotes a Kingdom (see Isa.
      25:6,7; Dan. 2:35; Ezek. 17:23; Isa. 41:15)
      >
      > While we are inclined to think that "mountain" is sometimes used for
      Kingdom, yet it is also employed to designate the ruling authority, the
      places of power and authority, the high places of a Kingdom. And thus it
      seems to be employed n Isa. 2 and Mic. 4, or otherwise we have a
      redundancy in the expression, namely, that the Father's house is already
      the Kingdom as established at Jerusalem, and the mountain must be
      descriptive of the ruling authority, which is thus exalted above all
      others. Thus, e.g. the barren woman "dwelling in a house," Ps. 113:9.
      Remember that in this Jerusalem - this "house of the Lord" - which
      belongs to God in virtue of its Theocratic relationship, there is to be
      another "house" or "building," called "a spiritual house," 1 Pet.
      2:4-10; "God's building," 1 Cor. 3:9; "house of God," 1 Tim. 3:15; 1
      Pet. 4:17. This "house" is incorporated with the other, forming, Eph.
      2:19-22, "an Holy Temple in the Lord," "for the habitation of God
      through the Spirit."
      >
      > In this "house are "many mansions":
      >
      > This idea of mansions simply says that this is the house the saints
      will dwell in, possessing stations of honor and glory. We should notice
      that the disciples are encouraged with the hope of being specially near
      to Him in the very place of royal manifestation, which is explained in
      other passages as sitting upon thrones and judging the twelve tribes of
      Israel, agreeably to the Theocratic ordering. "Many" gives an assurance
      of sufficiency, and, perhaps, of "grades" agreeably to 1 Cor. 15:40, 41.
      These "mansions," while "many," still are only designed for a certain
      class, namely, the elect. This is a peculiar, separate, exalted people
      specially formed for His name, who are associated with Christ in the
      administrations of the Theocratic Kingdom. These are now in process of
      being gathered out of the nations.
      >
      > "If it were not so, I would have told you"
      >
      > Here Jesus appeals to his own truthfulness. Observe the force of this
      reference: (1) It takes for granted that the disciples after having
      preached this Father's house after having identified it with the
      Theocratic-Davidic Kingdom - understood the nature of this house and
      anticipated places of honor and glory in it. Hence the expressive: "If
      it were not so," i.e. if you believed wrong - if your faith and hope
      were erroneous, etc. (2) Jesus confirms them in their expectation of the
      ultimate restoration of this Theocratic "Father's house," in the words:
      "I would have told you." By this expression He affirms that He would
      not, as a faithful Teacher, leave them, if misapprehending the truth,
      under a mistake. He would enlighten them. The honesty of Jesus is
      involved in this matter.
      >
      >
      > "I go to prepare a place for you."
      >
      > By this going Jesus embraces His death and ascent to heaven; and
      includes the provision made for salvation, such as securing His own
      power over death (i.e. becoming David's immortal Son, capable of meeting
      and fulfilling the terms of the covenant) to rescue others, His
      acknowledgement by the Father in exaltation, etc. By thus preparing a
      place for you, He evidently refers to the same inheritance that Peter
      speaks of (1 Pet. 1:4-7) "reserved in heaven," but "ready to be revealed
      in the last time," "at the appearing of Jesus Christ;" or, to the New
      Jerusalem, the special home of the ransomed, which John tells us (Rev.
      21) at the creation of "the new heaven and new earth," "comes down, from
      God, out of heaven," and which, joined to, the earthly Jerusalem, giving
      to the latter its inexpressibly great glory.
      >
      > No one doubts that the New Jerusalem state, whatever it denotes, is
      related to this "Father's house." But when the time comes for this
      Father's house (Theocratic capital) to be restored in its contemplated
      grandeur and predicted splendor, this New Jerusalem "descends out of
      heaven from God," upon an earth from which the curse is repealed,
      forming - owing to its preparation - the great object of attraction,
      power, honor, and magnificence identified with that "house." The
      stations, places or mansions, determined previously, are bestowed upon
      those who are worthy of them.
      >
      > Jesus is not only the Divine Architect of the New Jerusalem, but in
      the full and complete preparation of the place for the Redeemed is
      included the creation of the New Heaven and New Earth, the restoration
      of the Theocratic Kingdom, the making of all things new. By going in the
      way appointed, He is the recognized authority to receive the Kingdom for
      which He makes preparation in heaven itself and completes it at His
      return. He is even engaged in preparing, i.e. qualifying, testing, etc.,
      the believers for the places intended for them in the Father's house.
      >
      > "I will come again and receive you unto myself: that where I am there
      ye may be also":
      >
      > Being present personally, speaking of departing personally, the Coming
      again must also allude to a personal Coming or return ("I am to come
      back"). When Jesus comes again, He remains upon this earth; the Bible
      closes with leaving Him, the saints, and the New Jerusalem here, and it
      is an unwarranted adding to the Word, a violation of an oath-bound
      covenant, a removal of Him from His inheritance, throne of glory, and
      Theocratic Kingdom, to say that He is taken away, or goes away again to
      restore the Theocratic Kingdom, and as the saints are associated with
      Him in rulership, they then receive the portions assigned to them in the
      "Father's house." Hence, 2 Thess. 2:1, 2, etc., "the Coming o our Lord
      Jesus Christ and our gathering unto Him," are united. This Coming is
      itself dependent upon the completion of certain preparatory measures,
      such as the end of the ordained times of Gentile domination. Then when
      all things are ready, "The Christ" comes, sent by the Father, One with
      the Father, to accomplish and perfect the Father's will, and in the
      place, selected in preference to all others, where the Theocratic
      Presence alone is vouchsafed, there will he receive His believing
      brethren that they may ever be with Him.
      >
      > The possession of this "house" is conditional on that Coming- so all
      the prophets, all the sacred writers. In the intermediate state the
      saints are waiting for the period of manifestation, when the reward, the
      crown, the inheritance, etc., is bestowed by the Theocratic King and
      they forever enter the enjoyment of their several "mansions" in "the
      everlasting Kingdom," of which the glorious "Father's house" forms the
      crowning head, adorned and ennobled by the descended New Jerusalem with
      which it is evermore One. Thus the Scriptures harmonize, making covenant
      promises, predictions, and doctrines consistent one with the other,
      referring to one period, one place, one great Kingdom, one magnificent
      royal city (the Old and the New in union) and one mighty King of kings
      swaying lordly dominion, as David's Son and Theocratic Ruler, over all
      the earth restored to the the favor and blessing of the Father.
      >
      > From Keenan Lyon's blog:
      http://everytimewesayhello.blogspot.com/2011/09/fathers-house-john-142.h\
      tml
      >
    • Shelley Cartwright
      agreed amen ________________________________ From: george.smith To: Biblical_Unitarian@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, October 6, 2011
      Message 2 of 7 , Oct 6, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        agreed amen


        From: george.smith <george.smith@...>
        To: Biblical_Unitarian@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Thursday, October 6, 2011 5:04 PM
        Subject: [Biblical_Unitarian] Re: The Father's house

         
        Amen! Great post!

        In Christ, George...

