Jesus Is Going To Prepare A Place For Us (john 14:1-31)

1459099931 “Let not your hearts be troubled. Believe in God; believe also in me. In my Father’s house are many rooms. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? 3And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also.

(For better viewing click HERE). Jesus assures his disciples that in spite of the fact that his death is approaching, they must maintain faith in him and in God. He makes a promise that he is going to prepare a place for them in God’s house, assuring them that God’s house is large enough to include all of God’s redeemed children. When Jesus returns, he will come back for his own and take them to be with him. Now comes the question: What is God’s house? The only house of God that we are familiar with in the context of the Bible is his Temple, whether in the form of the tabernacle or in its later elaborate structures of stone. Since we know that after his death Jesus went to be with his Father, we must conclude that the heavenly tabernacle is probably in view in this passage.

In the book of Revelation, we read about the final restoration and recreation of the earth – the new heavens and the new earth. The heavens will come down to the earth to form one entity. At this point there will not be a Temple in the city of Jerusalem. This is how John wrote about it:

“22 And I saw no temple in the city, for its temple is the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb.” (Rev.21:22)

Coming back to Jesus’ words to his disciples, in light the book of Revelation, we can understand that as Jesus told them that he must die, he was indicating that this would result in a process of recreation. Once he dies, he would begin to prepare a place of eternal joyful, peaceful, and righteous dwelling for his disciples. When he is resurrected and returns, he will take them there.

And you know the way to where I am going.” Thomas said to him, “Lord, we do not know where you are going. How can we know the way?” Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.”

It is likely that Thomas thought Jesus was referring to a secret hiding place where he may now withdraw to escape arrest. Jesus however spoke of something completely different.

Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. 11 Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves.

The Gospel keeps driving the same point home again and again. To see Jesus is to see God. To accept him is to accept God. To serve him is to serve God.

12 “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father. 13 Whatever you ask in my name, this I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it.

The name of Jesus is much more than the verbal or written form (Jesus vs. Yeshua, etc, Lord vs. YHWH vs. HaShem). The name of Jesus is a powerful symbol of the combined reality of all of that Jesus is; what he says and what he does. To ask something in the name of Jesus is to ask because of who he is, of what he says and of what he does. This is indeed the power of his Name and we must seek no other.

15 “If you love me, you will keep my commandments. 16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, 17 even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you. 18 “I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. 19 Yet a little while and the world will see me no more, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. 20 In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you. 21 Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me. And he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him.”

Once again Jesus states a series of very important points that prepare his apostles to continue his service in His place. Since in this Jewish-Samaritan journey through the Gospel of John I only highlight the things that other commentaries, either  devotional or scholarly, don’t talk about I will dedicate much time to this very important and already well treated section.

22 Judas (not Iscariot) said to him, “Lord, how is it that you will manifest yourself to us, and not to the world?” 23 Jesus answered him, “If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. 24 Whoever does not love me does not keep my words.

Among literary theories of Gospel composition there is an important theory called the Q, meaning quelle (source) in German. Basically it claims that at some point before the Gospels were composed, there was another document of Jesus’ sayings that did not survive nor is it mentioned anywhere. The assumption is that the Gospels were composed from this hypothetical document (scholars call it “the Q”). The majority of liberal scholars accept this theory, while the majority of conservative scholars do not.

While I am not particularly interested in this theory, I must admit that in this chapter the Gospel sharply changes the way of its presentation. A series of terse statements by Jesus are presented one after another in a way that betrays (or at least feels like) an almost direct copying from another place where the statements may have been kept together. These statements do not appear to have been spoken by Jesus at the same time.

I do not argue in any way that these sayings are not authentic, but instead that they may have been said in other contexts or at least partially in another context.

An illustration of this can be seen in Mel Gibson’s movie Passion of the Christ. When Jesus had already been tortured and mutilated by the Roman soldiers, he is carrying the cross. He stops and kneels on one knee and tells his mother who ran towards him: “Behold, I make all things new!” Was Jesus making all things new when he was carrying the cross? Yes! It was part of his suffering on behalf of sinners. However, if we look for this saying within the passion narrative of any Gospel, we will be hard pressed to find it. Why? Because it is not there where Jesus said it in the film! We find this saying of Jesus in the Book of Revelation in John’s vision of him in heaven. What has happened? In his creative imagination, Mel Gibson places Jesus’ later words in his mouth when he is on the way to his death on the cross. I think that if (and for me this is still a big IF) there was ever such a document that we now call “the Q,” the dynamic at play would have been similar to the one I just described.

