4 Which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant;

The presence of the censer in the Holiest of all, as one of its permanent furnishings, is a proof that prayer is not confined to the present dark and evil state, but has a place in the immortal state. We assume in our first impressions of these subjects that

"when that which is perfect is come"

the necessity for prayer will have passed away. This idea is based on the erroneous supposition that prayer consists exclusively of request to be delivered from evil.

The largest part of prayer is thanksgiving and praise; and it is manifest that there can never come a time when these will be out of place. Indeed, we may say that the true time for them does not arrive till we are clothed with that immortal strength that will enable us to indulge in them with true effectiveness, both as regards our own enjoyment of them and God's pleasure in them.

"Burdened", is the apostolic and true description of our present state. "The spirit of heaviness", is the prophetic counterpart of this description. When the change to the immortal comes, we are said to receive

"the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness" (Isa. 61:3).

Praise, therefore, is the natural adjunct of the emancipated state, and always appears in this light in the apocalyptic exhibitions of the saints in glory, e.g.,

"Hallelujah! Salvation and glory and honour and power (be ascribed) unto the Lord our God, for true and righteous are his judgments".

If the prayers of feeble mortals, whose words often die on their lips from very weakness, are a source of pleasure to Almighty God, it stands to reason that He must find great delight in the praises of a host of strong and glad and fully enlightened immortals. The presence of the golden censer in the Holiest of all tells us as much.

Law of Moses Ch 13.

8 The holy spirit this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:

The general significance of the tabernacle and its ordinances...was a negative one.

...God had taken the seed of Abraham according to the flesh to Himself as a nation; and it was natural for them to assume that He had taken them into complete communion.

Any assumption to this effect was constantly barred by the tabernacle and its ordinances, whose effect was to hold the nation at a distance and make them feel that their union with God was far from perfect.

A way of reconciliation, peace, and union was in purpose, but it was "not yet made manifest" while the tabernacle was in use.

Law of Moses Ch 13

12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

... there is a mixing of the language of type and antitype, which is likely to lead an undiscerning reader into mistakes. This need not surprise us after Peter's testimony that, in Paul's letters,

"are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures."—(2 Pet. 3:16.)

The type is the holy place in the Mosaic tabernacle, with its appurtenant ordinances of sacrifice, blood, and priesthood, all of which have their substance or spiritual significance in Christ.—(Col. 2:17.) The priest of the first covenant carried the actual blood of slain victims into the holy place, and sprinkled it on the altar, or on "the unclean," if the case demanded it, to the purifying of the flesh of the subject of the operation.

It is not so with Christ, the "high-priest of good things to come." His blood "purges the conscience from dead works" (verse 14), not by a literal sprinkling upon us, but by an understanding of what his blood-shedding means. We are "washed from our sins in his own blood" (Rev. 1:5.,) not by a literal ablution, but by enlightenment with regard to what was accomplished in his death; for his shed blood (symbolised in the memorial wine) is but the symbol of his death.

"He poured out his soul (life or blood—"for the life of all flesh is in the blood—Lev. 17:14.) unto death." When Christ said "This is my blood of the new covenant which is shed for you, "

he but explained the gospel fact that

"Christ died for our sins, according to the Scripture."—(1 Cor. 15:4.)

He did not mean that the crimson fluid in his body would literally be of any value to us, but that the laying down of his life for us would secure our salvation. A similar parallel is observable in the chapter which is the basis of the question; and this parallel contains the answer to the question. Having spoken of

"the blood of Christ, who through the Eternal Spirit offered himself without spot unto God" (verse 14),

Paul says it was not necessary he should

"offer himself often, like the high-priest who entered into the holy place every year with the blood of others, for then must he often have suffered" (verses 25–26);

shewing that his "suffering" was the "offering" of himself, and that his blood is the symbol of his suffering.

"But now once (hath he offered) . . . . to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself" (verse 26). He was "once offered to bear the sins of many" (verse 28).

It was in this offering of himself in sacrifice that he accomplished what Paul describes as

"entering once by his own blood into the holy place." Not by the blood (or sacrifice) of bulls and goats, like the Mosaic priests, but by his own blood (or sacrifice of himself). "Laying down his life for the sheep," he pleased the Father (John 10:17), and "opened a new and living way through the veil, that is to say, his flesh."—(Heb. 10:20, )

Here Paul identifies the flesh-and-blood nature of the Messiah as the antitype of the veil. That this is right was shewn by the rending of the temple veil at the moment Christ died on the cross. It was by the rending of his veil-nature that the way was opened.