        --- In Biblical_Unitarian@yahoogroups.com, "Bruce" <brucelyon1942@...>
        wrote:
        >
        > The Father's House: John 14:2
        >
        >
        > This passage is commonly misinterpreted, so let us endeavor to find
        the scriptural meaning of "Father's house." The word "house," with
        Father, or God, or Lord, attached, in some places denotes the
        tabernacle; in other places the temple; and still in others the church,
        because God is specially present, and these in a special manner belong
        unto Him. So Jerusalem, owing to its Theocratic relationship, containing
        the throne of David, being the capital of the Messianic king, being the
        place where God will dwell again, etc., is called "the house of the
        Lord," Ps. 122, Zech 8, etc., just as Nebuchadnezzar designated the city
        Babylon (Dan 4:30) "the house of the Kingdom."
        >
        > It is His "habitation" or "dwelling place," because it is specially
        covenanted to Him, Ps. 132:13,14 "For the Lord hath chosen Zion; he hath
        desired it for his habitation. This is my rest forever; here will I
        dwell for I have desired it," etc. Here it is that God will again
        through his Son - who is also the promised seed of David to occupy
        (according to oath) David's throne - manifest his rulership. In the
        prophetic delineations, this idea of "a house," "a dwelling-place,"
        etc., is inseparably connected with that of the Kingdom; that is, it is
        the house of the Kingdom in which the regal representations are
        exhibited, and to which all must look for the central place of dominion.
        It must not be separated from the Kingdom; it being the head of the
        Kingdom and designed for its establishment and perpetuation. So closely
        are the two united, that the Kingdom itself - flowing out of this
        "house" - is called "the house" that was found and left desolate by
        Jesus (Matt 23:38 etc.) "the tabernacle of David fallen" and in ruins,
        or the royal house of David (called "house" and "mine house" i.e.
        adopted as God's in 2 Sam 7:1 and 1 Chron 17:11-27).
        >
        > To express ourselves more accurately, "the house" of David becoming
        God's "house" in virtue of His Son being incorporated to constitute the
        Theocratic King contemplated, it and the Kingdom are associated (compare
        to Gen 41:40) ideas, with which Jerusalem as the place of special royal
        manifestation and residence is annexed; the one virtually and
        necessarily recalling the other. This, therefore, explains why in the
        prophecies they are interchangeably used; the one suggesting and being
        contained in the other. The word "house" linked with God, naturally
        suggests a particular relationship; that He in some manner is identified
        with it; and this is fully sustained in the position that Jerusalem will
        occupy (Zech 8:3) in the restored Theocratic arrangement.
        >
        >
        > Let us closely follow the guiding of Scripture and see the result.
        Turn e.g. to Micah 3:12 and Zion shall "be ploughed as a field, and
        Jerusalem shall become heaps, and the mountain of the house as the high
        places of the forest." Here the once favored city of God and the Kingdom
        is described as fallen. "But (Micah 4:1-3) in the the last days" all
        this is to be changed; a restoration is asserted of the same Zion, the
        identical Jerusalem and mountain, and notice, it is expressly affirmed,
        when this restitution takes place, to be God's "house," in the
        expressions, "the mountain of the house of the Lord," "the house of the
        God of Jacob," with the location definitely fixed in the words: "for the
        law shall go forth of Zion and the Word of the Lord from Jerusalem"
        (comp. Isa. 2:1-4 "the mountain of the Lord's house," etc.) No wonder
        that Jews acquainted with prophecy understood Jesus by "the Father's
        house" to refer to these very predictions where it is geographically
        portrayed (for evidence, see, e.g. the opinion of the disciples, who
        heard Jesus, indirectly or rather directly given Acts 1:6)
        >
        > Just as Jerusalem is called "the throne of the Lord" (Jer. 3:17),
        being "the city of the great King," "the city of our God" (Ps. 48:1-2)
        "the holy mountain" and "the mountain of the Lord of hosts" (Zech 8:3)
        "a crown of glory in the hand of the Lord and a royal diadem in the hand
        of thy God" (Isa. 62:3) because "the delight" of God and married to Him
        (i.e. intimately united to Him) - so Jerusalem is designated "the house
        of God," etc. The word "Father" joined to it specially recalled the fact
        that God the Father is there as promised; that the Father is the One who
        bestows (Dan. 7) "the throne of the Lord" upon the Son; that He (by
        covenant) acknowledges David's Son as His Son ruling in His might so
        that Theocratically the Kingdom then established is properly named the
        Kingdom of the Father and also of the Son (comp. e.g. Matt. 26:29; Rev.
        11:15; 2 Pet. 1:11, etc.). Hence the apostles and early Christians,
        placing these predictions in the future at the Second Advent, and well
        knwoing that God the Father would again dwell om and "rejoice in
        Jerusalem" when "the new heaven and new earth" (Isa. 65: 17-19) were
        created, thus making it His Habitation or House, could not interpret
        Christ's language in any other way than as applicable to that period.
        >
        > Let us notice that John gives this promise of the Father's house after
        the determination of Judas to betray Him, and in view of His approaching
        death (see my previous article on how John's gospel reconciles with the
        rest of the New Testament); now if we turn to Luke, we find
        substantially the same promise given in other phraseology which
        corroborates our interpretation. In Luke 22:29, 30, Jesus appoints unto
        them a Kingdom as the Father appointed unto Him, etc., which when
        compared with Matt. 19:28 and other Scripture is, "when the Son of Man
        shall sit on the throne of his glory." The spirit or intent of the
        promise is thus confirmed, and this will be strengthened by considering
        the numerous promises given to the righteous of inheriting, dwelling in,
        abiding in Jerusalem, this Lord's house in the future, and of their
        securing such extraordinary exemption from evils and the reception of
        positive blessings such as can only be attributed to the state of
        believers after the Advent. "The Father's house" and "the Lord's house"
        established at the Second Advent are one and the same. An overwhelming
        stream of prophecy indicates the identity; and Jesus sustains it in the
        most delicate manner by calling it, in view of the relation that he
        sustains in the Theocratic order, "the Father's house," which the
        prophets, in their relationship, did not directly employ, but
        substituted "The house of the Lord," "The city of the Lord, the Zion of
        the Holy One of Israel," etc. The only correct method of dealing with
        the passage under consideration is to regard it as in unison with the
        previously given statements concerning "the Lord's house," which is to
        be witnessed and realized in all its glory in the renewed earth.
        >
        > The Oriental usage must be observed in this connection, which
        represented a Kingdom under the figure of a "house," with the evident
        idea of presenting the notion of a paternal government a relationship of
        parent and children in the headship and obedience, etc. It is only
        necessary to direct attention to Heb. 3:2, 5,6, where it is asserted
        that Moses was faithful in his "house," or government or headship, which
        "house" we, if persevering to the end, shall become, i.e. having
        reference to our associated rulership with Christ, being exactly
        equivalent to Luke 12:32, etc. The tabernacle of God, the tabernacle of
        David incorporated as His, is this house, and it is restores here upon
        the earth - for God dwells in it as Ruler, the Sovereign Head - it being
        a Theocratic house. Note that a "mountain" denotes a Kingdom (see Isa.
        25:6,7; Dan. 2:35; Ezek. 17:23; Isa. 41:15)
        >
        > While we are inclined to think that "mountain" is sometimes used for
        Kingdom, yet it is also employed to designate the ruling authority, the
        places of power and authority, the high places of a Kingdom. And thus it
        seems to be employed n Isa. 2 and Mic. 4, or otherwise we have a
        redundancy in the expression, namely, that the Father's house is already
        the Kingdom as established at Jerusalem, and the mountain must be
        descriptive of the ruling authority, which is thus exalted above all
        others. Thus, e.g. the barren woman "dwelling in a house," Ps. 113:9.
        Remember that in this Jerusalem - this "house of the Lord" - which
        belongs to God in virtue of its Theocratic relationship, there is to be
        another "house" or "building," called "a spiritual house," 1 Pet.
        2:4-10; "God's building," 1 Cor. 3:9; "house of God," 1 Tim. 3:15; 1
        Pet. 4:17. This "house" is incorporated with the other, forming, Eph.
        2:19-22, "an Holy Temple in the Lord," "for the habitation of God
        through the Spirit."
        >
        > In this "house are "many mansions":
        >
        > This idea of mansions simply says that this is the house the saints
        will dwell in, possessing stations of honor and glory. We should notice
        that the disciples are encouraged with the hope of being specially near
        to Him in the very place of royal manifestation, which is explained in
        other passages as sitting upon thrones and judging the twelve tribes of
        Israel, agreeably to the Theocratic ordering. "Many" gives an assurance
        of sufficiency, and, perhaps, of "grades" agreeably to 1 Cor. 15:40, 41.
        These "mansions," while "many," still are only designed for a certain
        class, namely, the elect. This is a peculiar, separate, exalted people
        specially formed for His name, who are associated with Christ in the
        administrations of the Theocratic Kingdom. These are now in process of
        being gathered out of the nations.
        >
        > "If it were not so, I would have told you"
        >
        > Here Jesus appeals to his own truthfulness. Observe the force of this
        reference: (1) It takes for granted that the disciples after having
        preached this Father's house after having identified it with the
        Theocratic-Davidic Kingdom - understood the nature of this house and
        anticipated places of honor and glory in it. Hence the expressive: "If
        it were not so," i.e. if you believed wrong - if your faith and hope
        were erroneous, etc. (2) Jesus confirms them in their expectation of the
        ultimate restoration of this Theocratic "Father's house," in the words:
        "I would have told you." By this expression He affirms that He would
        not, as a faithful Teacher, leave them, if misapprehending the truth,
        under a mistake. He would enlighten them. The honesty of Jesus is
        involved in this matter.
        >
        >
        > "I go to prepare a place for you."
        >
        > By this going Jesus embraces His death and ascent to heaven; and
        includes the provision made for salvation, such as securing His own
        power over death (i.e. becoming David's immortal Son, capable of meeting
        and fulfilling the terms of the covenant) to rescue others, His
        acknowledgement by the Father in exaltation, etc. By thus preparing a
        place for you, He evidently refers to the same inheritance that Peter
        speaks of (1 Pet. 1:4-7) "reserved in heaven," but "ready to be revealed
        in the last time," "at the appearing of Jesus Christ;" or, to the New
        Jerusalem, the special home of the ransomed, which John tells us (Rev.
        21) at the creation of "the new heaven and new earth," "comes down, from
        God, out of heaven," and which, joined to, the earthly Jerusalem, giving
        to the latter its inexpressibly great glory.
        >
        > No one doubts that the New Jerusalem state, whatever it denotes, is
        related to this "Father's house." But when the time comes for this
        Father's house (Theocratic capital) to be restored in its contemplated
        grandeur and predicted splendor, this New Jerusalem "descends out of
        heaven from God," upon an earth from which the curse is repealed,
        forming - owing to its preparation - the great object of attraction,
        power, honor, and magnificence identified with that "house." The
        stations, places or mansions, determined previously, are bestowed upon
        those who are worthy of them.
        >
        > Jesus is not only the Divine Architect of the New Jerusalem, but in
        the full and complete preparation of the place for the Redeemed is
        included the creation of the New Heaven and New Earth, the restoration
        of the Theocratic Kingdom, the making of all things new. By going in the
        way appointed, He is the recognized authority to receive the Kingdom for
        which He makes preparation in heaven itself and completes it at His
        return. He is even engaged in preparing, i.e. qualifying, testing, etc.,
        the believers for the places intended for them in the Father's house.
        >
        > "I will come again and receive you unto myself: that where I am there
        ye may be also":
        >
        > Being present personally, speaking of departing personally, the Coming
        again must also allude to a personal Coming or return ("I am to come
        back"). When Jesus comes again, He remains upon this earth; the Bible
        closes with leaving Him, the saints, and the New Jerusalem here, and it
        is an unwarranted adding to the Word, a violation of an oath-bound
        covenant, a removal of Him from His inheritance, throne of glory, and
        Theocratic Kingdom, to say that He is taken away, or goes away again to
        restore the Theocratic Kingdom, and as the saints are associated with
        Him in rulership, they then receive the portions assigned to them in the
        "Father's house." Hence, 2 Thess. 2:1, 2, etc., "the Coming o our Lord
        Jesus Christ and our gathering unto Him," are united. This Coming is
        itself dependent upon the completion of certain preparatory measures,
        such as the end of the ordained times of Gentile domination. Then when
        all things are ready, "The Christ" comes, sent by the Father, One with
        the Father, to accomplish and perfect the Father's will, and in the
        place, selected in preference to all others, where the Theocratic
        Presence alone is vouchsafed, there will he receive His believing
        brethren that they may ever be with Him.
        >
        > The possession of this "house" is conditional on that Coming- so all
        the prophets, all the sacred writers. In the intermediate state the
        saints are waiting for the period of manifestation, when the reward, the
        crown, the inheritance, etc., is bestowed by the Theocratic King and
        they forever enter the enjoyment of their several "mansions" in "the
        everlasting Kingdom," of which the glorious "Father's house" forms the
        crowning head, adorned and ennobled by the descended New Jerusalem with
        which it is evermore One. Thus the Scriptures harmonize, making covenant
        promises, predictions, and doctrines consistent one with the other,
        referring to one period, one place, one great Kingdom, one magnificent
        royal city (the Old and the New in union) and one mighty King of kings
        swaying lordly dominion, as David's Son and Theocratic Ruler, over all
        the earth restored to the the favor and blessing of the Father.
        >
        > From Keenan Lyon's blog:
        http://everytimewesayhello.blogspot.com/2011/09/fathers-house-john-142.html
        >



      • Bruce
        Actually the article The Father s House was written by my 16 year old son Keenan Lyon.
        Message 3 of 7 , Oct 9, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          Actually the article "The Father's House" was written by my 16 year old son Keenan Lyon.