And the word that you hear is not mine but the Father’s who sent me. 25 “These things I have spoken to you while I am still with you. 26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you. 27 Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you. Not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your hearts be troubled, neither let them be afraid. 28 You heard me say to you, ‘I am going away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. 29 And now I have told you before it takes place, so that when it does take place you may believe. 30 I will no longer talk much with you, for the ruler of this world is coming. He has no claim on me, 31 but I do as the Father has commanded me, so that the world may know that I love the Father. Rise, let us go from here.

Whether or not Jesus’ words were taken by John the Evangelist from an earlier Q document at the time of composition of the Gospel itself is irrelevant. What is important is that the Gospel in its final form completes Jesus’ last training of the twelve with powerful words of exhortation to rise up and leave. This was probably because he did not want his arrest to take place where he was at the time. He had planned in advance what he was going to do.

Copyrights Dr. Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg

About the author

Dr. Eli Lizorkin-EyzenbergTo secure your spot in our new course “The Jewish Background of New Testament” - CLICK HERE NOW

You might also be interested in:

Three Plus Four: Leah

By Julia Blum

Three Plus Four: Rebecca

By Julia Blum

Join the conversation (58 comments)

Leave a Reply

  1. Rafael

    Judeo-Greek autographs? I haven’t heard that one yet. I look forward to it.

    The popular view is that the autographs were Greek. I’ve seen some compelling evidence that suggests that the autographs were Hebrew, and yet other provocative evidence that they were Aramaic. I’ve yet to see proof for any of these views. I favor the Hebrew view, in part because I want it to be so. But I remain open to each one.

    Could you at least tell me what is Judeo-Greek? How does it differ from standard Greek? Or is it part of the reveal-to-come?

    1. Dr. Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg

      I will but I don’t want to spoil the surprise :-).

  2. Rafael


    It is only unthinkable if you do not consider all the facts.

    It is therefore QUITE thinkable.

    One thing that the previous article fails to mention is that the antediluvian stomachs that contained other animals may well have belonged to animals that survived long enough after the flood began, that they were left no other option but to eat other animals. Such animals could have survived for months on floating log-jams, until the logs became too soaked to continue floating. It also doesn’t mention that localized floods could blend into the sediments of the great flood if they happen within a decade or two. It took several decades for the rock layers to harden.

    1. Rafael


      This world, at the end of the tribulation, will be restored to its antediluvian state, as it was originally intended. At that time, none of the animals will be carnivores because they were not such before the flood, not even the dragons (which are now called dinosaurs). Because of this, I am confident that the trees, like the animals, will “behave” as they did before the flood.

      There were far more species of plants before the flood. The few that survived the flood were not able to sustain us easily by themselves. This is why the animals became carnivores and why God permitted us to be.

      Several prophecies indicate that, after the tribulation, the conditions of the antediluvian world will be restored. The animals will have no desire to eat meat, which suggests to me that the original plant variety will be restored as well.

      1. Rafael


        None, of what you said, suggests any alternative way to understand “the healing of the nations”.

        The prophecy only says that the leaves of the tree of life are for the healing of the nations. If this speaks of making oxygen, as you suggest, then this would strongly imply that there are no other plants on earth at that time. I find that hard to take.

        Besides, the prophecy does not say that the leaves of that tree will be for the breathing of the nations, neither for the healing of the air. The leaves having other functions is not the issue at hand. Healing diseases is.

        We have no reason to think that plants or animals will “behave” any differently in the millennium, except that carnivory will disappear (and probably poison as well). I have every reason to believe that the tree of life will “behave” as other plants do now except for producing 12 different life-giving fruits each year and leaves that will heal all diseases.

        And besides, the understanding of the mind of the audience and the author would have been precisely what you said, that medicine would be made from the leaves which would in turn heal the diseases of the nations. There’s no need to make it complicated.

