"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,
and God was the Word. " (John 1, 1)
New Revelation exegesis: "One of the main reasons why such passages are not understood is that the Bible has been badly and errongly translated..." "The time has come, however, to show the true meaning of these passages to all who are ready to have part in this." (Gr I ch. 1)
"The term 'In the beginning" is quite incorrect and very much obscures the inner meaning. It might even lead to the eternal nature of the godhead being put in dispute and in doubt, and some of the older sages of the world have indeed done so, and present-day atheists are really in fact derived from their school. Yet if we render the text correctly, the veil will appear to be very thin, and it will not be ditficult to espy the inner meaning perfectly well and sometimes very exactly through such a light veil."
"The correct translation shall be thus: In the source of sources, or also in the primary cause (of all that is) was the Light (the great and holy concept of creation, the essential idea). This Light was not only in, but also with God, i.e., the Light emerged from God as something that in essence could be beheld and therefore was not only in but also with God, streaming around the primary divinity, as it were, and this appears already to lay the foundation for the time when God would become Man.
"Who or what was this Light, really, this great thought, this most holy of fundamental ideas for all that was to come into existence, to have essential nature, and be utterly free? - It could not possibly have been anything but God Himself, for absolutely nothing but God himself could present himself in his everlastingly wholly perfect beingness in God, through God and out of God; the passage therefore could also read: In God was the Light, the Light streamed through and around God, and God himself was the Light." (Gr I 1, 5-8)
(Mt 10, 34-36) "You must not think that I have come to spread peace on earth. I have not come to bring you the peace of this world, but the sword, for battle. For I have come only to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-inlaw against her mother-in-law. And the enemies of a man will be those living under his own roof"
New Revelation exegesis: "Anyone taking this passage literally, and it also is very badly translated, will necessarily end up in a Iabyrinth of errors, and even the light of an original central sun will not help him to get out of it. For as you may realize from what has been said above, I am teaching and desiring all possible compliance, peacefulness and kindliness among men; and Moses himself taught in his fourth commandment, from My lips: 'Honor and respect your father and mother, that you may live long and fare well on the earth' How could I then oppose this by teaching that son and father, daughter and mother, daughter-in-law and mother-in-law were to live sword in hand in constant strife, and what is more, under one roof!
"To understand these passages that originally did rightly come from Me, and appreciate them as My teaching, it is necessary first of all to know the occasion when I spoke these words, and also how I spoke.
"The occasion was when I was in a place in Galilee and taught the people the duties they owed to God and to one another. And I said to them: 'I am teaching you nothing but what My Father has taught Me from eternitiy, and while you do also call Him your Father, yet you do not recognize Him and never have recognized Him. For if you did recognize Him, you would also recognize Me, as this Father has sent Me to you.'
"They then said: 'What are you setting yourself up to be; are we not Abraham's Children, and did not God say to Abraham that all of us who are descended from him are his Children?' This provoked me, and I said: 'By your descent from Abraham you should all be God's Children, but you have long since ceased to be so, for Satan is your father, the legion of all devils your mother, and your sheer immeasurable blindness, indolence and evil nature is your mother-in-law's daughter-in-law; and these, the greatest enemies of man, are sharing your roof! - And any of you wishing to return again to being true Children of God must take the sword of the truth I am telling you, and continue the fight against those companions under their roof until they have vanquished them.'
"Then of course the gaggle of Pharisees and scribes asked how I dared to declare them Children of Satan, of all the devils and of their own blindness, indolence and evil nature, seeing that they could all prove their descent from the tribe of Levi? And I told them: 'In terms of the flesh, yes, but in spirit you are not like Levi from above, which is also where I am from, but from below, which is also why you do not recognize Me, but hate and persecute Me.'
"It will be obvious to everyone from this, and particularly to anyone conversant with Hebrew scriptures, that I spoke those three verses in the 10th chapter of the pseudo-gospel that Matthew, or rather l'Rabbas, wrote as Sidon, specifically on the occasion I have just made known to you, word for word as I have now told you. For the words of the translation, that you have specifically mentioned as words of the gospel, feeling that they are wholly in conflict with My spirit, would of course demolish the core of my teaching, which is love for your neighbor, and also the law of Moses." (Gr XI p. 257-259)
New Revelation exegesis:
"The wedding feast is My becoming man (in Christ Jesus, author) and the great work of redemption that is bound up with this. Many, indeed more than many, are called for this, - first and foremost the tribes of Israel, though to this hour they did not wish to appear, partly for fear of a Mosaic Law they have not understood, and partly also because of the hardness of their hearts and its lack of faith.
