“Go back and report to John what you hear and see...” (Matthew 11:4-6)

“Go back and report to John what you hear and see: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor. Blessed is anyone who does not stumble on account of me.” (Matthew 11:4-6)

What does Jesus mean by 'good news'?

Jesus is referring to teaching the "good news" just as John the Baptist taught:

And with many other words John exhorted the people and proclaimed the good news to them. (Luke 3:18)

But we should also note that Jesus is practically quoting Isaiah's statement about bringing 'good news to the poor.' Here is Isaiah's statement:

The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on me, because the LORD has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners,  to proclaim the year of the LORD's favor and the day of vengeance of our God, to comfort all who mourn, and provide for those who grieve in Zion— to bestow on them a crown of beauty instead of ashes, the oil of joy instead of mourning, and a garment of praise instead of a spirit of despair. They will be called oaks of righteousness, a planting of the LORD for the display of his splendor.  (Isaiah 61:1-3)

The core statement about 'good news' by Isaiah includes more of his statement for context. Isaiah is speaking of his being a messenger for God. He is speaking of his teachings providing comfort to those who are empty and saddened by the physical world.

We also find that the "good news" has a root in the more ancient texts:

“My lord the king, hear the good news! The LORD has vindicated you today by delivering you from the hand of all who rose up against you.” (2 Samuel 18:31)

Even as he was speaking, Jonathan son of Abiathar the priest arrived. Adonijah said, “Come in. A worthy man like you must be bringing good news.” (1 Kings 1:42)

Light in a messenger’s eyes brings joy to the heart, and good news gives health to the bones. (Proverbs 15:30)

So we find there is a tradition in using this phrase to indicate, even metaphorically, that the messenger of God can deliver information to us that will comfort us and bring us spiritual health.

Not only does Jesus' statement reflect this along with Isaiah's sentiment. He also quotes Isaiah's statement during a sermon in a Temple:

"The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor." (Luke 4:18-19)

So we find that Jesus is not just stating his role in preaching the "good news" here. He is suggesting that this act of giving people the "good news" is something that comes from a tradition of God's messengers, to give hope to those of us who are lost without that "good news."

But what is the “good news”?

"Good news" is actually a poor translation for the Greek word εὐαγγέλιον (euaggelion) - which directly relates to the teachings of the Prophets - and "the gospel." Jesus, John, Isaiah, Samuel and other Prophets weren't paper boys handing out the news: They were preaching God's message. And what was that message?

" 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment." (Matt. 22:37-38 and Deut. 6:5)

Why did John the Baptist's disciples question Jesus?

This statement of Jesus follows a question from John the Baptist's disciples for Jesus:

When John heard in prison what Christ was doing, he sent his disciples to ask him, “Are you the one who was to come, or should we expect someone else?” (Matthew 11:2)

This question from John the Baptist’s disciples reveals a lot about the relationship between Jesus and John the Baptist, and the lineage of God's representatives. Remember that Jesus is also one of John the Baptist’s disciples. This we know because John the Baptist baptized Jesus.

The New Testament does not elaborate much on their relationship. But we know there was a close relationship between them, as Jesus went to see him. Then he heard his teachings and became baptized by him. We also know that John the Baptist was a teacher of the "good news," and that many people traveled far distances to hear his teachings.

Consider this description of the birth of John the Baptist from Luke 1:5-18:

In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wife Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron. Both of them were upright in the sight of God, observing all the Lord's commandments and regulations blamelessly. But they had no children, because Elizabeth was barren; and they were both well along in years.

Once when Zechariah's division was on duty and he was serving as priest before God, he was chosen by lot, according to the custom of the priesthood, to go into the temple of the Lord and burn incense. And when the time for the burning of incense came, all the assembled worshipers were praying outside.