        1. alfredo

          Hi Rafael. With all that you have said, it still does not make sense to have sinners outside the New Jerusalem. As you say, you are failing to get all the facts, as it is written in Revelation 20:14 “Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.” and in Revelation 21:4 “And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away.” and in Revelation 21:8 “But the cowardly, unbelieving,[e] abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.” and “For the wages of sin is death” Romans 6:23 (a) so, if there is no death, there is no sin. Besides, there is no Temple in the New Jerusalem, because there is no need for atonement anymore. All these verses speak against having sinners outside the gates of the New Jerusalem.

          1. Rafael

            First, you misquote me. I never said that I am failing to get all the facts. Neither did I say “you are failing to get all the facts”. You tried to throw my own words back at me, but changed them in the attempt. Please be more careful when stating that I said something.

            I never claimed that it makes sense to have sinners in the world after the Great White Throne judgment. In fact, I believe I said that it does NOT make sense to me, even though it appears to be so from the apparent wording of it. It is mysterious. It is clear that we do not have all the facts.

            Regarding the rest of your message, you are preaching to the choir.

          2. Rafael

            I happen to believe that the oldest Greek NT manuscripts are translations from Hebrew autographs. And things always get lost in the translation. I suspect that may be the case here.

            What it says in Revelation 21-22, regarding the healing of the nations and sinners outside the gates, seems to contradict other scripture, such as the ones you pointed out. And I don’t see an easy way around it. So I think it may be a translation issue.

            I pray for the earliest copies in the original language to surface and be released to the public.

          3. Dr. Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg

            I do not want to get into this issue now, Rafael. But I will offer an alternative view that the originals were not Hebrew, but were written by Jews in Judeo-Greek. I will soon be available on Mp3 as Podcast. But this will take some time :-).

  3. Rafael

    I am not permitted to reply to your entry. I guess there’s a limit to the depth of nested replies.

    Oh yes. Simplicity can be quite subjective. For example, predestination is a no-brainer for me, ever since I understand time and how God supersedes it. I now understand that His omnipresence includes the dimension of time. This understanding reveals that predestination and free will are not in conflict at all. Most of the conflict in the whole Calvin vs Armenian debate disappears when we understand God’s timelessness.

    Often the literal reading is the simple one. Sometimes it’s not. And sometimes the simple reading is not the best one. But I think it’s the best way to bet.

    I do try to avoid saying that the literal reading is often the best one. But I do sometimes slip, since the simple is often the literal.

    Your statement about the non-literal got very complicated. I read again what I wrote. I don’t think I’ve “demonized” the non-literal. I think I may demonize the pet theories that defy inconvenient truths. I think I may demonize theories that are unnecessarily complicated. But I think your word “demonize” unfairly demonizes my treatment of such positions. My point was simply that many figurative readings of prophecies were created before technology allowed a more simple fulfillment.

    One example where the opposite is true is a creature in Revelation that many believe to be helicopters. The simplest reading is that they really are creatures, primarily because a machine is not Biblically a creature, but for other reasons as well. Might they turn out to be helicopters? Could be. I just don’t think so.

    But I’ll give an example of “a type of unbelief”, as you call it. Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that the 144,000 applies to them, despite the simple reading which names each of the 12 tribes of Israel. They conveniently ignore that part, or allegorize it.

    1. Dr. Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg

      There is no doubt that much sin committed by the alegorizing everything to death 🙂 I don’t like either the literalist nor allegorical approuch exclusively. But I think both can and should be used depending upon the type of literature is being considered. The sticky part here is using literal interpretation when reading apocalyptic literature where much is true, but allegorical. So I say we will potato with knife or better yet potato peeler :-), not fork and surely not with spoon. 🙂 I think it is important to have fun 🙂

      1. Rafael

        Your sentence about the potato has something grammatically wrong with it. I think I got it. But the grammar leaves me less than certain.

        1. Dr. Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg

          I meant (can’t find the comment in my system easily) that we need to use different interpretive tools for different genre’s of literature. I think you agree with me judging from your other comments. Dr. Eli

          1. Rafael

            Yes, I also think I agree.

            Since you have trouble finding it, here is what you wrote:
            So I say we will potato with knife or better yet potato peeler :-), not fork and surely not with spoon.