"The invitations are given in part by angels, prophets, after that by all apostles, disciples and evangelists, and finally by all the servants who have spread My word and My teaching in its true form among men and will continue to do so. The people in the alleyways, streets and on the fences are all the people who have lived on earth, still live there and will come in the future. Those in the aIIeyways are people who are still on earth and are indeed in some Christian sect (or church), yet despite this are subject to all the follies of the world and neither can nor will take hold of the true light, so that they should in no way progress to true life everlasting and be wholly free and blessed. The people in the streets are those who also still live on earth, but are in some form or other of heathendom, more or less well known (i.e., unbelievers); finally, those on the fences are the people who have already died in the flesh and - as far as their souls are concerned - are already in the spiritual world, and there too, are in the same way invited to the great feast of redemption through the right means of reformation.
"And among all those who have been invited and now indeed dragged and pulled to the feast by force (of love), the one who wears no wedding dress is in the first place Satan, and in a wider sense all who have remained true to him and could not be made to reform by any means; their fate - as the parable says - is the prison where there is eternal darkness, and which is filled with wailing and gnashing of teeth. The wailing stands for anything that is utterly wrong and opposed to heaven, and the gnashing of teeth for what is thoroughly evil and for the fire of rage in hell, for anyone in the greatest rage and fury begins to gnash his teeth and to yap like an enraged hyena or like a fierce tiger burning with rage." (Gr XI p. 286/287)
"These words reveal the full correspondence between the material image and its spiritual content." (Gr XI p. 287)
This statement provides an explanation for the passage in Matthew's Gospel that has been a stumbling block for many critics. They clearly have no idea that Peter had already put it to the Lord like this: "Two things are incomprehensible: firstly, how and where the guests gathered by the host's servants from where they stood on the fences and in the alleys and propelled to the feast were provided with the necessary festive garb, and secondly, how the poor devil who also was propelled to the feast by the host's servants had to be thrown out because he did not have festive garb." (Gr X 216, 3)
The additional explanation given was: those invited later, in the alleys, streets and on the fences, are the people who, though poor in earthly terms, yet are festively dressed in an inner way, having lived rightful lives according to My law." (Gr X 217, 8)
In conjunction with this parable, the gospel words "Many are called, but only few are chosen" are also shown in their most real meaning.
New Revelation says, among other things: "This passage in the gospels is - like scarcely any other - completely and utterly misunderstood by almost all confessions of the Christian faith, for almost all of them hold the view, and the Roman ones even on account of the faith as promulgated from all pulpits, that only the few who are chosen will enter into heaven, while all others, the many who are called, will unfailingly be cast into hell, for eternity, immediately after the last judgement - the latter also completely misunderstood." (Gr XI p. 284)
Exegesis is in form of a parable that reveals the meaning: "It is said that only this one (at the wedding feast) was thrown into prison, and none of those invited. These are merely reprimanded for their stupidity, not their evil ways ... Therefore do not only consider the chosen acceptable and worthy, but also those who are called to My Kingdom." (Gr XI p. 286)
(Luke 6,20) Blessed are the poor in spirit."
The meaning of this has been much considered. New Revelation shows that the sentence in St. Luke's Gospel, "Blessed are you who are poor, for the Kingdom of Heaven is yours" (6,20) has been falsified over and again. What is meant are all (including the rich and wellto-do, author) who distance themselves from the things of the world in their hearts, and give them little regard.
The actual words in New Revelation are: "Anyone who has not grown poor in everything that is of the 'world', will not enter into My kingdom until he has given the last penny back to the world. You see, that is true poverty, in the spirit and in truth." "The enforced poverty can only equal the one that is freely willed if there is total submission to My will and my love." (Hi p. 329, 19)
(Mt 16, 28) "Truly I tell you: There are some standing here who shall not taste death before they have seen the Son of Man enter into his kingdom."
* According to New Revelation, this passage should not be taken to mean that some of Jesus's contemporaries would not die before he returned. The passage should rightly read:
"But those who live according to My words, and do the works of true self-denial and free inner love, shall not see nor feel death." (This therefore applies to all who are righteous. Author) "Truly, to my own and also your great pleasure I can tell you (the disciples) that some of you who are standing there shall taste or feel no death and shall be witness to everything, until there shall come, as also already discussed, the Son of Man into his kingdom (the next world), and they shall see him and govern with him in eternity. This, however, requires very great love for God and for one's fellow men." (Gr V 171, 60)
"Everyone should therefore endeavor to achieve awakening while still here, for any who are awakened while still here, in the flesh, shall neither see nor feel nor taste the death of the fesh, and their souls shall not be made anxyous (on dying)." (Gr I 149, 3)
(Mt 5, 39) "I tell you: Do not resist evil: rather, if someone strikes you on the right cheek, offer him also the other"
New Revelation exegesis:
Peter among other things asked the Lord: "No doubt one can observe this with people who do not go too far in the evil they do to others, but with those who have become and persist in being real arch-devils in relation to their fellow men, surely Your divine teaching should include some small alternative for exceptianal cases?"