Then an angel of the Lord appeared to him, standing at the right side of the altar of incense. When Zechariah saw him, he was startled and was gripped with fear. But the angel said to him: "Do not be afraid, Zechariah; your prayer has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you are to give him the name John. He will be a joy and delight to you, and many will rejoice because of his birth, for he will be great in the sight of the Lord. He is never to take wine or other fermented drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from birth. Many of the people of Israel will he bring back to the Lord their God. And he will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous—to make ready a people prepared for the Lord." (Luke 1:5-18)

Did John have a teacher?

The scriptures indicate that John the Baptist's father, the priest Zechariah, was John's teacher. This illustrates a lineage of teachings passing from teachers to students, who then become teachers.

We also can see that John was to become empowered by God to deliver people back to God - to save people, in other words.

After John's birth, Zechariah made this prayer:

"Praise be to the Lord, the God of Israel,
because he has come and has redeemed his people.
He has raised up a horn of salvation for us
in the house of his servant David
(as he said through his holy prophets of long ago),
salvation from our enemies
and from the hand of all who hate us—
to show mercy to our fathers
and to remember his holy covenant,
the oath he swore to our father Abraham:
to rescue us from the hand of our enemies,
and to enable us to serve him without fear
in holiness and righteousness before him all our days.
And you, my child, will be called a prophet of the Most High;
for you will go on before the Lord to prepare the way for Him,
to give His people the knowledge of salvation
through the forgiveness of their sins,
because of the tender mercy of our God,
by which the rising sun will come to us from heaven
to shine on those living in darkness
and in the shadow of death,
to guide our feet into the path of peace." (Luke 1:67-79)

Was Jesus part of a lineage of priests?

We know that Zechariah and John the Baptist were ardent followers within the lineage of teachers descending from David. In Luke 1:39 we come to understand that Mary knew Elizabeth because Mary went to see Elizabeth in her home and they sat together prior to the birth of Jesus.

Both families were obviously among a society or tribe that strictly worshiped the Supreme Being, as confirmed by the statements above about Elizabeth and Zechariah. Many call this association the Nazarenes, repeatedly in the New Testament Jesus is referred to as "Jesus of Nazareth" which could also be translated to "Jesus the Nazarene."

Others say that Jesus and John were part of the Essenes, who mostly lived in the wilderness, away from the cities.

Regardless of the group, we can see from their activities and teachings that they were strictly following the teachings ("commandments") that had been handed down through generations of prophets, to worship the Supreme Being and devote their lives to the Supreme Being.

This, in fact, is the meaning of "prepare the way for Him." We do not need to wordsmith this as some have done to try to suggest that John's purpose was only to introduce Jesus. John was teaching his followers how to come to love and serve the Supreme Being - to devote one's life to the Supreme Being.

To "prepare" for God means to get our heart and life in order so that we can return to the Supreme Being after the lifetime of this body is over.

How did John become empowered?

We can see this in Luke's description of John's empowerment by the Supreme Being:

In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar—when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene—during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the desert. He went into all the country around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. As is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet:
"A voice of one calling in the desert,
'Prepare the way for the Lord,
make straight paths for Him.
Every valley shall be filled in,
every mountain and hill made low.
The crooked roads shall become straight,
the rough ways smooth.
And all mankind will see God's salvation.' ". (Luke 3:1-6)

What is this "word of God" that came to John in the desert? This is certainly the Supreme Being's empowerment to become God's representative. We can see from his statements that the intention was to save people: "God's salvation" means re-establishing our relationship with the Supreme Being.

The interpretation of "prepare the way for the Lord" has been grossly mistranslated by some who miss the entire wisdom contained in John's and Jesus' teachings. To "prepare the way for the Lord" means to redirect our lives towards developing our relationship with the Supreme Being. To "make straight paths for Him" means to focus on God and begin to act in ways that are pleasing to the Supreme Being - by following His commandments.