            But I think you underestimate how sharp my spoons are. 😀

          2. Dr. Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg

            🙂 they are! US Navy was always good at sharp spoons.

      2. Rafael

        Sometimes, the simplest reading IS the figurative, just as with the dreams of Joseph, the baker, the wine taster, pharaoh, etc. And sometimes the simplest reading is the literal, as with the 70 weeks of Daniel, in the context of a Jewish mind, of course.

      3. Rafael

        Henry Morris wrote a pair of books as a set, The Genesis Record and The Revelation Record. They are both written quite well. He believed that all the symbols in Revelation are first explained in Genesis. I’m inclined to agree, though there may be exceptions.

  4. alfredo

    To my current understanding there will be a temple built by Yeshua HaMashiach in His second coming (it might be the temple described in Ezequiel) during the millennium kingdom, in this earth under this heaven (Rev 20) After that, a new heaven and new earth will substitute this creation and the New Jerusalem will come down (Rev 21)

    Any temple built in this era, this present age, this world (Olam HaZeh) will be destroyed when Yeshua places His feet on the mount of Olives (Zec 14:4, Act 1:9-12)

    1. Rafael

      It has been too long since I put my attention on these things. I’ve forgotten things. And other things have blurred together in the faint memories.

      Yes, clearly, Mt Tzion does not arrive until the new heaven and new earth, after the millennium. And yet, the leaves of the tree of life in that city will be for the healing of the nations, and there will be all manner of sinners outside its gates (Revelation 22:14-15), in the new earth. Mysterious!

      1. alfredo

        Hi Rafael. Thanks for the reference. I wouldn’t take that sinners would be literally outside the gates of the New Jerusalem. The greek word for outside could also mean that these kind of people will be excluded from being there at all, that is, excluded from being in the Olam HaBa. This interpretation would be in line with all that Yeshua has said about who will enter the Kingdom of God and who will not.

        Adverb from G1537; out (side, of doors), literally or figuratively: – away, forth, (with-) out (of, -ward), strange.

        1. Rafael

          Interesting theory, except for one thing, the other anomaly I pointed out, namely that the leaves of the tree of life will be for the healing of the nations. This appears to confirm the idea that sinners truly will be present in the world outside the city, unless you’re also suggesting that glorified bodies can become sick.

          1. alfredo

            Hi Rafael. The real question is : What does “healing of the nations” truly mean? Does it mean that people get sick and then have to create medicine from leaves from the tree of life to get well? The leaves of a tree in this creation already have many other functions, such as being a kind of an air filter… create oxygen at day time… If you can envision that lions will be vegetarians in the Olam HaBa (which is unthinkable in this world), what makes you think that trees will “behave” as they do now? The way the Tree of Life will work, we cannot know at this time.

  5. Rafael

    I was under the impression that the current city of Jerusalem will exist during the millennial reign right next to the new Jerusalem (like ant hill next to the great pyramid in scale). From what I’ve read, I gathered that the center of the new Jerusalem (1500 miles long, wide, and high) would be somewhat near what used to be Babylon. And that would put the center of its western wall right up against the eastern edge of Israel.

    1. Rafael

      I alluded to, but forgot to make my point. The reference you cite about the city having no temple is specifically the New Jerusalem, not the current one. Are you not confusing the two Jerusalem cities during that time period?

      In the current Jerusalem, the temple gets rebuilt during the Great Tribulation. And I don’t remember reading anything of its destruction. And it seems to me that if it gets destroyed, it should be something that would likely not be overlooked by prophecy. In other words, I’m under the impression that the third temple will stand throughout the millennium.

      God will not send rain on any nation which does not come to Jerusalem and worship God. But they won’t be able to enter Mt Tzion (the New Jerusalem), which is where He is. But if they cannot enter to worship Him, then why would they be required to come to the city of “Jerusalem” to perform the worship? If they must worship Him from inside the city of “Jerusalem”, but from outside Mt Tzion, away from where God’s presence resides (implying two cities of Jerusalem), then why could they not worship him from their own land?

      I don’t know this, but it seems to me that the third temple will still serve a purpose during the millennial reign of the Meshiakh.