Jesus answered: "It is of course perfectly clear that overgreat kindness to someone who is utterly evil would merely give him further occasion to increase in evil and be even worse than before. In such a case, continued compliance would be really assisting the overweening evil nature of the enemy. But I have at all times set up strict judges in this world, and given them the right to chastise and punish the people who have grown too bad and evil, according to their merits, and I have therefore also given you the commandment to obey the worldly authority, be it mild or harsh.
"If anyone has such a terrible enemy, let him go to the worldly judge and report this, and he will purge of his evil nature the man who has become utterly evil.
"If purely physical chastisement will not do it, then in the end it will be effectively achieved with the sword. And that is also how it is with a slap in the face. If you are given it by a less evil person who has been induced to do so in a sudden upsurge of emotion, do not resist, for the fact that you do not retaliate with a slap will calm him, and you will soon be good friends again, needing no worldly judge. But if someone approaches you with a murderous slap in the face, in full fury, you are fully entitled to resist and defend yourself; and you see, if it were not like that I should not have told you that you shall also shake the dust off your feet over those people in a town who not only do not receive you but even revile you and threaten with all kinds of persecution.
"Oh, be sure, that with my sermon of love for one's neighbor I did not in the least do away with the power and might of the sword, but merely tempered it, for as long as enmity among men has not reached a level that in all truth may be called hellish." (Gr X 215, 5 and 8-14)
(Mt 5, 30) "If your right hand becomes an instrument of sin cut it off and throw it away. For it is better for a limb to be lost than that your whole body shall go to hell."
New Revelation exegesis:
"You will realize of course that I did not advocate physical mutilation, but merely the strictest watch over the will of man, that is always free, and his intellect." (Gr X 214, 8)
"The words: 'If your eye offends you, tear it out and throw it away, for it is better to enter heaven with one eye than hell with two', are meant to say: If the light of the world proves too enticing for you, struggle with yourself and turn away from such a light, for it would drag you into the death of matter." (Gr I 42, 8)
(Mt 13, 12) "He who has, shall be given even more, and shall have an abundance, but he who does not have, also shall have taken from him what he possesses."
New Revelation exegesis:
"This almost seems an injustice, but it is not. For it is as much as to say: When a man has exercised his strength and is now able to carry heavier burdens, this does not make him weaker, but stronger all the time. Yet someone who has never been prepared to exercise his strength will soon also lose such as he had, as soon as he is going to use it to carry even the smallest burden, and he will soon sink down exhausted, into complete death. Therefore you, too, should constantly exercise all the powers of spirit, for then you shall in time to come stand in the full strength of eternal life, and be very well able to bear upon your shoulders the greatest burdens of My love, grace and mercy." (Gr XI p. 311)
(John 12, 27) "Now My soul is distressed. And what am I to say? Father, deIiver Me from this hour! Yet it is for this that I have come to this hour."
New Revelation exegesis:
"Who and what is My soul? You see, if you should not yet know it - it is My love! Considering its utterly faithless Children, how could it be other than thoroughly distressed, and that unto death, which is, to the darkness of death that held all the Children so firmly imprisoned? And furthermore, where it says: And what am I to say? What would you say if all your Children cursed you and condemned you? You see, in such cases even purest love has barbs that are hard to kick against. For love that has been spurned so long and so hard causes pain not only in the human but also in the divine breast." (Gr XI, p. 314-315)
(Mt 21,1-7) Jesus sent two of his disciples, saying to them: Go to the village htat lies before you. You will immediately come upon a tiede-up ass and her colt. Untie the colt and bring it to Me. If anyone should want to hinder you, tell them: The Lord needs the colt. He return it immediately." "Jesus sat on the animal."
Rationalist Biblical scholars have considered the untenable nature of this report proven. Surely, they argued, no one can simply take an ass. The details given in New Revelation easily resolve the apparent problem.
The owner of the ass, a retired Roman legionary, was "openly an adherant of Jesus". When the two disciples told him that Jesus wanted the ass for a short time, "he was delighted to be of service to Jesus". (Gr XI p. 169 f.)