In direct statements by John the Baptist, we can also see that John's focus was to save people by teaching them about re-developing their relationship with the Supreme Being:

The people were waiting expectantly and were all wondering in their hearts if John might possibly be the Christ. John answered them all, "I baptize you with water. But One more powerful than I will come, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. His winnowing fork is in His hand to clear His threshing floor and to gather the wheat into His barn, but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire." And with many other words John exhorted the people and preached the good news to them. (Luke 3:15-18)

John is obviously referring to the Supreme Being here, as he describes His "barn" - the spiritual realm.

The ancient historian Josephus characterized John's life in his own historical writings:

[18.116] Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God as a just punishment of what Herod had done against John, who was called the Baptist.

[18.117] For Herod had killed this good man, who had commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, righteousness towards one another and piety towards God. For only thus, in John's opinion, would the baptism he administered be acceptable to God, namely, if they used it to obtain not pardon for some sins but rather the cleansing of their bodies, inasmuch as it was taken for granted that their souls had already been purified by justice.

[18.118] Now many people came in crowds to him, for they were greatly moved by his words. Herod, who feared that the great influence John had over the masses might put them into his power and enable him to raise a rebellion (for they seemed ready to do anything he should advise), thought it best to put him to death. In this way, he might prevent any mischief John might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it would be too late.

[18.119] Accordingly John was sent as a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to Machaerus, the castle I already mentioned, and was put to death. Now the Jews thought that the destruction of his army was sent as a punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God's displeasure with him.

What is baptism?

The word "baptize" comes from the Greek word βαπτίζω (baptizō), which means to "immerse" or "submerge" and "to overwhelm" according to the lexicon. This is a word that can be used literally, as in immersing in water (or even pickles, as the Greek word has been used to describe) - or may describe an immersion with the Supreme Being - surrendering oneself to the Supreme Being: Taking shelter of God.

The interpretation that John is referring to Jesus in Luke 3:15-18 - "One more powerful than I" is questionable. It is the Supreme Being who baptizes with the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit is the Supreme Being moving within the physical world. In other words, God's baptism - or immersion - with the Holy Spirit and with fire - refers to taking shelter of God and establishing our unique loving relationship with Him. This type of "baptism" is given only by the Supreme Being.

Also, we know from the timing of John's statement, Jesus had already been baptized by John. Therefore, if John was referring to Jesus, he would have said that he had already come, because he had already been born by then and even had been baptized.

Thus John could not be referring to Jesus in Luke 3:15-18.

The Holy Spirit is not some kind of an object or trophy that can be handed to someone. The Holy Spirit is the communication mechanism of the Supreme Being, who is a Person. God is an Individual, with Whom we can have a relationship. Why would Jesus say that the first and foremost commandment is to love God if there is no prospect of a relationship between two individuals: ourselves and God? One cannot love a vague wisp of wind. There has to be a relationship for love to exist. This means that God must be an Individual.

Furthermore, God, the Supreme Person, cannot just be given away in a baptism by someone, like one might hand a person a trophy after winning a race. God must come out of His own volition. This means that the Supreme Being makes a decision to extend Himself to us. And what makes Him make this decision? Love. He is attracted by our love. If we come to love Him, He will open up to us, and His true 'baptism' will take place as He embraces us and brings us back to Him.

Many institutional teachers, beginning with the mistranslations and misinterpretations begun in Rome in the fourth century - when Emperor Constantine ordered Bishop Eusebius to put together and translate a collection of texts that fit with the politically-oriented positions of the Roman Empire - in the decade following Rome's legalization of Christianity.

Prior to its legalization in 313 AD, Christianity was illegal in the Roman Empire. Anyone practicing it was subject to arrest and persecution by the Roman government. Now, suddenly, Christianity was the darling of the Roman Empire. And the Latin Bible - which fathered other Bibles - was put together for the eventual approval of Emperor Constantine.

This Bible was thus carefully manipulated to fit the agenda of the Roman Empire and Emperors - to define Jesus as God (via the Nicene Creed's Trinity's "God the Son") and minimize the Supreme Being that Jesus and John (and all the Prophets) were trying to teach us about.