On the other side of the veil—the resurrection side—was the holy place which he entered by means of his death, therefore, "by his own blood;" for had he not laid down his life, the antitypical holy place, or spiritual state, must have remained barred against both him and those he died to save.

He did not take his actual blood into this state, any more than we make use of his actual blood when with "boldness we (spiritually) enter the holiest by the blood of Jesus."—(Heb. 10:19.) He entered the antitypical holiest by means of his death, and, therefore, figuratively, entered "by his own blood."

His literal blood was absorbed or assimilated, so to speak, by the Spirit, when he was

"declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead."— Rom. 1:3.

It may seem a difficulty that "heaven itself," and the "presence of God," should in the foregoing remarks, appear to be applied to the state which Jesus entered by the Spirit, instead of to the locality of the Eternal Person of the Deity. But this will only be a difficulty with those who narrow their view of the matter to mere locality.

It must be remembered that, although there is a local habitation to the person of the Creator, there is a very important sense in which there is no locality in the relation of things to Him. He

"fills heaven and earth."—(Jer. 23:24.) "We cannot flee from His presence."—(Ps. 139:7; Acts 17:27.)

This is because the Spirit is everywhere, as the Psalm quoted teaches. Hence, to enter into His presence, it is but necessary we should be "in the spirit;" that is, that our nature should become so assimilated to the universal spirit that we are made as conscious and perceptive of the presence of God as He is of ours. The local "heaven" is but a part, so to speak, of this universal heaven; for there is heaven, and "heaven of heavens."

Jesus entered into "heaven," as our forerunner (Heb. 6:20), implying we shall follow; which we shall—into the antitypical holiest—the spirit state or nature, in which, as "the first-born," he has preceded us, but not necessarily into the locality of the Eternal Abode.

Jesus was in the bosom of the Father in the days of his flesh, though he was on the earth (John 14:10–11); and he was "on the right-hand of God," when he appeared to persecuting Saul, near Damascus. It is the dynamical rather than the mechanical relation of things that is expressed in such phrases.

The Christadelphian, Dec 1872

14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

The first lesson connected with baptism is that the subjects of it, having been buried with Christ, become dead to sin, and rise to newness of life. It is much to be feared that in the discussion of abstractions, for which the human intellect is not fitted, the practical object of the hope in purifying the believer from "all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of the Lord," is lost sight of, or, at all events, not realized in practice.

That it is so in many cases is unquestionable, which calls for fear. The unpurified zealot, who compasses sea and land to make a proselyte; the mere theorist who is glib in the phrases of the spirit, but in practice unsubject to the law of Christ, is a bastard, and not a son.

It will not be a wonder, if in our day, just emerged from all pervading darkness, there be many such. Let all examine themselves.

...The Pharisees outwardly appeared righteous unto men, and thought themselves righteous, for they thanked God they were not as other men; yet, behold the Lord's verdict, which is, doubtless, applicable in many modern instances. Doing things to be seen of men is a practice not yet extinct.

Bro Roberts - Unprofitable questions

15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

Now since the Mosaic law (Gal. 3. 24) is a " schoolmaster " even unto Christ, and was ordained unto eternal life (Rom. vii. 10 ; Luke x. 25-27.) it may be said that Jesus earned eternal life by his life of perfect faith and complete and whole-hearted subjection to the mind and will of God in loving response to the manifestation of the love of his Father to him.

He kept the first commandment, i.e., He loved God with all his heart, soul and strength,

always doing that which pleased his father. He kept the second commandment, loving his neighbour as himself by permitting himself to be slain—pouring out his soul (blood) unto death—yea, in anticipation of the event saying, This is my blood, shed for the remission of sins, and this is my body, broken for you.

Now also it is written that although the law was ordained to eternal life it was powerless to effect that result and to condemn sin because of the weakness of the flesh. " What the law could not do," God did in Jesus (Rom. VIII. 3.)