David Friedrich Strauss (and modern writers as well) ridicule teh same event as reported by Mark (11, 1-2), where it says that "no one has ever sat on the colt". An animal that has not yet been broken in, they reason with apodictic assurance, would have thrown Jesus off immediately. 50 A rationalist, to whom Jesus is merely a man, could of course hardly see it in any other way. These critics probably have never heard that there are well-substantiated cases of mystics having no problem at all in using wild horses as their mounts, to everybody's amazement. Such facts of course cannot be easily fitted into the thought categories of Strauss and his epigones. Professor Walter Nigg reported that in the case of Friedrich Christoph Oetinger, even animals were aware of his powers, which were inexplicable. Wild horses that would not allow themselves even to be saddled, carried Oetinger like lambs, for many hours and over long distances. 51
lf Jesus was able to command the storms and perform many other miracles that are reported in New Revelation if not in the Gospels, it is a waste of words to spend time on the objections raised by the above authors. We have gone into their criticism because it may serve as an example of how often the conclusions scholars have drawn from text passages are meaningless, because they take a superficial view, do not know the background to the facts, and completely fail to consider the potential of God's supreme power.
Something more may be added here. The question will arise as to why Jesus did not use a horse for his entry to Jerusalem. By human standards, only a horse would be considered for such an occasion. Yet Jesus used a she-ass, and that cannot have been without purpose. The following passages from New Revelation make the purpose clear.
"Surely the Lord could just as well have had a horse brought to him, or at least an ass that was properly broken in, rather than the she-ass? Indeed, any animal would in this case have had to serve the Lord and could not have resisted. A lion, a tiger, a panther, a camel, an elephant, a horse, a mule - any of these would in the first place have been much stronger and would have had to obey the Lord of Infinity at his slightest behest; what is more, such a mount would obviously have been much more impressive than a feeble she-ass." (Schriftt. 15, 16)
"Yet He who is the fundamental order and fundamental meaning of all things does not act like a man, for whom it might be the same either way. For with Him, everything was pre-forming within the most immutable of orders, and propaedeutic for eternity." (Schriftt. 15, 17) "It was exactly by using a she-ass that the Lord decked in poor clothes showed all mankind, figuratively and literally, that they should do the same in spirit, and in all humility place their trust only in the true Love that is fruitful." (Schriftt. 15, 20)
(Lk 19, 27) "But those My enemies, who did not want to have Me for their king bring them here and strangle them before Me."
Not a few Christians reading this passage in Luke's Gospel are taken aback and ask themselves if these can be the words of the same Jesus who otherwise always showed himself to be utterly merciful. Yet if we probe deeper, we'll know that it is wrong to stick too closely to the literal meaning in every case, and that Jesus' words are his very own form of expression. Some formulations are a kind of shock therapy, as perceptive scholars have noted. Examples are the invitation to cut off one's hand or tear out an eye, or expressions such as "cast into the fire", which according to New Revelation is the equivalent of "repreaches painful to the spirit" (Pr 324). If only people would at last come to see that - as A.N. Wilder put it - "Jesus did not think the way we do, and his Ianguage is not our Ianguage". 52 We should then be spared many exegetic interpretations that are completely irrelevant.
Thus Luke 19, 27 also signifies something different from what the incomprehensible words appear to mean. "One only has to know", New Revelation says, "that 'strangle' really stands for 'judge', and all will be clear." "Judge", however, and New Revelation exegesis also makes this clear, does not mean "condemn", but "put to rights".* In Hi I p. 193, for instance, it says: "Anyone wishing to be received into my kingdom, first needs to be judged, that he may cleanse himself completely of all the old mire of his habitual follies."
"Who then are the 'citizens' of the town who did not want the king?" New Revelation continues its exegesis. "Look out into the world and you will see in all the streets, holes and corners, innumerable such citizens who do not want the king. The 'town' is the world, its citizens are the people of the world who want to know nothing of me." "It can be seen, from what has been said, what lies within the passage just referred to: nothing else but the judgement of all that is worldly." (Schriftt. ch. 26)
*The German verb 'richten' has a wide range of meanings, including 'to train, to put to rights, to direct, to judge, to condemn. Translator.
(John 5, 41) "I do not look to men for honor "
New Revelation exegesis:
"I did not create men that they should honor me. I have made a cowenant with mankind, however, and this is called Love, and signifies something quite other than the giving of honor. Who are they that require to be honored? They are the princes and the great men of the world. Why do they have men honor them? Because they want to be more than men, though their awareness tells them that they are no more than men." "What would I do with such honor?" "Could I increase yet further through honors given by men? I hardly think so. This is also why I have nowhere issued the commandment: 'You shall honor God, your Lord, above all', but only 'love above all'."
"All who honor me ceremoniously are the 'Lord, Lord callers' . .." "The objection will of course be raised: God must be honored. For this honor is a noble fruit of the fear of God, and any who do not fear God are capable of all evil deeds. But I am saying: Though fear of God is better than doing evil deeds, yet such a fear of God will never allow eternal life to arise from it, a fearful heart being one that has already been judged. Any who avoid evil for fear of Me will have to stand a hard test." "All the spirits of hell are living and existing in great fear of Me..." "What fool, however, will maintain that the spirits of hell are good just because they have such great fear of Me?" (Schriftt. ch. 27)