Who was John referring to as the 'One greater'?

John was referring to the Supreme Being. He was telling the people that once they re-establish their relationship with the Supreme Being, they will have the ultimate salvation.

Consider for a moment those who might not have had the opportunity to hear from Jesus. Would John simply be preaching in order to tell people to go worship Jesus?

Just as every other prophet before John, including his father, and all the way up the lineage of teachers including David, Moses, Abraham, Jacob and many others, John was teaching his followers to re-establish our own relationship with the Supreme Being. They were not playing word games about the coming of some future savior of all humanity. The coming "Messiah" that they have been awaiting is the Supreme Being Himself.

All they have to do is hear the teachings of the prophets that have already appeared (come), and follow in their footsteps, to establish their own personal relationship with the Supreme Being. Awaiting a future "Messiah" is futile if those messengers of God who already appeared gave us the final solution to love and cherish the Supreme Being.

It is certainly ironic that the politically-oriented Pharisees of the institutional temple, whom Jesus was so critical of, were also proposing the future "messiah" concept, theoretically drawn from the sayings of the Prophets.

Consider the consequences of the only savior of the entire world coming at a future time, long after our lifetimes are over. How does that provide hope or resolution?

This is saying that God is impotent. Almost any man can have multiple sons and multiple messengers. But the Supreme Being can only have one? 

This means that, for most people, no one, not even Abraham, Jacob, David, Moses, Solomon and so many other Prophets who had an intimate relationship with the Supreme Being (all of whom "walked with God"), has been saved. It means that all their teachings - all their words - were in vain.

This would mean that all those billions of people who worshiped the Supreme Being before Jesus came were not saved. All of these billions of people, regardless of their faith and their spiritual progression, all have to wait for the savior to come? Where will they wait?

Do we have to wait in purgatory?

Some claim that no one can return to heaven (the spiritual realm) until Jesus comes again. They claim that everyone will have to wait somewhere after they die, until either the savior comes, or the savior comes again. Wasn't it enough that the messiah came the first time? (This proposition implies that Jesus' first coming wasn't enough. He will have to come again for people to really be saved.)

Where is this purgatory location? And how would we wait? In our bodies? What happens when our bodies decompose?

Yes, some also believe in Peter Pan and Santa Claus. Really - they really believe in them. It doesn't mean they exist though.

There are three types of "comings" described among the books of the New Testament - translated to "coming" from the word ἔρχομαι (erchomai) - which actually means "to appear" or "to make one's appearance."

This expression is used metaphorically to describe different spiritual scenarios.

One occurs when the physical body dies. At this point, our spirit-persons leave our bodies and appear in the spirit world and embrace our spiritual connections with God and His angels. At this point, we are judged for our lives. This is when the spiritual self comes out of the physical body and arrives in the spirit world.

The second type of "coming" is the appearance of the Supreme Being in our hearts. This takes place when each of us individually surrenders our lives to the Supreme Being. Upon this surrender, the Supreme Being "comes" into - appears in - our lives, and our lives become driven by this renewed relationship with the Supreme Being. In other words, when we surrender our lives to the Supreme Being, God comes into our lives.

Another type of "coming" relates to the Supreme Being empowering one of His loving servants to become His representative. Here the reference is derived from the notion of the Supreme Being sending someone to teach us His message. When the Supreme Being sends someone to teach, we are at the receiving end. Therefore we can refer to this empowered representative of God as "coming" (appearing) from the Supreme Being.

There are many disagreements between different sects about whether Jesus was the only "messiah" (the "coming") they have wordsmithed from the teachings of the prophets. These two sects are reading from the same books of the Old Testament, yet those who claim to follow Jesus say that this "coming" of the Messiah already took place (yet curiously, he still must come again) while Talmud priests teach that the Messiah hasn't come yet.