      1. Dr. Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg

        Once again this depends heavily on one particular interpretation of the meaning of Rev.20 and millennium kingdom as a whole. In other words it makes sense with your schema of interpretation and does not in other/s. But this is normal. People have thought about this for 2000 still without a full agreement in sight.

        1. Rafael

          Yes and no. Technology has advanced such that many prophecies can now take place literally, without need of anything miraculous.

          Scoffers laughed for many years at the notion that every eye would see Him when He returns, since the Earth is a sphere. Nobody scoffs at that any more. And not many people try to maintain any figurative rendering of this.

          For the lack of our current technology, many things that were considered to be impossible were thought to be figurative. And countless ideas were formulated to explain such passages.

          But the simplest reading is usually the right one. Many of these figurative readings are more complicated than the simplest way to understand them, especially with technology what it is today.

          The Bible has a lot of seemingly separate pieces that are not separate at all. For example, prophecy states that all high places will be brought down and all low places will be brought up. We often don’t stop to think what massive quakes would result. This also would cause massive tidal waves. Other prophecies connect with these results:
          – The high places will be brought low, and the low high.
          – Then there was an earthquake such as never has been.
          – Woe to those who dwell carelessly in the coastlands.
          – A man of a hundred years will be considered a child.
          – The lion will eat straw like an ox and relax with the lamb.

          I believe these are all connected. The earth will be restored more or less to the way it was before the flood. The continents moving apart is what caused the high and low places. This means that the continents will move back toward the way they were before the flood (whether fully or not, I do not presume). But even just partially restored would cause massive earthquakes and tidal waves, which prophecy does predict. This is just a piece of my position on this particular topic. No doubt it will raise objections. Just bear in mind that I’ve only presented part of it.

          I do not claim to know any more than anyone else. And I do not claim that my ideas are correct. I think they are, or I would abandon them. I occasionally discover scripture that makes me reconsider my positions, even cherished ones. When I determine that I’m wrong, I weigh the evidence and find the best position accordingly. I have had to abandon several cherished beliefs. No doubt, I’ll have to abandon a few more.

          1. Dr. Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg

            Rafael, shalom.

            I thank you for your comment. I think it is a good one.

            I do take exception to few phrases like “the simple reading is usually the right one”. Simple? I can see that. But simplicity and literal readings do not always correlate. They are heavily conditioned upon theologies and social location, etc. Sometimes what is simple for us for complicated for the ancients and vica versa. I am sure you will agree.

            Moreover when someone says (which I don’t) that they think that it may be fulfilled none-literally he or she does not mean by this that the literal cannot be because it is not possible. I think your statement demonizes the position of non-literal fulfillment unfairly, defining it as type of unbelief. Let’s keep thinking together.

            By the way what is your background? Would love to get in touch off the public forum. Perhaps, you can drop me a note at

            Dr. Eli

          2. alfredo

            I concur with Dr. Eli when he says that “simplicity and literal readings do not always correlate”.

            Take 1 Cor 15:29 as an example. Using simple reading you will never get to the real understanding of such difficult verse. Once you are in the right context (that is to think as a Jewish person in the 1st century), it is so simple to understand and to explain to others… it becomes so clear and so logical that it has become one of my favorite texts to use to explain the importance of reading the Scriptures in the right context.

    2. Dr. Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg

      Rafael, this depends heavily upon the way you read everything in the case of discussion literally or not.

      1. Rafael

        Well, in the case of the dimensions of Mt Tzion, I think it’s rather difficult to take that as anything but literal. It’s rather specific. And that is the most natural way to read it. Anyone who’s never heard of the Bible, let alone studied it, would read the descriptions of that city in a very literal way.

        I just noticed a few days ago, when looking at a map, that India is roughly the size of Mt Tzion. That actually makes it a little easier for me to envision it on a map. I just look at India, turn it about 45 degrees in my mind, and plant it just east of Israel. But that’s only the size of its base.

        What’s truly staggering is is height. It’s 1500 miles high. That pokes out of the atmosphere. Most of our satellites are in Low Earth Orbit, which only extends up to 1243.7 miles. This means that Mt Tzion actually reaches out into Medium Earth Orbit.