          --- In Biblical_Unitarian@yahoogroups.com, "george.smith" <george.smith@...> wrote:
          >
          > Amen! Great post!
          >
          > In Christ, George...
          >
          > --- In Biblical_Unitarian@yahoogroups.com, "Bruce" <brucelyon1942@>
          > wrote:
          > >
          > > The Father's House: John 14:2
          > >
          > >
          > > This passage is commonly misinterpreted, so let us endeavor to find
          > the scriptural meaning of "Father's house." The word "house," with
          > Father, or God, or Lord, attached, in some places denotes the
          > tabernacle; in other places the temple; and still in others the church,
          > because God is specially present, and these in a special manner belong
          > unto Him. So Jerusalem, owing to its Theocratic relationship, containing
          > the throne of David, being the capital of the Messianic king, being the
          > place where God will dwell again, etc., is called "the house of the
          > Lord," Ps. 122, Zech 8, etc., just as Nebuchadnezzar designated the city
          > Babylon (Dan 4:30) "the house of the Kingdom."
          > >
          > > It is His "habitation" or "dwelling place," because it is specially
          > covenanted to Him, Ps. 132:13,14 "For the Lord hath chosen Zion; he hath
          > desired it for his habitation. This is my rest forever; here will I
          > dwell for I have desired it," etc. Here it is that God will again
          > through his Son - who is also the promised seed of David to occupy
          > (according to oath) David's throne - manifest his rulership. In the
          > prophetic delineations, this idea of "a house," "a dwelling-place,"
          > etc., is inseparably connected with that of the Kingdom; that is, it is
          > the house of the Kingdom in which the regal representations are
          > exhibited, and to which all must look for the central place of dominion.
          > It must not be separated from the Kingdom; it being the head of the
          > Kingdom and designed for its establishment and perpetuation. So closely
          > are the two united, that the Kingdom itself - flowing out of this
          > "house" - is called "the house" that was found and left desolate by
          > Jesus (Matt 23:38 etc.) "the tabernacle of David fallen" and in ruins,
          > or the royal house of David (called "house" and "mine house" i.e.
          > adopted as God's in 2 Sam 7:1 and 1 Chron 17:11-27).
          > >
          > > To express ourselves more accurately, "the house" of David becoming
          > God's "house" in virtue of His Son being incorporated to constitute the
          > Theocratic King contemplated, it and the Kingdom are associated (compare
          > to Gen 41:40) ideas, with which Jerusalem as the place of special royal
          > manifestation and residence is annexed; the one virtually and
          > necessarily recalling the other. This, therefore, explains why in the
          > prophecies they are interchangeably used; the one suggesting and being
          > contained in the other. The word "house" linked with God, naturally
          > suggests a particular relationship; that He in some manner is identified
          > with it; and this is fully sustained in the position that Jerusalem will
          > occupy (Zech 8:3) in the restored Theocratic arrangement.
          > >
          > >
          > > Let us closely follow the guiding of Scripture and see the result.
          > Turn e.g. to Micah 3:12 and Zion shall "be ploughed as a field, and
          > Jerusalem shall become heaps, and the mountain of the house as the high
          > places of the forest." Here the once favored city of God and the Kingdom
          > is described as fallen. "But (Micah 4:1-3) in the the last days" all
          > this is to be changed; a restoration is asserted of the same Zion, the
          > identical Jerusalem and mountain, and notice, it is expressly affirmed,
          > when this restitution takes place, to be God's "house," in the
          > expressions, "the mountain of the house of the Lord," "the house of the
          > God of Jacob," with the location definitely fixed in the words: "for the
          > law shall go forth of Zion and the Word of the Lord from Jerusalem"
          > (comp. Isa. 2:1-4 "the mountain of the Lord's house," etc.) No wonder
          > that Jews acquainted with prophecy understood Jesus by "the Father's
          > house" to refer to these very predictions where it is geographically
          > portrayed (for evidence, see, e.g. the opinion of the disciples, who
          > heard Jesus, indirectly or rather directly given Acts 1:6)
          > >
          > > Just as Jerusalem is called "the throne of the Lord" (Jer. 3:17),
          > being "the city of the great King," "the city of our God" (Ps. 48:1-2)
          > "the holy mountain" and "the mountain of the Lord of hosts" (Zech 8:3)
          > "a crown of glory in the hand of the Lord and a royal diadem in the hand
          > of thy God" (Isa. 62:3) because "the delight" of God and married to Him
          > (i.e. intimately united to Him) - so Jerusalem is designated "the house
          > of God," etc. The word "Father" joined to it specially recalled the fact
          > that God the Father is there as promised; that the Father is the One who
          > bestows (Dan. 7) "the throne of the Lord" upon the Son; that He (by
          > covenant) acknowledges David's Son as His Son ruling in His might so
          > that Theocratically the Kingdom then established is properly named the
          > Kingdom of the Father and also of the Son (comp. e.g. Matt. 26:29; Rev.
          > 11:15; 2 Pet. 1:11, etc.). Hence the apostles and early Christians,
          > placing these predictions in the future at the Second Advent, and well
          > knwoing that God the Father would again dwell om and "rejoice in
          > Jerusalem" when "the new heaven and new earth" (Isa. 65: 17-19) were
          > created, thus making it His Habitation or House, could not interpret
          > Christ's language in any other way than as applicable to that period.
          > >
          > > Let us notice that John gives this promise of the Father's house after
          > the determination of Judas to betray Him, and in view of His approaching
          > death (see my previous article on how John's gospel reconciles with the
          > rest of the New Testament); now if we turn to Luke, we find
          > substantially the same promise given in other phraseology which
          > corroborates our interpretation. In Luke 22:29, 30, Jesus appoints unto
          > them a Kingdom as the Father appointed unto Him, etc., which when
          > compared with Matt. 19:28 and other Scripture is, "when the Son of Man
          > shall sit on the throne of his glory." The spirit or intent of the
          > promise is thus confirmed, and this will be strengthened by considering
          > the numerous promises given to the righteous of inheriting, dwelling in,
          > abiding in Jerusalem, this Lord's house in the future, and of their
          > securing such extraordinary exemption from evils and the reception of
          > positive blessings such as can only be attributed to the state of
          > believers after the Advent. "The Father's house" and "the Lord's house"
          > established at the Second Advent are one and the same. An overwhelming
          > stream of prophecy indicates the identity; and Jesus sustains it in the
          > most delicate manner by calling it, in view of the relation that he
          > sustains in the Theocratic order, "the Father's house," which the
          > prophets, in their relationship, did not directly employ, but
          > substituted "The house of the Lord," "The city of the Lord, the Zion of
          > the Holy One of Israel," etc. The only correct method of dealing with
          > the passage under consideration is to regard it as in unison with the
          > previously given statements concerning "the Lord's house," which is to
          > be witnessed and realized in all its glory in the renewed earth.
          > >
          > > The Oriental usage must be observed in this connection, which
          > represented a Kingdom under the figure of a "house," with the evident
          > idea of presenting the notion of a paternal government a relationship of
          > parent and children in the headship and obedience, etc. It is only
          > necessary to direct attention to Heb. 3:2, 5,6, where it is asserted
          > that Moses was faithful in his "house," or government or headship, which
          > "house" we, if persevering to the end, shall become, i.e. having
          > reference to our associated rulership with Christ, being exactly
          > equivalent to Luke 12:32, etc. The tabernacle of God, the tabernacle of
          > David incorporated as His, is this house, and it is restores here upon
          > the earth - for God dwells in it as Ruler, the Sovereign Head - it being
          > a Theocratic house. Note that a "mountain" denotes a Kingdom (see Isa.
          > 25:6,7; Dan. 2:35; Ezek. 17:23; Isa. 41:15)
          > >
          > > While we are inclined to think that "mountain" is sometimes used for
          > Kingdom, yet it is also employed to designate the ruling authority, the
          > places of power and authority, the high places of a Kingdom. And thus it
          > seems to be employed n Isa. 2 and Mic. 4, or otherwise we have a
          > redundancy in the expression, namely, that the Father's house is already
          > the Kingdom as established at Jerusalem, and the mountain must be
          > descriptive of the ruling authority, which is thus exalted above all
          > others. Thus, e.g. the barren woman "dwelling in a house," Ps. 113:9.
          > Remember that in this Jerusalem - this "house of the Lord" - which
          > belongs to God in virtue of its Theocratic relationship, there is to be
          > another "house" or "building," called "a spiritual house," 1 Pet.
          > 2:4-10; "God's building," 1 Cor. 3:9; "house of God," 1 Tim. 3:15; 1
          > Pet. 4:17. This "house" is incorporated with the other, forming, Eph.
          > 2:19-22, "an Holy Temple in the Lord," "for the habitation of God
          > through the Spirit."
          > >
          > > In this "house are "many mansions":
          > >
          > > This idea of mansions simply says that this is the house the saints
          > will dwell in, possessing stations of honor and glory. We should notice
          > that the disciples are encouraged with the hope of being specially near
          > to Him in the very place of royal manifestation, which is explained in
          > other passages as sitting upon thrones and judging the twelve tribes of
          > Israel, agreeably to the Theocratic ordering. "Many" gives an assurance
          > of sufficiency, and, perhaps, of "grades" agreeably to 1 Cor. 15:40, 41.
          > These "mansions," while "many," still are only designed for a certain
          > class, namely, the elect. This is a peculiar, separate, exalted people
          > specially formed for His name, who are associated with Christ in the
          > administrations of the Theocratic Kingdom. These are now in process of
          > being gathered out of the nations.
          > >
          > > "If it were not so, I would have told you"
          > >
          > > Here Jesus appeals to his own truthfulness. Observe the force of this
          > reference: (1) It takes for granted that the disciples after having
          > preached this Father's house after having identified it with the
          > Theocratic-Davidic Kingdom - understood the nature of this house and
          > anticipated places of honor and glory in it. Hence the expressive: "If
          > it were not so," i.e. if you believed wrong - if your faith and hope
          > were erroneous, etc. (2) Jesus confirms them in their expectation of the
          > ultimate restoration of this Theocratic "Father's house," in the words:
          > "I would have told you." By this expression He affirms that He would
          > not, as a faithful Teacher, leave them, if misapprehending the truth,
          > under a mistake. He would enlighten them. The honesty of Jesus is
          > involved in this matter.
          > >
          > >
          > > "I go to prepare a place for you."
          > >
          > > By this going Jesus embraces His death and ascent to heaven; and
          > includes the provision made for salvation, such as securing His own
          > power over death (i.e. becoming David's immortal Son, capable of meeting
          > and fulfilling the terms of the covenant) to rescue others, His
          > acknowledgement by the Father in exaltation, etc. By thus preparing a
          > place for you, He evidently refers to the same inheritance that Peter
          > speaks of (1 Pet. 1:4-7) "reserved in heaven," but "ready to be revealed
          > in the last time," "at the appearing of Jesus Christ;" or, to the New
          > Jerusalem, the special home of the ransomed, which John tells us (Rev.
          > 21) at the creation of "the new heaven and new earth," "comes down, from
          > God, out of heaven," and which, joined to, the earthly Jerusalem, giving
          > to the latter its inexpressibly great glory.
          > >
          > > No one doubts that the New Jerusalem state, whatever it denotes, is
          > related to this "Father's house." But when the time comes for this
          > Father's house (Theocratic capital) to be restored in its contemplated
          > grandeur and predicted splendor, this New Jerusalem "descends out of
          > heaven from God," upon an earth from which the curse is repealed,
          > forming - owing to its preparation - the great object of attraction,
          > power, honor, and magnificence identified with that "house." The
          > stations, places or mansions, determined previously, are bestowed upon
          > those who are worthy of them.
          > >
          > > Jesus is not only the Divine Architect of the New Jerusalem, but in
          > the full and complete preparation of the place for the Redeemed is
          > included the creation of the New Heaven and New Earth, the restoration
          > of the Theocratic Kingdom, the making of all things new. By going in the
          > way appointed, He is the recognized authority to receive the Kingdom for
          > which He makes preparation in heaven itself and completes it at His
          > return. He is even engaged in preparing, i.e. qualifying, testing, etc.,
          > the believers for the places intended for them in the Father's house.
          > >
          > > "I will come again and receive you unto myself: that where I am there
          > ye may be also":
          > >
          > > Being present personally, speaking of departing personally, the Coming
          > again must also allude to a personal Coming or return ("I am to come
          > back"). When Jesus comes again, He remains upon this earth; the Bible
          > closes with leaving Him, the saints, and the New Jerusalem here, and it
          > is an unwarranted adding to the Word, a violation of an oath-bound
          > covenant, a removal of Him from His inheritance, throne of glory, and
          > Theocratic Kingdom, to say that He is taken away, or goes away again to
          > restore the Theocratic Kingdom, and as the saints are associated with
          > Him in rulership, they then receive the portions assigned to them in the
          > "Father's house." Hence, 2 Thess. 2:1, 2, etc., "the Coming o our Lord
          > Jesus Christ and our gathering unto Him," are united. This Coming is
          > itself dependent upon the completion of certain preparatory measures,
          > such as the end of the ordained times of Gentile domination. Then when
          > all things are ready, "The Christ" comes, sent by the Father, One with
          > the Father, to accomplish and perfect the Father's will, and in the
          > place, selected in preference to all others, where the Theocratic
          > Presence alone is vouchsafed, there will he receive His believing
          > brethren that they may ever be with Him.
          > >
          > > The possession of this "house" is conditional on that Coming- so all
          > the prophets, all the sacred writers. In the intermediate state the
          > saints are waiting for the period of manifestation, when the reward, the
          > crown, the inheritance, etc., is bestowed by the Theocratic King and
          > they forever enter the enjoyment of their several "mansions" in "the
          > everlasting Kingdom," of which the glorious "Father's house" forms the
          > crowning head, adorned and ennobled by the descended New Jerusalem with
          > which it is evermore One. Thus the Scriptures harmonize, making covenant
          > promises, predictions, and doctrines consistent one with the other,
          > referring to one period, one place, one great Kingdom, one magnificent
          > royal city (the Old and the New in union) and one mighty King of kings
          > swaying lordly dominion, as David's Son and Theocratic Ruler, over all
          > the earth restored to the the favor and blessing of the Father.
          > >
          > > From Keenan Lyon's blog:
          > http://everytimewesayhello.blogspot.com/2011/09/fathers-house-john-142.h\
          > tml
          > >
          >
        • George
          You did a good job! In Christ,  George Jesus is coming back and we will reign on the earth with him for 1000 years! Be ready!       ... From: Bruce
          Message 4 of 7 , Oct 9, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            You did a good job!

