words the Lord at present is nowhere, then The Man Christ Jesus cannot be,

for a body must occupy space.  We read of the actual Ascension of the Lord in

Acts 1, thus:

'And when He had spoken these things, while they beheld, He was Taken

Up; and a cloud received Him out of their sight'.

'This Same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall So Come

in like manner as ye have seen Him go into heaven' (Acts 1:9,11).

Identity and continuity of person is here implied.  He was the Man,

Christ Jesus, and when He comes again He will be still 'this same Jesus'.  Is

He not 'this same Jesus' Who now sits at the right hand of God in those

heavenly places to which He ascended?  Can a man be 'nowhere', or are we, to

quote the writer we have in mind, 'grabbing at the first idea that appears on

the surface?'  We are glad, however, that we have not used such ungracious

terms of one whose teaching we believe to be most dangerous and unscriptural.

Those readers who may be fortunate enough not to have come across this

evaluation of Ephesians 4:8 -10 in the attempt to explain away the 'place'

element in 'heavenly places', must allow the occupation of so much space in

the refutation of the teaching that heavenly places has no reference to a

sphere of blessing 'in heaven'.  We feel like echoing the cry of Mary as we

contemplate the dread possibilities of this spiritualizing system, when she

said 'They have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid Him',

but we find reassurance as she did, in the reply of the Lord Himself, 'Go to

My brethren, and say unto them, I ascend ...' (John 20:13,17).  If epouranios

can be translated 'mighty' in Ephesians 1:3, what is to prevent anyone

suggesting 'mighty Jerusalem' (Heb. 12:22), or 'mighty gift' (Heb. 6:4) or

'mighty country' (Heb. 11:16)?  In plain language the only thing we learn

from the LXX translation of Psalm 68:14 is that El Shaddai is 'The heavenly

One', which has no bearing either way on the phrase, en tois epouraniois.

We are told that those who use Philippians 3:20 to teach that the

destiny of these Philippians was heaven, 'are guilty of expunging the real

message in order to read into it some idea of their own'.  Most expositors

see in Paul's exhortation a call to those members of a Roman colony, to live

accordingly, remembering that the only difference between the Philippian

Roman and the actual citizen of Rome itself, was just this, that while the

Roman was in Rome itself, the Philippian Roman was at a distance, but, as the

apostle wrote:

'Our conversation (citizenship) is (exists all along, Greek huparcho)

in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour' (Phil. 3:20).

The word 'heaven' here is plural, the words 'from which' are singular and

refer to the citizenship which is in heaven.  If the Saviour is to come from

heaven, He must first of all have returned there from the earth, and anyone

who denies this must not object if the words quoted above return like a

boomerang upon themselves.  All attempts to explain away the heavenly city or

country, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to limit it to the restored earthly

city, must be prepared to deny what John says he saw in Revelation 21:2, or

the description he gives at the dictation of the Lord in Revelation 3:12,

both affirm that this heavenly city 'cometh down out of heaven', which by no

possibility can be made to mean already, and only, existing on the earth.