        The mass of the city would increase the overall the mass of the planet, and would resultingly shift the center of gravity, especially near the Tzion mountain. That would pull most of our current satellites out of their orbits. The GPS satellites might not be affected at around 12,000 miles up, eight times higher than Mt Tzion.

        1. Dr. Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg

          To me your point is self-defeating :-). I say so respectfully, Rafael. Dr. Eli

          1. Rafael

            I have tried to see it, but without success. Could you elaborate? How is it self-defeating?

        2. alfredo

          To my current understanding, Mt Zion (New Jerusalem) will come down to a new earth (Olam HaBa), so it’s dimensions ( 1,500 x 1,500 x 1,500 miles) don’t matter against current world dimensions (Olam HaZeh).

          1. Rafael

            To my understanding, there will be murderers, liars, adulterers, and various other sinners outside the gates of Mt Tzion. That would mean that it has to be on the Earth before the Great White Throne judgment, which would require it to be during the millennium.

          2. Rafael

            Also, the leaves of the tree of life (growing all along the rivers coming out from the throne of God in the new Jerusalem) is for the healing of the nations, outside the gates of Mt Tzion. This also requires that Mt Tzion be on Earth before the Great White Throne judgment.

          3. alfredo

            Hi Rafael. You say that “there will be murderers, liars, adulterers, and various other sinners outside the gates of Mt Tzion.” I don’t seem to find a reference on that in Scriptures. Can you point it out?

          4. Rafael

            Revelation 22:14-15

  6. Rafael

    Although what you said is technically true (because you said “after”), it seems you implied it to have been right after, which it wasn’t. Yeshua did not go to the Father after his death. He even said so to Mary Magdalene three days later in the garden. In fact, He did not go to the Father until 40 days after His resurrection. This doesn’t really affect the point you were making though.

    1. Dr. Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg

      He did not go to the father in once sense and he did in another. After 40 days he will be ascended and resited to the right hand of the Father. After his death he was already ministering in the heavenly tabernacle. So, no and yes.

      1. Rafael

        Ministering in the heavenly tabernacle right after His death? I do not recall reading that. Where can I find it?

        I was perplexed to discover while reading the Bible that Paradise was not with the Father. Years later, I finally encountered someone who could tell me where Paradise was. And it was not up.

        1. Dr. Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg

          Hebrews 9:1-28

          1. Rafael

            And where does that passage say that He did so “right after” His death?

            I understand that this is how quickly it happened with the blood of animals. And likely it happened just as quickly with the blood of Yeshua. But where does it say so?

            He tells Mary not to cling to Him, that He had not yet ascended to the Father. Yet, three days earlier, he told the guy next to Him “TODAY, you will be with me in Paradise”, which was a term for Sheol, also called Abraham’s bosom (not the garden of Eden, Alfredo, different place). This is where He preached to the captives and was later released from the pains of death.

            I suppose He could have made a quick detour into the heavenly tabernacle to sprinkle His blood before moving on to hell (the non-smoking section).

          2. Dr. Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg

            God and his relationship to the time may be an issue here. I am not sure how it all hangs together.

        2. alfredo

          Paradise? I think you can find it in Genesis 2:8-14 and Genesis 3:24

  7. ginette kelley

    hi kat, not quite sure if one of us has got Peter wrong , i never equated him with being a soldier , just a fisherman on Lake galilee, the only time i thought he even handled a sword was in the Garden of Gethsemene at the time of Jesus arrest when he cut of the ear of Caiaphes servant which jesus restored, yes Peter did deny knowing Jesus ‘before the cock crowed but Peter was often in trouble with the Lord.
    Jesus on one occasion accused him of harbouring Satan and rebuked him when on the mount of transfiguration for trying to suggest he erect tabernacles for Jesus, moses and elijah, i can’t recall other times but i know there were a few, in fact when Jesus appeared to Him and instructed him to go to the centurions home, peter was going to disobey because as a Jew he was forbidden to intermingle with Gentiles, so when the soldiers came for him, yes i think Peter was afraid, he never stuck around long after Jesus arrest, but Jesus knew his disciples would abandon him except for John and his mother and mary magdelene, its interesting that apart from John most were executed or killed and had relatively short lives as they tried to carry on without Jesus to protect them