            In Christ,  George

            Jesus is coming back and we will reign on the earth with him for 1000 years!
            Be ready!


















             
             
             


            --- On Sun, 10/9/11, Bruce <brucelyon1942@...> wrote:

            From: Bruce <brucelyon1942@...>
            Subject: [Biblical_Unitarian] Re: The Father's house
            To: Biblical_Unitarian@yahoogroups.com
            Date: Sunday, October 9, 2011, 6:40 AM

             
            Actually the article "The Father's House" was written by my 16 year old son Keenan Lyon.

            --- In Biblical_Unitarian@yahoogroups.com, "george.smith" <george.smith@...> wrote:
            >
            > Amen! Great post!
            >
            > In Christ, George...
            >
            > --- In Biblical_Unitarian@yahoogroups.com, "Bruce" <brucelyon1942@>
            > wrote:
            > >
            > > The Father's House: John 14:2
            > >
            > >
            > > This passage is commonly misinterpreted, so let us endeavor to find
            > the scriptural meaning of "Father's house." The word "house," with
            > Father, or God, or Lord, attached, in some places denotes the
            > tabernacle; in other places the temple; and still in others the church,
            > because God is specially present, and these in a special manner belong
            > unto Him. So Jerusalem, owing to its Theocratic relationship, containing
            > the throne of David, being the capital of the Messianic king, being the
            > place where God will dwell again, etc., is called "the house of the
            > Lord," Ps. 122, Zech 8, etc., just as Nebuchadnezzar designated the city
            > Babylon (Dan 4:30) "the house of the Kingdom."
            > >
            > > It is His "habitation" or "dwelling place," because it is specially
            > covenanted to Him, Ps. 132:13,14 "For the Lord hath chosen Zion; he hath
            > desired it for his habitation. This is my rest forever; here will I
            > dwell for I have desired it," etc. Here it is that God will again
            > through his Son - who is also the promised seed of David to occupy
            > (according to oath) David's throne - manifest his rulership. In the
            > prophetic delineations, this idea of "a house," "a dwelling-place,"
            > etc., is inseparably connected with that of the Kingdom; that is, it is
            > the house of the Kingdom in which the regal representations are
            > exhibited, and to which all must look for the central place of dominion.
            > It must not be separated from the Kingdom; it being the head of the
            > Kingdom and designed for its establishment and perpetuation. So closely
            > are the two united, that the Kingdom itself - flowing out of this
            > "house" - is called "the house" that was found and left desolate by
            > Jesus (Matt 23:38 etc.) "the tabernacle of David fallen" and in ruins,
            > or the royal house of David (called "house" and "mine house" i.e.
            > adopted as God's in 2 Sam 7:1 and 1 Chron 17:11-27).
            > >
            > > To express ourselves more accurately, "the house" of David becoming
            > God's "house" in virtue of His Son being incorporated to constitute the
            > Theocratic King contemplated, it and the Kingdom are associated (compare
            > to Gen 41:40) ideas, with which Jerusalem as the place of special royal
            > manifestation and residence is annexed; the one virtually and
            > necessarily recalling the other. This, therefore, explains why in the
            > prophecies they are interchangeably used; the one suggesting and being
            > contained in the other. The word "house" linked with God, naturally
            > suggests a particular relationship; that He in some manner is identified
            > with it; and this is fully sustained in the position that Jerusalem will
            > occupy (Zech 8:3) in the restored Theocratic arrangement.
            > >
            > >
            > > Let us closely follow the guiding of Scripture and see the result.
            > Turn e.g. to Micah 3:12 and Zion shall "be ploughed as a field, and
            > Jerusalem shall become heaps, and the mountain of the house as the high
            > places of the forest." Here the once favored city of God and the Kingdom
            > is described as fallen. "But (Micah 4:1-3) in the the last days" all
            > this is to be changed; a restoration is asserted of the same Zion, the
            > identical Jerusalem and mountain, and notice, it is expressly affirmed,
            > when this restitution takes place, to be God's "house," in the
            > expressions, "the mountain of the house of the Lord," "the house of the
            > God of Jacob," with the location definitely fixed in the words: "for the
            > law shall go forth of Zion and the Word of the Lord from Jerusalem"
            > (comp. Isa. 2:1-4 "the mountain of the Lord's house," etc.) No wonder
            > that Jews acquainted with prophecy understood Jesus by "the Father's
            > house" to refer to these very predictions where it is geographically
            > portrayed (for evidence, see, e.g. the opinion of the disciples, who
            > heard Jesus, indirectly or rather directly given Acts 1:6)
            > >
            > > Just as Jerusalem is called "the throne of the Lord" (Jer. 3:17),
            > being "the city of the great King," "the city of our God" (Ps. 48:1-2)
            > "the holy mountain" and "the mountain of the Lord of hosts" (Zech 8:3)
            > "a crown of glory in the hand of the Lord and a royal diadem in the hand
            > of thy God" (Isa. 62:3) because "the delight" of God and married to Him
            > (i.e. intimately united to Him) - so Jerusalem is designated "the house
            > of God," etc. The word "Father" joined to it specially recalled the fact
            > that God the Father is there as promised; that the Father is the One who
            > bestows (Dan. 7) "the throne of the Lord" upon the Son; that He (by
            > covenant) acknowledges David's Son as His Son ruling in His might so
            > that Theocratically the Kingdom then established is properly named the
            > Kingdom of the Father and also of the Son (comp. e.g. Matt. 26:29; Rev.
            > 11:15; 2 Pet. 1:11, etc.). Hence the apostles and early Christians,
            > placing these predictions in the future at the Second Advent, and well
            > knwoing that God the Father would again dwell om and "rejoice in
            > Jerusalem" when "the new heaven and new earth" (Isa. 65: 17-19) were
            > created, thus making it His Habitation or House, could not interpret
            > Christ's language in any other way than as applicable to that period.
            > >
            > > Let us notice that John gives this promise of the Father's house after
            > the determination of Judas to betray Him, and in view of His approaching
            > death (see my previous article on how John's gospel reconciles with the
            > rest of the New Testament); now if we turn to Luke, we find
            > substantially the same promise given in other phraseology which
            > corroborates our interpretation. In Luke 22:29, 30, Jesus appoints unto
            > them a Kingdom as the Father appointed unto Him, etc., which when
            > compared with Matt. 19:28 and other Scripture is, "when the Son of Man
            > shall sit on the throne of his glory." The spirit or intent of the
            > promise is thus confirmed, and this will be strengthened by considering
            > the numerous promises given to the righteous of inheriting, dwelling in,
            > abiding in Jerusalem, this Lord's house in the future, and of their
            > securing such extraordinary exemption from evils and the reception of
            > positive blessings such as can only be attributed to the state of
            > believers after the Advent. "The Father's house" and "the Lord's house"
            > established at the Second Advent are one and the same. An overwhelming
            > stream of prophecy indicates the identity; and Jesus sustains it in the
            > most delicate manner by calling it, in view of the relation that he
            > sustains in the Theocratic order, "the Father's house," which the
            > prophets, in their relationship, did not directly employ, but
            > substituted "The house of the Lord," "The city of the Lord, the Zion of
            > the Holy One of Israel," etc. The only correct method of dealing with
            > the passage under consideration is to regard it as in unison with the
            > previously given statements concerning "the Lord's house," which is to
            > be witnessed and realized in all its glory in the renewed earth.
            > >
            > > The Oriental usage must be observed in this connection, which
            > represented a Kingdom under the figure of a "house," with the evident
            > idea of presenting the notion of a paternal government a relationship of
            > parent and children in the headship and obedience, etc. It is only
            > necessary to direct attention to Heb. 3:2, 5,6, where it is asserted
            > that Moses was faithful in his "house," or government or headship, which