Both of these positions would mean that every prophet and teacher, from Jesus to John the Baptist, to Zechariah to Moses, to Abraham, to Noah, to David, Solomon and many others who tried to teach us and show us by example that our happiness lies in loving and serving the Supreme Being, has all been in vain.

Each of these teachers has been a messiah in the truest sense of the word. They have delivered to their time and society God's teachings - by their words and their lives, to encourage us to turn to the only real Messiah: God Himself.

What does 'Christ' mean?

The Greek word Χριστός (Christos) - used only four times in the four Gospels - also means "messiah." But it also means "savior" according to Thayer's lexicon. 

Ultimately, the Supreme Being is our Ultimate Savior. But those who represent the Supreme Being are also saviors, in that they can deliver God's invitation to us to return to Him.

John the Baptist was also a savior. And so was Moses. And so was David. And so was Abraham. Those messengers of God had developed a loving relationship with the Supreme Being and were empowered ("sent") by the Supreme Being.

With this in mind, we can better understand the question John's disciples asked Jesus and Jesus' answer.

The fact that John sent his disciples to ask Jesus the above question indicates that there was an expectation and hope by John that one (or more) of John’s followers would become an empowered representative of the Supreme Being.

This journey and question by John's disciples indicate that John was not sure if Jesus was empowered. He may have heard some things. This is why John asked his followers to visit with Jesus and ask this question. He did not want to go on rumor alone.

This also confirms that John was not preaching about Jesus in his teachings. It confirms that John was referring to the Supreme Being when he said:

"I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me comes one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire." (Matthew 3:11-12)

Besides, there is no evidence that Jesus would have a "winnowing fork" and a "threshing floor" where he would be "gathering his wheat." These are all metaphors used to describe how God separates those who worship Him from those who do not.

Periodically the Supreme Being sends us (or empowers) His messengers to teach on His behalf. Such an empowered person is typically also a follower within a lineage of teachers, illustrating the relationship between the Supreme Being and those with whom He has a relationship.

This forms a lineage of loving teachers throughout time. Each teacher has handed the Truth to followers, some of whom decide to take the teachings to heart and humbly submit themselves to the Supreme Being. 

Such submission may prompt the Supreme Being to empower those persons to teach on His behalf.

So the question being asked by John’s disciples is whether Jesus (as Jesus also was one of John's disciples) had become an empowered messenger of God, as John had been.

Jesus answers the question of John’s disciples by describing his trying to heal people and teach people “the good news” (as did John, remember the above?). He indicates the "dead are raised," and so on. This has a double meaning to some degree, as Jesus indicates that he is enlightening people by teaching the Truth. With respect to the "dead are raised," consider this statement of Jesus:

“Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead.” (Matt. 8:22)

Then Jesus humbly states to John's disciples, “Blessed is the man who does not fall away on account of me.” Why?

Jesus is saying here to his fellow disciples of John that he hopes his teachings will help people. This might be akin to the modern-day saying, “we’ll be lucky if I don’t mess things up.” This indicates that Jesus thought of himself not as the savior of the world, or as if he was God. But he thought of himself as a humble teacher, trying simply to do God’s will.

One final note about John. One might wonder why he was in jail. John was in jail because of his devotion and commitment to teaching this message. He too was telling people to love and serve God, and that we will never be happy without our relationship with the Supreme Being. 

For this reason, John was jailed and eventually beheaded. In other words, like Jesus, John sacrificed his physical life to bring us those teachings. He gave his life for God and for others, illustrating a tradition of service and sacrifice to the Supreme Being that was also illustrated in Jesus’ life.

“I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.” (Matthew 15:24)

Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is demon-possessed and suffering terribly.” Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.” He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.” (Matthew 15:21-24)

Why wouldn't Jesus help her?

We can see from the remainder of this exchange with the Canaanite woman that Jesus was not teaching that he will only help Israelites - as has been interpreted by many teachers. Jesus considered the character of the spirit-person within the body rather than the temporary physical body as important:

"Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted." (Matthew 15:28)

Jesus illustrated his mercy with this statement. While Jesus understands his mission ("I was sent") from God related to bringing back the lost generation of Israelites, he will not turn away those in need.