Seeing then that the life blood must be poured out in order to deliver from sin, and seeing that Jesus did not sin notwithstanding the weakness of the flesh, it was impossible for the Father to leave His son in the grave (Acts 2. 24)

" because he (Jesus) saw Yahweh always before his face, he was on his right hand that he

could not be moved."

Therefore " his heart always rejoiced." Moreover the flesh of the Anointed One " rested in hope," because his father

" would not leave his soul in hell, neither suffer His Holy One to see corruption." (Ibid. vv. 25-27.)

In permitting himself to be crucified, Jesus by his obedience to the law came under its curse; therefore the law which cursed an obedient, righteous rnan is abolished, and the gift of eternal life becomes available upon the principle of " the righteousness of faith".

Jesus fully exhibited that righteousness, for what greater faith can a man exhibit than permitting himself to be slain believing that God will raise him from the dead ? For this reason Jesus becomes a medium for delivering from death those who transgressed under the first covenant. (Heb. ix. 15.)

The Temple of Ezekiel's prophecy 5.6.7.

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

This is a principle which necessitated the institution of the mediatorship; and which caused Yahweh so readily to grant the petition of the Israelites to appoint Moses as his representative in his future dealings with them. Yahweh is the testator in both the covenants; but the principle says they are "of no strength at all while the testator liveth."

In this case, Yahweh must die, or find a substitute. The former supposition is out of the question; for if "God the mighty maker died," the universe would die with him. All life would perish, and all nations cease; for in Him do all things live, and move, and have their being. His wisdom, however, never at fault, has well provided for the emergency. Let us see how he has met the difficulty.

The law of Moses was added to the covenant-promise of the land to Abraham till his seed should appear, to whom with himself the promise was made. The law was added "because of transgression." The nations had all apostatized from the way of the Lord expounded and inculcated by Noah, and afterwards by Melchizedec; and there were but few even of Abraham's descendants who refrained from the worship of other Gods besides Yahweh. (Gal 3:17-19).

The law was therefore added to preserve the truth from entire extinction; and not only so, but to kindle a light that should shine until the dawning of "The Day." In the meantime, the day appointed had arrived to put Abraham's descendants in possession of the land, to a limited extent, though the time had not come for the manifestation of the seed, that is, Christ.

Until he appeared the tribes could not inherit under the will made to Abraham and Christ, which promised to them and those who should inherit with them, an everlasting possession of the country. A codicil, or supplementary will, as it was added to enable them to occupy the land until the Christ should appear. But, though the original will was confirmed, though not purged, it had no strength at all. It could therefore impart none to the supplement. Yahweh was the testator of the supplement, of course; for no one but he had a right to add to this will. But the supplement had no more force while the testator lived than the original will.

It was therefore ordained in the hand of a mediator who should occupy the place of Yahweh. This mediator, as we have seen, was Moses. The case therefore stood thus. The supplementary testament is of no strength at all while Moses, the mediatorial testator, liveth. This brings out the reason why the anger of Yahweh kindled against Moses to the prevention of his entering into the land of Canaan, under his own law. No man can be a legatee under his own will.

Hence, when Moses obtains an everlasting inheritance in Canaan, it will be as a legatee under the New Will, and not under his own. Being mediatorial testator it was necessary for him to die; for as long as he lived even the tribes could not cross the Jordan to possess the land. But he died, and without delay the country was invaded and possessed.

But the death of Moses did not purge the supplemental will. It was necessary to purge it with blood, and also for the testator to purge it himself; for the will was not only to bequeathe a conditional temporal-life interest in the land but to give to the inheritors a hypothetical remission of sins.

Had Moses dedicated it with his own blood, his blood must have been shed in the article of death. But this was out of the question. His blood would have answered no better than the blood of a calf or a goat, and not so well; for Moses had transgressed, and the blood of a transgressor could purge nothing: calves were at least innocent of transgression though without communicable virtue or spirituality.

The blood of animals was therefore appointed for the purging of his will. He was to sprinkle it and the people with a bunch of scarlet wool and hyssop, emblematic of the sprinkler of the covenant, which should come into force when his should be ready to vanish away; even of Him, "whose head and hairs are white like wool, as white as snow' (Rev 1:14), on whom was laid the scarlet robe, emblematic of the sins of his people (Isa 1:18).

Herald of the Kingdom and Age to Come, Sept 1855

21 Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.