            > "house" we, if persevering to the end, shall become, i.e. having
            > reference to our associated rulership with Christ, being exactly
            > equivalent to Luke 12:32, etc. The tabernacle of God, the tabernacle of
            > David incorporated as His, is this house, and it is restores here upon
            > the earth - for God dwells in it as Ruler, the Sovereign Head - it being
            > a Theocratic house. Note that a "mountain" denotes a Kingdom (see Isa.
            > 25:6,7; Dan. 2:35; Ezek. 17:23; Isa. 41:15)
            > >
            > > While we are inclined to think that "mountain" is sometimes used for
            > Kingdom, yet it is also employed to designate the ruling authority, the
            > places of power and authority, the high places of a Kingdom. And thus it
            > seems to be employed n Isa. 2 and Mic. 4, or otherwise we have a
            > redundancy in the expression, namely, that the Father's house is already
            > the Kingdom as established at Jerusalem, and the mountain must be
            > descriptive of the ruling authority, which is thus exalted above all
            > others. Thus, e.g. the barren woman "dwelling in a house," Ps. 113:9.
            > Remember that in this Jerusalem - this "house of the Lord" - which
            > belongs to God in virtue of its Theocratic relationship, there is to be
            > another "house" or "building," called "a spiritual house," 1 Pet.
            > 2:4-10; "God's building," 1 Cor. 3:9; "house of God," 1 Tim. 3:15; 1
            > Pet. 4:17. This "house" is incorporated with the other, forming, Eph.
            > 2:19-22, "an Holy Temple in the Lord," "for the habitation of God
            > through the Spirit."
            > >
            > > In this "house are "many mansions":
            > >
            > > This idea of mansions simply says that this is the house the saints
            > will dwell in, possessing stations of honor and glory. We should notice
            > that the disciples are encouraged with the hope of being specially near
            > to Him in the very place of royal manifestation, which is explained in
            > other passages as sitting upon thrones and judging the twelve tribes of
            > Israel, agreeably to the Theocratic ordering. "Many" gives an assurance
            > of sufficiency, and, perhaps, of "grades" agreeably to 1 Cor. 15:40, 41.
            > These "mansions," while "many," still are only designed for a certain
            > class, namely, the elect. This is a peculiar, separate, exalted people
            > specially formed for His name, who are associated with Christ in the
            > administrations of the Theocratic Kingdom. These are now in process of
            > being gathered out of the nations.
            > >
            > > "If it were not so, I would have told you"
            > >
            > > Here Jesus appeals to his own truthfulness. Observe the force of this
            > reference: (1) It takes for granted that the disciples after having
            > preached this Father's house after having identified it with the
            > Theocratic-Davidic Kingdom - understood the nature of this house and
            > anticipated places of honor and glory in it. Hence the expressive: "If
            > it were not so," i.e. if you believed wrong - if your faith and hope
            > were erroneous, etc. (2) Jesus confirms them in their expectation of the
            > ultimate restoration of this Theocratic "Father's house," in the words:
            > "I would have told you." By this expression He affirms that He would
            > not, as a faithful Teacher, leave them, if misapprehending the truth,
            > under a mistake. He would enlighten them. The honesty of Jesus is
            > involved in this matter.
            > >
            > >
            > > "I go to prepare a place for you."
            > >
            > > By this going Jesus embraces His death and ascent to heaven; and
            > includes the provision made for salvation, such as securing His own
            > power over death (i.e. becoming David's immortal Son, capable of meeting
            > and fulfilling the terms of the covenant) to rescue others, His
            > acknowledgement by the Father in exaltation, etc. By thus preparing a
            > place for you, He evidently refers to the same inheritance that Peter
            > speaks of (1 Pet. 1:4-7) "reserved in heaven," but "ready to be revealed
            > in the last time," "at the appearing of Jesus Christ;" or, to the New
            > Jerusalem, the special home of the ransomed, which John tells us (Rev.
            > 21) at the creation of "the new heaven and new earth," "comes down, from
            > God, out of heaven," and which, joined to, the earthly Jerusalem, giving
            > to the latter its inexpressibly great glory.
            > >
            > > No one doubts that the New Jerusalem state, whatever it denotes, is
            > related to this "Father's house." But when the time comes for this
            > Father's house (Theocratic capital) to be restored in its contemplated
            > grandeur and predicted splendor, this New Jerusalem "descends out of
            > heaven from God," upon an earth from which the curse is repealed,
            > forming - owing to its preparation - the great object of attraction,
            > power, honor, and magnificence identified with that "house." The
            > stations, places or mansions, determined previously, are bestowed upon
            > those who are worthy of them.
            > >
            > > Jesus is not only the Divine Architect of the New Jerusalem, but in
            > the full and complete preparation of the place for the Redeemed is
            > included the creation of the New Heaven and New Earth, the restoration
            > of the Theocratic Kingdom, the making of all things new. By going in the
            > way appointed, He is the recognized authority to receive the Kingdom for
            > which He makes preparation in heaven itself and completes it at His
            > return. He is even engaged in preparing, i.e. qualifying, testing, etc.,
            > the believers for the places intended for them in the Father's house.
            > >
            > > "I will come again and receive you unto myself: that where I am there
            > ye may be also":
            > >
            > > Being present personally, speaking of departing personally, the Coming
            > again must also allude to a personal Coming or return ("I am to come
            > back"). When Jesus comes again, He remains upon this earth; the Bible
            > closes with leaving Him, the saints, and the New Jerusalem here, and it
            > is an unwarranted adding to the Word, a violation of an oath-bound
            > covenant, a removal of Him from His inheritance, throne of glory, and
            > Theocratic Kingdom, to say that He is taken away, or goes away again to
            > restore the Theocratic Kingdom, and as the saints are associated with
            > Him in rulership, they then receive the portions assigned to them in the
            > "Father's house." Hence, 2 Thess. 2:1, 2, etc., "the Coming o our Lord
            > Jesus Christ and our gathering unto Him," are united. This Coming is
            > itself dependent upon the completion of certain preparatory measures,
            > such as the end of the ordained times of Gentile domination. Then when
            > all things are ready, "The Christ" comes, sent by the Father, One with
            > the Father, to accomplish and perfect the Father's will, and in the
            > place, selected in preference to all others, where the Theocratic
            > Presence alone is vouchsafed, there will he receive His believing
            > brethren that they may ever be with Him.
            > >
            > > The possession of this "house" is conditional on that Coming- so all
            > the prophets, all the sacred writers. In the intermediate state the
            > saints are waiting for the period of manifestation, when the reward, the
            > crown, the inheritance, etc., is bestowed by the Theocratic King and
            > they forever enter the enjoyment of their several "mansions" in "the
            > everlasting Kingdom," of which the glorious "Father's house" forms the
            > crowning head, adorned and ennobled by the descended New Jerusalem with
            > which it is evermore One. Thus the Scriptures harmonize, making covenant
            > promises, predictions, and doctrines consistent one with the other,
            > referring to one period, one place, one great Kingdom, one magnificent
            > royal city (the Old and the New in union) and one mighty King of kings
            > swaying lordly dominion, as David's Son and Theocratic Ruler, over all
            > the earth restored to the the favor and blessing of the Father.
            > >
            > > From Keenan Lyon's blog:
            > http://everytimewesayhello.blogspot.com/2011/09/fathers-house-john-142.h\
            > tml
            > >
            >

          • Shelley Cartwright
            im ready george........very ready for the return of our king. ________________________________ From: George To:
            Message 5 of 7 , Oct 9, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              im ready george........very ready for the return of our king.