What about the rest of us?

Jesus is illustrating his mission, but it doesn't mean his mission cannot be expanded. This was in fact what Jesus asked of his other disciples, including Peter, James, and Thomas.

Peter traveled throughout the Middle East preaching and converting people to love of God, as instructed by Jesus. And Thomas traveled widely, including to India, where he converted many people to Jesus' teachings.

These disciples of Jesus took Jesus' example and taught to those who were serious about having a change of heart. They taught widely but were not bent on creating institutions where they could exert power and authority.

This differed from Paul's strategy. Paul set out to attract many followers and created an institution where he could have authority. Paul argued with James and Peter about Jesus' teachings. Paul argued that Jesus' teachings should be amended to attract the "Gentiles."

While this may seem to be a virtuous agenda, we can see by the result that it was foolhardy. The result is that Paul's teachings (Pauline doctrine) cheapened Jesus' teachings. Yes, Paul may have made it easier for people to join his new church institution. But what was created was an institutional quagmire that allowed those who sought power to push up to the top of the institution and exert their quest for power and authority over others.

This in fact was the very same quagmire that Jesus fought against in the form of the institutional Jewish temple system and the Pharisees and high priests.

Thus, we find that Jesus carefully taught his disciples to avoid creating institutions that allowed people who weren't serious about coming to know and love God to use them to exert their own power. This is why James, John and Peter did not go out and develop institutions as Paul did.

The bottom line is that this event with the woman, along with the life of Peter and John illustrates that Jesus did want his teachings to be preached to people outside of the "sheep of Israel." But Jesus didn't want to cheapen those teachings and have them abused and used to promote people who would twist Jesus' teachings to satisfy their own agendas.

Jesus - and John before him - sought those who were serious and wanted to have a change of heart. This is why John the Baptist, Jesus and Jesus' disciples all taught:

In those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the wilderness of Judea and saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near.” (Matthew 3:1)

From that time on Jesus began to preach, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near.” (Matt. 4:17)

These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel. As you go, proclaim this message: ‘The kingdom of heaven has come near.’" (Matthew 10:7)

But we find Jesus also said:

“Let anyone who is thirsty come to me and drink." (John 7:37)

This is precisely what took place with this Canaanite woman, the Samaritan woman, and others who were not Jews as they approached Jesus. Jesus also instructed his disciples according to the Book of Luke (Lost Gospels of Jesus):

And he told them, “Thus it is written that the Anointed of God [Messiah, Christ] will suffer and rise up from the dead on the third day. And that the change of heart leading to the release from sin would be preached on his behalf to all peoples, starting from Jerusalem. (Luke 24:45-47)

Is Jesus the 'son of David'?

We notice here that Jesus is being referred to by the woman as the “son of David.” Jesus appeared probably a thousand years or more after the time of David. So how could he be referred to as David’s son?

There are two genealogies for Jesus given in the books of the New Testament, but these do not agree. Matthew 1:1-17 traces back to Abraham.

But in Luke 3:23-28 we see a totally different genealogy tracing back to Adam, with many differences from Matthew's version. Both include David, but differ in many other respects. In Matthew, for example, David is followed by Solomon. In Luke, David is followed by Nathan, and there is no mention of Solomon. Why these discrepancies?

And on top of this is the conflict between this and a virgin birth: Jesus was supposed to have not had a physical father, yet in both Luke and Matthew, the genealogy connects Jesus to David through Joseph, assuming Joseph is Jesus’ father. And neither genealogy connects to Mary.

The key to understanding Jesus' real relationship with David lies in the meaning of the Greek word that has been translated to “son.” The word is υἱός (huios) - which can mean "son" only "in a restricted sense" according to the lexicon; but also, "used to describe one who depends on another or is his follower" according to the lexicon.