But not only the bodies of the beasts, the whole system of the law was pre-figurative of Christ. Thus, the priest was his type (Heb. 9:11); the brazen altar was his type (Heb. 13:10); the tabernacle was his type (Heb. 8:2; 9:9–11); so with the golden altar of incense, the mercy seat, and the whole furniture of the sanctuary.—(Heb. 9:1–9.)

Now in view of this, the fact has to be noted that the whole had to be atoned for once a year.—(Lev. 16.) Aaron was first to offer a bullock for himself and his household.—(verse 6.) He was then to offer a goat for the people.—(verse 15.) He was then to make an atonement for the holy place.—(verse 16.) He was then to go out unto the altar that is before the Lord, and make an atonement for it, touching it with blood.—(verse 18.)

In short, he was to

"make an atonement for the holy sanctuary, for the tabernacle of the congregation, and for the altar, and for the priests and for all the people of the congregation."—(verse 33.)

As Paul expresses it (Heb. 9:22),

"Almost all things are by the law purged with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission. It was therefore necessary that the pattern of things in the heavens (that is the things pertaining to the law) should be purified with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these."

Now Jesus was the substance of all these. He was "the heavenly things" in compendium; and the testimony of the law argued out by Paul, is that before his sacrifice, they were unclean, and had to be purified by his sacrifice.

The exact meaning of this is not obscure when it is recognised that Jesus was the sin-nature or sinful flesh of Adam, inheriting with it the condemnation clinging to it; that sin being thus laid on him he might die for it. He bore in himself the uncleanness of the sanctuary, the altar, the high priest, his own house, and of the whole congregation; for he was born under their curse, being born in their nature, and could therefore bear it. A theory takes all this away, which says that he was not under the curse at all.

Jesus was born a Jew to redeem those that were under the law. How did he redeem them that were under the law? Was it by dying to compromise a law that had no hold on him? No. Paul states the matter clearly:

"Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us:"

how?

"It is written, cursed is he that hangeth on a tree."—(Gal. 3:13.)

So that in the mode of his death, he came under the actual personal curse of the law. Now, as brother Smith pithily asked: If it was necessary that Jesus should come under the actual curse of the law of Moses to redeem them that were under it, how can he redeem them that were under the Adamic curse except on the same principle, that is, of coming actually under it? The answer is obvious and is fatal to a new theory, which, as Dr. Thomas says,

"destroys the sacrifice of Christ."

The Christadelphian, Sept 1873

22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission [forgiveness -OJB/YLT].

They sewed fig leaves together

They sought to cover their sin by a device of their own. They sewed fig-leaves together, and made themselves aprons. Their shame was covered, indeed; but their consciences were not healed. But it was the best they could do in their ignorance. They were as yet unacquainted with the great principle that without the shedding of blood there could be no remission of sin. (Heb 9:22)

They were not aware of this necessity; for it had not been revealed: neither did they understand that as offenders they would not be permitted to devise a covering for themselves. They had everything to learn as to the ground of reconciliation with God. They had no idea of religion; for hitherto they had needed none. It yet remained to be revealed as the divinely appointed means of healing the breach which sin had made between God and men.

Man having been made subject to evil, and consigned to the bondage of a perishing state, the Lord God repudiated their fig-leaf invention, and "appointed coats of skins" for their covering. In this testimony there is much expressed in few words. To appoint coats of skins implies a command for the sacrifice of animals whose skins were converted to this purpose.

It also implies that Adam was the priest on the occasion. who presented himself before the Lord with the mediatorial blood. When the sacrifice was accepted, the offence was provisionally remitted ; for the scripture saith, that it is not possible for the blood of animals to take away sins. (Heb 10:4) It was impossible, because sin was to be condemned in sinful flesh.

This required the death of a man ; for the animals had not sinned: so that, if the whole animal world, save man, had been made an offering for sin, sin would still have been uncondemned in his nature. Besides the necessity of a human sacrifice, God deemed it equally necessary that the victim should be free from personal transgressions; and that when he had suffered, he should rise from the dead so as to be "a living sacrifice".

If the death of a transgressor would have sufficed, then, Adam and Eve might have been put to death at once, and raised to life again. But this was not according to the divine wisdom. The great principle to be compassed was the condemnation of sin in sinful flesh, innocent of actual transgression.