              From: George <george_smith92530@...>
              To: Biblical_Unitarian@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Sunday, October 9, 2011 5:47 PM
              Subject: Re: [Biblical_Unitarian] Re: The Father's house

               
              You did a good job!

              In Christ,  George

              Jesus is coming back and we will reign on the earth with him for 1000 years!
              Be ready!


















               
               
               


              --- On Sun, 10/9/11, Bruce <brucelyon1942@...> wrote:

              From: Bruce <brucelyon1942@...>
              Subject: [Biblical_Unitarian] Re: The Father's house
              To: Biblical_Unitarian@yahoogroups.com
              Date: Sunday, October 9, 2011, 6:40 AM

               
              Actually the article "The Father's House" was written by my 16 year old son Keenan Lyon.

              --- In Biblical_Unitarian@yahoogroups.com, "george.smith" <george.smith@...> wrote:
              >
              > Amen! Great post!
              >
              > In Christ, George...
              >
              > --- In Biblical_Unitarian@yahoogroups.com, "Bruce" <brucelyon1942@>
              > wrote:
              > >
              > > The Father's House: John 14:2
              > >
              > >
              > > This passage is commonly misinterpreted, so let us endeavor to find
              > the scriptural meaning of "Father's house." The word "house," with
              > Father, or God, or Lord, attached, in some places denotes the
              > tabernacle; in other places the temple; and still in others the church,
              > because God is specially present, and these in a special manner belong
              > unto Him. So Jerusalem, owing to its Theocratic relationship, containing
              > the throne of David, being the capital of the Messianic king, being the
              > place where God will dwell again, etc., is called "the house of the
              > Lord," Ps. 122, Zech 8, etc., just as Nebuchadnezzar designated the city
              > Babylon (Dan 4:30) "the house of the Kingdom."
              > >
              > > It is His "habitation" or "dwelling place," because it is specially
              > covenanted to Him, Ps. 132:13,14 "For the Lord hath chosen Zion; he hath
              > desired it for his habitation. This is my rest forever; here will I
              > dwell for I have desired it," etc. Here it is that God will again
              > through his Son - who is also the promised seed of David to occupy
              > (according to oath) David's throne - manifest his rulership. In the
              > prophetic delineations, this idea of "a house," "a dwelling-place,"
              > etc., is inseparably connected with that of the Kingdom; that is, it is
              > the house of the Kingdom in which the regal representations are
              > exhibited, and to which all must look for the central place of dominion.
              > It must not be separated from the Kingdom; it being the head of the
              > Kingdom and designed for its establishment and perpetuation. So closely
              > are the two united, that the Kingdom itself - flowing out of this
              > "house" - is called "the house" that was found and left desolate by
              > Jesus (Matt 23:38 etc.) "the tabernacle of David fallen" and in ruins,
              > or the royal house of David (called "house" and "mine house" i.e.
              > adopted as God's in 2 Sam 7:1 and 1 Chron 17:11-27).
              > >
              > > To express ourselves more accurately, "the house" of David becoming
              > God's "house" in virtue of His Son being incorporated to constitute the
              > Theocratic King contemplated, it and the Kingdom are associated (compare
              > to Gen 41:40) ideas, with which Jerusalem as the place of special royal
              > manifestation and residence is annexed; the one virtually and
              > necessarily recalling the other. This, therefore, explains why in the
              > prophecies they are interchangeably used; the one suggesting and being
              > contained in the other. The word "house" linked with God, naturally
              > suggests a particular relationship; that He in some manner is identified
              > with it; and this is fully sustained in the position that Jerusalem will
              > occupy (Zech 8:3) in the restored Theocratic arrangement.
              > >
              > >
              > > Let us closely follow the guiding of Scripture and see the result.
              > Turn e.g. to Micah 3:12 and Zion shall "be ploughed as a field, and
              > Jerusalem shall become heaps, and the mountain of the house as the high
              > places of the forest." Here the once favored city of God and the Kingdom
              > is described as fallen. "But (Micah 4:1-3) in the the last days" all
              > this is to be changed; a restoration is asserted of the same Zion, the
              > identical Jerusalem and mountain, and notice, it is expressly affirmed,
              > when this restitution takes place, to be God's "house," in the
              > expressions, "the mountain of the house of the Lord," "the house of the
              > God of Jacob," with the location definitely fixed in the words: "for the
              > law shall go forth of Zion and the Word of the Lord from Jerusalem"
              > (comp. Isa. 2:1-4 "the mountain of the Lord's house," etc.) No wonder
              > that Jews acquainted with prophecy understood Jesus by "the Father's
              > house" to refer to these very predictions where it is geographically
              > portrayed (for evidence, see, e.g. the opinion of the disciples, who
              > heard Jesus, indirectly or rather directly given Acts 1:6)
              > >
              > > Just as Jerusalem is called "the throne of the Lord" (Jer. 3:17),
              > being "the city of the great King," "the city of our God" (Ps. 48:1-2)
              > "the holy mountain" and "the mountain of the Lord of hosts" (Zech 8:3)
              > "a crown of glory in the hand of the Lord and a royal diadem in the hand
              > of thy God" (Isa. 62:3) because "the delight" of God and married to Him
              > (i.e. intimately united to Him) - so Jerusalem is designated "the house
              > of God," etc. The word "Father" joined to it specially recalled the fact
              > that God the Father is there as promised; that the Father is the One who
              > bestows (Dan. 7) "the throne of the Lord" upon the Son; that He (by
              > covenant) acknowledges David's Son as His Son ruling in His might so
              > that Theocratically the Kingdom then established is properly named the
              > Kingdom of the Father and also of the Son (comp. e.g. Matt. 26:29; Rev.
              > 11:15; 2 Pet. 1:11, etc.). Hence the apostles and early Christians,
              > placing these predictions in the future at the Second Advent, and well
              > knwoing that God the Father would again dwell om and "rejoice in
              > Jerusalem" when "the new heaven and new earth" (Isa. 65: 17-19) were
              > created, thus making it His Habitation or House, could not interpret
              > Christ's language in any other way than as applicable to that period.
              > >
              > > Let us notice that John gives this promise of the Father's house after
              > the determination of Judas to betray Him, and in view of His approaching
              > death (see my previous article on how John's gospel reconciles with the
              > rest of the New Testament); now if we turn to Luke, we find
              > substantially the same promise given in other phraseology which
              > corroborates our interpretation. In Luke 22:29, 30, Jesus appoints unto
              > them a Kingdom as the Father appointed unto Him, etc., which when
              > compared with Matt. 19:28 and other Scripture is, "when the Son of Man
              > shall sit on the throne of his glory." The spirit or intent of the
              > promise is thus confirmed, and this will be strengthened by considering
              > the numerous promises given to the righteous of inheriting, dwelling in,
              > abiding in Jerusalem, this Lord's house in the future, and of their
              > securing such extraordinary exemption from evils and the reception of
              > positive blessings such as can only be attributed to the state of
              > believers after the Advent. "The Father's house" and "the Lord's house"
              > established at the Second Advent are one and the same. An overwhelming
              > stream of prophecy indicates the identity; and Jesus sustains it in the
              > most delicate manner by calling it, in view of the relation that he
              > sustains in the Theocratic order, "the Father's house," which the
              > prophets, in their relationship, did not directly employ, but
              > substituted "The house of the Lord," "The city of the Lord, the Zion of
              > the Holy One of Israel," etc. The only correct method of dealing with
              > the passage under consideration is to regard it as in unison with the
              > previously given statements concerning "the Lord's house," which is to
              > be witnessed and realized in all its glory in the renewed earth.
              > >
              > > The Oriental usage must be observed in this connection, which
              > represented a Kingdom under the figure of a "house," with the evident
              > idea of presenting the notion of a paternal government a relationship of
              > parent and children in the headship and obedience, etc. It is only
              > necessary to direct attention to Heb. 3:2, 5,6, where it is asserted
              > that Moses was faithful in his "house," or government or headship, which
              > "house" we, if persevering to the end, shall become, i.e. having
              > reference to our associated rulership with Christ, being exactly
              > equivalent to Luke 12:32, etc. The tabernacle of God, the tabernacle of
              > David incorporated as His, is this house, and it is restores here upon
              > the earth - for God dwells in it as Ruler, the Sovereign Head - it being
              > a Theocratic house. Note that a "mountain" denotes a Kingdom (see Isa.
              > 25:6,7; Dan. 2:35; Ezek. 17:23; Isa. 41:15)
              > >
              > > While we are inclined to think that "mountain" is sometimes used for
              > Kingdom, yet it is also employed to designate the ruling authority, the
              > places of power and authority, the high places of a Kingdom. And thus it
              > seems to be employed n Isa. 2 and Mic. 4, or otherwise we have a
              > redundancy in the expression, namely, that the Father's house is already
              > the Kingdom as established at Jerusalem, and the mountain must be
              > descriptive of the ruling authority, which is thus exalted above all
              > others. Thus, e.g. the barren woman "dwelling in a house," Ps. 113:9.
              > Remember that in this Jerusalem - this "house of the Lord" - which
              > belongs to God in virtue of its Theocratic relationship, there is to be
              > another "house" or "building," called "a spiritual house," 1 Pet.
              > 2:4-10; "God's building," 1 Cor. 3:9; "house of God," 1 Tim. 3:15; 1
              > Pet. 4:17. This "house" is incorporated with the other, forming, Eph.
              > 2:19-22, "an Holy Temple in the Lord," "for the habitation of God
              > through the Spirit."
              > >
              > > In this "house are "many mansions":
              > >
              > > This idea of mansions simply says that this is the house the saints
              > will dwell in, possessing stations of honor and glory. We should notice
              > that the disciples are encouraged with the hope of being specially near
              > to Him in the very place of royal manifestation, which is explained in
              > other passages as sitting upon thrones and judging the twelve tribes of
              > Israel, agreeably to the Theocratic ordering. "Many" gives an assurance
              > of sufficiency, and, perhaps, of "grades" agreeably to 1 Cor. 15:40, 41.
              > These "mansions," while "many," still are only designed for a certain
              > class, namely, the elect. This is a peculiar, separate, exalted people
              > specially formed for His name, who are associated with Christ in the
              > administrations of the Theocratic Kingdom. These are now in process of
              > being gathered out of the nations.
              > >
              > > "If it were not so, I would have told you"
              > >
              > > Here Jesus appeals to his own truthfulness. Observe the force of this
              > reference: (1) It takes for granted that the disciples after having
              > preached this Father's house after having identified it with the
              > Theocratic-Davidic Kingdom - understood the nature of this house and
              > anticipated places of honor and glory in it. Hence the expressive: "If
              > it were not so," i.e. if you believed wrong - if your faith and hope
              > were erroneous, etc. (2) Jesus confirms them in their expectation of the
              > ultimate restoration of this Theocratic "Father's house," in the words:
              > "I would have told you." By this expression He affirms that He would
              > not, as a faithful Teacher, leave them, if misapprehending the truth,
              > under a mistake. He would enlighten them. The honesty of Jesus is
              > involved in this matter.
              > >
              > >
              > > "I go to prepare a place for you."
              > >
              > > By this going Jesus embraces His death and ascent to heaven; and
              > includes the provision made for salvation, such as securing His own
              > power over death (i.e. becoming David's immortal Son, capable of meeting
              > and fulfilling the terms of the covenant) to rescue others, His
              > acknowledgement by the Father in exaltation, etc. By thus preparing a
              > place for you, He evidently refers to the same inheritance that Peter
              > speaks of (1 Pet. 1:4-7) "reserved in heaven," but "ready to be revealed
              > in the last time," "at the appearing of Jesus Christ;" or, to the New
              > Jerusalem, the special home of the ransomed, which John tells us (Rev.
              > 21) at the creation of "the new heaven and new earth," "comes down, from
              > God, out of heaven," and which, joined to, the earthly Jerusalem, giving
              > to the latter its inexpressibly great glory.
              > >
              > > No one doubts that the New Jerusalem state, whatever it denotes, is
              > related to this "Father's house." But when the time comes for this
              > Father's house (Theocratic capital) to be restored in its contemplated
              > grandeur and predicted splendor, this New Jerusalem "descends out of
              > heaven from God," upon an earth from which the curse is repealed,
              > forming - owing to its preparation - the great object of attraction,
              > power, honor, and magnificence identified with that "house." The
              > stations, places or mansions, determined previously, are bestowed upon
              > those who are worthy of them.
              > >
              > > Jesus is not only the Divine Architect of the New Jerusalem, but in
              > the full and complete preparation of the place for the Redeemed is
              > included the creation of the New Heaven and New Earth, the restoration
              > of the Theocratic Kingdom, the making of all things new. By going in the
              > way appointed, He is the recognized authority to receive the Kingdom for
              > which He makes preparation in heaven itself and completes it at His
              > return. He is even engaged in preparing, i.e. qualifying, testing, etc.,
              > the believers for the places intended for them in the Father's house.
              > >
              > > "I will come again and receive you unto myself: that where I am there
              > ye may be also":
              > >
              > > Being present personally, speaking of departing personally, the Coming
              > again must also allude to a personal Coming or return ("I am to come
              > back"). When Jesus comes again, He remains upon this earth; the Bible
              > closes with leaving Him, the saints, and the New Jerusalem here, and it
              > is an unwarranted adding to the Word, a violation of an oath-bound
              > covenant, a removal of Him from His inheritance, throne of glory, and
              > Theocratic Kingdom, to say that He is taken away, or goes away again to
              > restore the Theocratic Kingdom, and as the saints are associated with
              > Him in rulership, they then receive the portions assigned to them in the
              > "Father's house." Hence, 2 Thess. 2:1, 2, etc., "the Coming o our Lord
              > Jesus Christ and our gathering unto Him," are united. This Coming is
              > itself dependent upon the completion of certain preparatory measures,
              > such as the end of the ordained times of Gentile domination. Then when
              > all things are ready, "The Christ" comes, sent by the Father, One with
              > the Father, to accomplish and perfect the Father's will, and in the
              > place, selected in preference to all others, where the Theocratic
              > Presence alone is vouchsafed, there will he receive His believing
              > brethren that they may ever be with Him.
              > >
              > > The possession of this "house" is conditional on that Coming- so all
              > the prophets, all the sacred writers. In the intermediate state the
              > saints are waiting for the period of manifestation, when the reward, the
              > crown, the inheritance, etc., is bestowed by the Theocratic King and
              > they forever enter the enjoyment of their several "mansions" in "the
              > everlasting Kingdom," of which the glorious "Father's house" forms the
              > crowning head, adorned and ennobled by the descended New Jerusalem with
              > which it is evermore One. Thus the Scriptures harmonize, making covenant
              > promises, predictions, and doctrines consistent one with the other,
              > referring to one period, one place, one great Kingdom, one magnificent
              > royal city (the Old and the New in union) and one mighty King of kings
              > swaying lordly dominion, as David's Son and Theocratic Ruler, over all
              > the earth restored to the the favor and blessing of the Father.
              > >
              > > From Keenan Lyon's blog:
              > http://everytimewesayhello.blogspot.com/2011/09/fathers-house-john-142.h | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic
              Messages in this topic (5)
              Recent Activity:
              .