This principle necessitated the manifestation of one, who should be born of a woman, but not of the will of man. Such a one would be the Seed of the Woman, made of her substance, with Him for his Father who by His overshadowing spirit should cause her to conceive. He would be Son of God by origination; and Son of Mary by descent, or birth of sinful flesh.

Now it is not to be supposed that Adam and Eve did not understand this: God doubtless explained it to them; for they had none to teach them but Him, and without His instruction, they would not have known what they should believe. It was from them that Abel derived the knowledge which was the foundation of his faith to which God testified in the acceptance of the firstling of his flock and the fat thereof.

Adam and his wife had faith, or God would not have accepted the sacrifices with whose skins they were clothed; for it was as true then as it is now, that "without faith it is impossible to please God."

***

Covenants are of no force until purged. To purge anything in the Scripture sense, is to cleanse it from legal or from moral defilement; and to impart to it a virtue co-efficient with the detergent or cleansing principle.

This is a general definition which may not apply in every case, but it is sufficiently precise for the subject in hand. The covenant made with Abraham was confirmed with Yahweh's oath, saying, "Know of a surety, and by the consumption of sacrifices by fire from heaven (Gen. 15). This was confirmation, not purgation.

It was not purged until 2 089 years after, when a virtue was imparted to it co-efficient with the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than the blood of Abel; that is, the blood of Jesus, which he says is "the blood of New . .(Testament) shed for many for the remission of sin.

The history of the death and resurrection of Jesus is that narrative which relates the story of the purging, or the rendering effective of the covenant, testament . . . through which remission of sins, eternal life, and an everlasting possession of the land, with all its inseparable attributes, may be obtained by every one who believes the things promised therein.

Four hundred and thirty years after the confirmation of the New Covenant (styled new because of its coming into force at a time when that of Moses had waxed old), and sixteen hundred and fifty-nine years before its incipient enforcement, Moses dedicated or initiated "the law ordained by angels." This he did with blood.

"For when he had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the Book and all the people, saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath

enjoined upon you" (Heb. 9:18-20). Here was a solution of blood in water, into which a sprinkler of scarlet wool and hyssop was dipped, and the Book and people sprinkled by the hand of Moses.

These materials were purification emblems. "Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission," or sending away, as if sin and uncleanness were sent away into a land not inhabited (Lev. 16:21, 22). This is a first principle of God's religion under both covenants.

Blood is therefore regarded as purging, purifying, or cleansing.

The only answer that can be given to the question, why is there no expiation without blood-shedding?—is that Yahweh wills it. The blood of the living creature is the life thereof; and as it has come under sentence of death, God wills that life shall make satisfaction for sin (Lev. 17:11, 14).

"It is the blood that maketh anatonement for the soul."

Water is also cleansing. Hence, "Wash you, make you clean" (Isa. 1:16). The water and the blood with which Moses sprinkled the Book of the Covenant and the people, find their antitypes in the blood and water that issued from the pierced side of Jesus, with which he sprinkled the new covenant . . . But the efficacy of a covenant depends on the virtue of the blood with which it is purged.

This principle is fatal to the idea of perfectability by the law of Moses; for it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins" (Heb. 10:4). Hence it was weak and unprofitable, and made nothing perfect (Heb. 7:18,19). This defectiveness of the law, which even faith in the unpurged Abrahamic covenant could not remedy (Heb. 9:15) was referable to the nature of the sacrifices with whose blood it was dedicated; and to the weakness of the flesh (Rom. 8:3), which it could alone sanctify (Heb. 9:13) without reaching the inward man.

Calves and goats were as destitute of righteousness as they were devoid of sin. Their blood therefore was a negative principle, and could impart no virtue to a covenant by which those who were sanctified under it could obtain a title or justification to eternal redemption.

And furthermore let it be observed, that besides this defect, their blood was unprofitable for everlasting results, as being the blood of the dead, and not of the living. It was therefore ceremonially incommunicative of any kind of vitality.