            • Shelley Cartwright
              good post, thanx ________________________________ From: Bruce To: Biblical_Unitarian@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, October 9, 2011
              Message 6 of 7 , Oct 9, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                good post, thanx


                From: Bruce <brucelyon1942@...>
                To: Biblical_Unitarian@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Sunday, October 9, 2011 6:40 AM
                Subject: [Biblical_Unitarian] Re: The Father's house

                 
                Actually the article "The Father's House" was written by my 16 year old son Keenan Lyon.

                --- In Biblical_Unitarian@yahoogroups.com, "george.smith" <george.smith@...> wrote:
                >
                > Amen! Great post!
                >
                > In Christ, George...
                >
                > --- In Biblical_Unitarian@yahoogroups.com, "Bruce" <brucelyon1942@>
                > wrote:
                > >
                > > The Father's House: John 14:2
                > >
                > >
                > > This passage is commonly misinterpreted, so let us endeavor to find
                > the scriptural meaning of "Father's house." The word "house," with
                > Father, or God, or Lord, attached, in some places denotes the
                > tabernacle; in other places the temple; and still in others the church,
                > because God is specially present, and these in a special manner belong
                > unto Him. So Jerusalem, owing to its Theocratic relationship, containing
                > the throne of David, being the capital of the Messianic king, being the
                > place where God will dwell again, etc., is called "the house of the
                > Lord," Ps. 122, Zech 8, etc., just as Nebuchadnezzar designated the city
                > Babylon (Dan 4:30) "the house of the Kingdom."
                > >
                > > It is His "habitation" or "dwelling place," because it is specially
                > covenanted to Him, Ps. 132:13,14 "For the Lord hath chosen Zion; he hath
                > desired it for his habitation. This is my rest forever; here will I
                > dwell for I have desired it," etc. Here it is that God will again
                > through his Son - who is also the promised seed of David to occupy
                > (according to oath) David's throne - manifest his rulership. In the
                > prophetic delineations, this idea of "a house," "a dwelling-place,"
                > etc., is inseparably connected with that of the Kingdom; that is, it is
                > the house of the Kingdom in which the regal representations are
                > exhibited, and to which all must look for the central place of dominion.
                > It must not be separated from the Kingdom; it being the head of the
                > Kingdom and designed for its establishment and perpetuation. So closely
                > are the two united, that the Kingdom itself - flowing out of this
                > "house" - is called "the house" that was found and left desolate by
                > Jesus (Matt 23:38 etc.) "the tabernacle of David fallen" and in ruins,
                > or the royal house of David (called "house" and "mine house" i.e.
                > adopted as God's in 2 Sam 7:1 and 1 Chron 17:11-27).
                > >
                > > To express ourselves more accurately, "the house" of David becoming
                > God's "house" in virtue of His Son being incorporated to constitute the
                > Theocratic King contemplated, it and the Kingdom are associated (compare
                > to Gen 41:40) ideas, with which Jerusalem as the place of special royal
                > manifestation and residence is annexed; the one virtually and
                > necessarily recalling the other. This, therefore, explains why in the
                > prophecies they are interchangeably used; the one suggesting and being
                > contained in the other. The word "house" linked with God, naturally
                > suggests a particular relationship; that He in some manner is identified
                > with it; and this is fully sustained in the position that Jerusalem will
                > occupy (Zech 8:3) in the restored Theocratic arrangement.
                > >
                > >
                > > Let us closely follow the guiding of Scripture and see the result.
                > Turn e.g. to Micah 3:12 and Zion shall "be ploughed as a field, and
                > Jerusalem shall become heaps, and the mountain of the house as the high
                > places of the forest." Here the once favored city of God and the Kingdom
                > is described as fallen. "But (Micah 4:1-3) in the the last days" all
                > this is to be changed; a restoration is asserted of the same Zion, the
                > identical Jerusalem and mountain, and notice, it is expressly affirmed,
                > when this restitution takes place, to be God's "house," in the
                > expressions, "the mountain of the house of the Lord," "the house of the
                > God of Jacob," with the location definitely fixed in the words: "for the
                > law shall go forth of Zion and the Word of the Lord from Jerusalem"
                > (comp. Isa. 2:1-4 "the mountain of the Lord's house," etc.) No wonder
                > that Jews acquainted with prophecy understood Jesus by "the Father's
                > house" to refer to these very predictions where it is geographically
                > portrayed (for evidence, see, e.g. the opinion of the disciples, who
                > heard Jesus, indirectly or rather directly given Acts 1:6)
                > >
                > > Just as Jerusalem is called "the throne of the Lord" (Jer. 3:17),
                > being "the city of the great King," "the city of our God" (Ps. 48:1-2)
                > "the holy mountain" and "the mountain of the Lord of hosts" (Zech 8:3)
                > "a crown of glory in the hand of the Lord and a royal diadem in the hand
                > of thy God" (Isa. 62:3) because "the delight" of God and married to Him
                > (i.e. intimately united to Him) - so Jerusalem is designated "the house
                > of God," etc. The word "Father" joined to it specially recalled the fact
                > that God the Father is there as promised; that the Father is the One who
                > bestows (Dan. 7) "the throne of the Lord" upon the Son; that He (by
                > covenant) acknowledges David's Son as His Son ruling in His might so
                > that Theocratically the Kingdom then established is properly named the
                > Kingdom of the Father and also of the Son (comp. e.g. Matt. 26:29; Rev.
                > 11:15; 2 Pet. 1:11, etc.). Hence the apostles and early Christians,
                > placing these predictions in the future at the Second Advent, and well
                > knwoing that God the Father would again dwell om and "rejoice in
                > Jerusalem" when "the new heaven and new earth" (Isa. 65: 17-19) were
                > created, thus making it His Habitation or House, could not interpret
                > Christ's language in any other way than as applicable to that period.
                > >
                > > Let us notice that John gives this promise of the Father's house after
                > the determination of Judas to betray Him, and in view of His approaching
                > death (see my previous article on how John's gospel reconciles with the
                > rest of the New Testament); now if we turn to Luke, we find
                > substantially the same promise given in other phraseology which
                > corroborates our interpretation. In Luke 22:29, 30, Jesus appoints unto
                > them a Kingdom as the Father appointed unto Him, etc., which when
                > compared with Matt. 19:28 and other Scripture is, "when the Son of Man
                > shall sit on the throne of his glory." The spirit or intent of the
                > promise is thus confirmed, and this will be strengthened by considering
                > the numerous promises given to the righteous of inheriting, dwelling in,
                > abiding in Jerusalem, this Lord's house in the future, and of their
                > securing such extraordinary exemption from evils and the reception of
                > positive blessings such as can only be attributed to the state of
                > believers after the Advent. "The Father's house" and "the Lord's house"
                > established at the Second Advent are one and the same. An overwhelming
                > stream of prophecy indicates the identity; and Jesus sustains it in the
                > most delicate manner by calling it, in view of the relation that he
                > sustains in the Theocratic order, "the Father's house," which the
                > prophets, in their relationship, did not directly employ, but
                > substituted "The house of the Lord," "The city of the Lord, the Zion of
                > the Holy One of Israel," etc. The only correct method of dealing with
                > the passage under consideration is to regard it as in unison with the
                > previously given statements concerning "the Lord's house," which is to
                > be witnessed and realized in all its glory in the renewed earth.
                > >
                > > The Oriental usage must be observed in this connection, which
                > represented a Kingdom under the figure of a "house," with the evident
                > idea of presenting the notion of a paternal government a relationship of
                > parent and children in the headship and obedience, etc. It is only
                > necessary to direct attention to Heb. 3:2, 5,6, where it is asserted
                > that Moses was faithful in his "house," or government or headship, which
                > "house" we, if persevering to the end, shall become, i.e. having
                > reference to our associated rulership with Christ, being exactly
                > equivalent to Luke 12:32, etc. The tabernacle of God, the tabernacle of
                > David incorporated as His, is this house, and it is restores here upon
                > the earth - for God dwells in it as Ruler, the Sovereign Head - it being
                > a Theocratic house. Note that a "mountain" denotes a Kingdom (see Isa.
                > 25:6,7; Dan. 2:35; Ezek. 17:23; Isa. 41:15)
                > >
                > > While we are inclined to think that "mountain" is sometimes used for
                > Kingdom, yet it is also employed to designate the ruling authority, the
                > places of power and authority, the high places of a Kingdom. And thus it
                > seems to be employed n Isa. 2 and Mic. 4, or otherwise we have a
                > redundancy in the expression, namely, that the Father's house is already
                > the Kingdom as established at Jerusalem, and the mountain must be
                > descriptive of the ruling authority, which is thus exalted above all
                > others. Thus, e.g. the barren woman "dwelling in a house," Ps. 113:9.
                > Remember that in this Jerusalem - this "house of the Lord" - which
                > belongs to God in virtue of its Theocratic relationship, there is to be
                > another "house" or "building," called "a spiritual house," 1 Pet.
                > 2:4-10; "God's building," 1 Cor. 3:9; "house of God," 1 Tim. 3:15; 1
                > Pet. 4:17. This "house" is incorporated with the other, forming, Eph.
                > 2:19-22, "an Holy Temple in the Lord," "for the habitation of God
                > through the Spirit."
                > >
                > > In this "house are "many mansions":
                > >
                > > This idea of mansions simply says that this is the house the saints
                > will dwell in, possessing stations of honor and glory. We should notice
                > that the disciples are encouraged with the hope of being specially near
                > to Him in the very place of royal manifestation, which is explained in
                > other passages as sitting upon thrones and judging the twelve tribes of
                > Israel, agreeably to the Theocratic ordering. "Many" gives an assurance
                > of sufficiency, and, perhaps, of "grades" agreeably to 1 Cor. 15:40, 41.
                > These "mansions," while "many," still are only designed for a certain
                > class, namely, the elect. This is a peculiar, separate, exalted people
                > specially formed for His name, who are associated with Christ in the
                > administrations of the Theocratic Kingdom. These are now in process of
                > being gathered out of the nations.
                > >
                > > "If it were not so, I would have told you"
                > >
                > > Here Jesus appeals to his own truthfulness. Observe the force of this
                > reference: (1) It takes for granted that the disciples after having
                > preached this Father's house after having identified it with the
                > Theocratic-Davidic Kingdom - understood the nature of this house and
                > anticipated places of honor and glory in it. Hence the expressive: "If
                > it were not so," i.e. if you believed wrong - if your faith and hope
                > were erroneous, etc. (2) Jesus confirms them in their expectation of the
                > ultimate restoration of this Theocratic "Father's house," in the words:
                > "I would have told you." By this expression He affirms that He would
                > not, as a faithful Teacher, leave them, if misapprehending the truth,
                > under a mistake. He would enlighten them. The honesty of Jesus is
                > involved in this matter.
                > >
                > >
                > > "I go to prepare a place for you."
                > >
                > > By this going Jesus embraces His death and ascent to heaven; and
                > includes the provision made for salvation, such as securing His own
                > power over death (i.e. becoming David's immortal Son, capable of meeting
                > and fulfilling the terms of the covenant) to rescue others, His
                > acknowledgement by the Father in exaltation, etc. By thus preparing a
                > place for you, He evidently refers to the same inheritance that Peter
                > speaks of (1 Pet. 1:4-7) "reserved in heaven," but "ready to be revealed
                > in the last time," "at the appearing of Jesus Christ;" or, to the New
                > Jerusalem, the special home of the ransomed, which John tells us (Rev.
                > 21) at the creation of "the new heaven and new earth," "comes down, from
                > God, out of heaven," and which, joined to, the earthly Jerusalem, giving
                > to the latter its inexpressibly great glory.
                > >
                > > No one doubts that the New Jerusalem state, whatever it denotes, is
                > related to this "Father's house." But when the time comes for this
                > Father's house (Theocratic capital) to be restored in its contemplated
                > grandeur and predicted splendor, this New Jerusalem "descends out of
                > heaven from God," upon an earth from which the curse is repealed,
                > forming - owing to its preparation - the great object of attraction,
                > power, honor, and magnificence identified with that "house." The
                > stations, places or mansions, determined previously, are bestowed upon
                > those who are worthy of them.
                > >
                > > Jesus is not only the Divine Architect of the New Jerusalem, but in
                > the full and complete preparation of the place for the Redeemed is
                > included the creation of the New Heaven and New Earth, the restoration
                > of the Theocratic Kingdom, the making of all things new. By going in the
                > way appointed, He is the recognized authority to receive the Kingdom for
                > which He makes preparation in heaven itself and completes it at His
                > return. He is even engaged in preparing, i.e. qualifying, testing, etc.,
                > the believers for the places intended for them in the Father's house.
                > >
                > > "I will come again and receive you unto myself: that where I am there
                > ye may be also":
                > >
                > > Being present personally, speaking of departing personally, the Coming
                > again must also allude to a personal Coming or return ("I am to come
                > back"). When Jesus comes again, He remains upon this earth; the Bible
                > closes with leaving Him, the saints, and the New Jerusalem here, and it
                > is an unwarranted adding to the Word, a violation of an oath-bound
                > covenant, a removal of Him from His inheritance, throne of glory, and
                > Theocratic Kingdom, to say that He is taken away, or goes away again to
                > restore the Theocratic Kingdom, and as the saints are associated with
                > Him in rulership, they then receive the portions assigned to them in the
                > "Father's house." Hence, 2 Thess. 2:1, 2, etc., "the Coming o our Lord
                > Jesus Christ and our gathering unto Him," are united. This Coming is
                > itself dependent upon the completion of certain preparatory measures,
                > such as the end of the ordained times of Gentile domination. Then when
                > all things are ready, "The Christ" comes, sent by the Father, One with
                > the Father, to accomplish and perfect the Father's will, and in the
                > place, selected in preference to all others, where the Theocratic
                > Presence alone is vouchsafed, there will he receive His believing
                > brethren that they may ever be with Him.
                > >
                > > The possession of this "house" is conditional on that Coming- so all
                > the prophets, all the sacred writers. In the intermediate state the
                > saints are waiting for the period of manifestation, when the reward, the
                > crown, the inheritance, etc., is bestowed by the Theocratic King and
                > they forever enter the enjoyment of their several "mansions" in "the
                > everlasting Kingdom," of which the glorious "Father's house" forms the
                > crowning head, adorned and ennobled by the descended New Jerusalem with
                > which it is evermore One. Thus the Scriptures harmonize, making covenant
                > promises, predictions, and doctrines consistent one with the other,
                > referring to one period, one place, one great Kingdom, one magnificent
                > royal city (the Old and the New in union) and one mighty King of kings
                > swaying lordly dominion, as David's Son and Theocratic Ruler, over all
                > the earth restored to the the favor and blessing of the Father.
                > >
                > > From Keenan Lyon's blog:
                > http://everytimewesayhello.blogspot.com/2011/09/fathers-house-john-142.h | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic
                Messages in this topic (4)
                Recent Activity:
                .



              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.