Herald of the Kingdom and Age to Come, Sept 1855

24 For Christ is not entered into the [Most] holy place made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:

The "Holy Place, Heaven Itself"

The holy place in the Mosaic tabernacle, with its appurtenant ordinances of sacrifice, blood, and priesthood, all have their substance or spiritual significance in Christ (Col. 2:17). The priest carried the actual blood of slain victims into the holy place, and sprinkled it on the altar, or on "the unclean," if the case demanded it, to the legal purifying of the flesh of the subject of the operation.

It is not so with Christ, the "high-priest of good things to come," though the process was typical of his work. His blood "purges the conscience from dead works" (verse 14), not by a literal sprinkling upon us, but by an understanding of what his blood-shedding means. We are "washed from our sins in his own blood" (Rev. 1:5), not by a literal ablution, but by enlightenment with regard to what was accomplished in his death; for his shed blood (symbolised in the memorial wine) is but the symbol of his death.

"He poured out his soul (life or blood—"for the life of all flesh is in the blood"—Lev. 17:14) unto death."

When Christ said "This is my blood of the new covenant which is shed for you, " he but explained the gospel fact that "Christ died for our sins, according to the Scripture" (1 Cor. 15:4). He did not mean that the crimson fluid in his body would literally be of any value to us, but that the laying down of his life for us would secure our salvation.

A similar parallel is observable in the chapter which is the basis of the question; and this parallel contains the answer to the question. Having spoken of "the blood of Christ, who through the Eternal Spirit offered himself without spot unto God" (verse 14), Paul says it was not necessary he should

"offer himself often, like the high-priest who entered into the holy place every year with the blood of others, for then must be often have suffered" (verses 25–26);

showing that his "suffering" was the "offering" of himself, and that his blood is the symbol of his suffering.

"But now once (hath he offered) . . . . to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself" (verse 26). He was "once offered to bear the sins of many" (verse 28).

It was in this offering of himself in sacrifice that he accomplished what Paul describes as

"entering once by his own blood into the holy place."

Not by the blood (or sacrifice) of bulls and goats, like the Mosaic priests, but by his own blood (or sacrifice of himself). "Laying down his life for the sheep," he pleased the Father (John 10:17), and "opened a new and living way through the veil, that is to say, his flesh" (Heb 10:20).

Here Paul identifies the flesh-and blood nature of the Messiah as the antitype of the veil. That this is right was shown by the rending of the temple veil at the moment Christ died on the cross. It was by the rending of his veil-nature that the way was opened.

On the other side of the veil—the resurrection side—was the holy place which he entered by means of his death, therefore, "by his own blood;" for had he not laid down his life, the antitypical holy place, or spiritual state, must have remained barred against both him and those he died to save.

He did not take his actual blood into this state, any more than we make use of his actual blood when with

"boldness we (spiritually) enter the holiest by the blood of Jesus" (Heb. 10:19).

He entered the antitypical holiest by means of his death, and, therefore, figuratively, entered "by his own blood." His literal blood was absorbed or assimilated, so to speak, by the Spirit, when he was

"declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead"

It may seem a difficulty that "heaven itself," and the "presence of God," should appear to be applied to the state which Jesus entered by the Spirit, instead of to the locality of the Eternal Person of the Deity. But this will only be a difficulty with those who narrow their view of the matter to mere locality. It must be remembered that, although there is a local habitation to the person of the Creator, there is a very important sense in which there is no locality in the relation of things to Him. He

"fills heaven and earth" (Jer. 23:24). "We cannot flee from His presence" (Ps. 139:7;

Acts 17:27).

This is because the Spirit is everywhere, as the Psalm teaches. Hence, to enter into His presence, it is but necessary we should be "in the spirit;" that is, that our nature should become so assimilated to the universal spirit that we are made as conscious and perceptive of the presence of God as He is of ours. The local "heaven" is but a part, so to speak, of this universal heaven; for there is heaven, and "heaven of heavens."

Jesus entered into "heaven," as our forerunner (Heb. 6:20), implying we shall follow; which we shall—into the antitypical holiest—the spirit state or nature, in which, as "the first born," he has preceded us, but not necessarily into the locality of the Eternal Abode.

Jesus was in the bosom of the Father in the days of his flesh, though he was on the earth (John 14:10–11); and he was "on the right hand of God," when he appeared to persecuting Saul, near Damascus. It is the dynamical rather than the mechanical relation of things that is expressed in such phrases.

The Christadelphian, Sept 1898