David was born somewhere around a thousand years before Jesus. It would thus be inappropriate to say that Jesus was the "son of David" because David was not Jesus' father. And according to the scriptures, even Joseph was not Jesus' father. The more appropriate translation, as defined above, would be "follower of David," "disciple of David" or "loving servant of David" within this context.

Yes, there is a connection between Jesus and David. What is that connection? David was a spiritual teacher that passed his teachings on to his students, who then passed it on to theirs. Yes, some of these were father-son relationships. But others are not. For example Eli was not the father of Samuel - even though he called him son. Eli was Samuel's spiritual teacher.

It is also illustrated by Joshua being Moses' student.

This same lineage of teachings was handed down from Jesus to his own students as well. And Jesus' students were told to take on their own students.

The great lineage of God's wisdom is illustrated in the Old Testament as it chronologically presents the teacher-student relationships for thousands of years. However, those eventual ecclesiastical translators and organizers of the books of the Bible eventually misunderstood the meaning of the teacher-student relationships that were presented by the Bible. This is because they were ecclesiastical scribes. They did not learn from a teacher within this great lineage of teachers and students.

Is Jesus part of a lineage of teachers?

Despite many mistranslations mischaracterizing dealings between the Prophets as family relationships, the books of the Old Testament describes a lineage of teachers each who handed down the Truth to students who passed that Truth to others.

Many of these teachers are described as "Prophets" or "anointed ones," the Hebrew of which can also be translated to Messiah or even Christ. While many ecclesiastical sectarian teachers like to say there was only one "anointed one" - this is not supported by scripture. Consider these statements:

[God speaking] "I will raise up for myself a faithful priest, who will do according to what is in my heart and mind. I will firmly establish his house, and he will minister before my anointed one always. (1 Samuel 2:34-36)

[God speaking] "Do not touch my anointed ones; do my prophets no harm." (1 Chronicles 16:21-23 and Psalm 105:14-16)

O LORD God, do not reject your anointed one. Remember the great love promised to David your servant." (2 Chronicles 6:41-42) (David referring to himself as "anointed")

For the sake of David your servant, do not reject your anointed one. (Psalm 132:9-11)

[God speaking] "Anoint them just as you anointed their father, so they may serve me as priests. Their anointing will be to a priesthood that will continue for all generations to come."

(Exodus 40:14-16)

[God speaking] Then the anointed priest shall take .... (Leviticus 4:4)

[God speaking] "This is the offering Aaron and his sons are to bring to the LORD on the day he is anointed: a tenth of an ephah of fine flour as a regular grain offering, half of it in the morning and half in the evening. (Leviticus 6:19-21)

[God speaking] "The son [student or follower] who is to succeed him as anointed priest shall prepare it. It is the LORD's regular share and is to be burned completely. (Leviticus 6:21-23)

He poured some of the anointing oil on Aaron's head and anointed him to consecrate him. (Leviticus 8:11-13)

[God speaking] "The priest who is anointed and ordained to succeed his father as high priest is to make atonement. He is to put on the sacred linen garments. (Leviticus 16:31-33)

Those were the names of Aaron's sons, the anointed priests, who were ordained to serve as priests. (Numbers 3:2-4)

[God speaking] I will raise up for myself a faithful priest, who will do according to what is in My heart and mind. I will firmly establish his house, and he will minister before My anointed one always. (1 Samuel 2:34-36)

Then Samuel took a flask of oil and poured it on Saul's head and kissed him, saying, "Has not the LORD anointed you leader over his inheritance? (1 Samuel 10:1-3)

Samuel said to them, "The LORD is witness against you, and also his anointed is witness this day, that you have not found anything in my hand." (1 Samuel 12:4-6)

When they arrived, Samuel saw Eliab and thought, "Surely the LORD's anointed stands here before the LORD." (1 Samuel 16:5-7)

So Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed him in the presence of his brothers, and from that day on the Spirit of the LORD came upon David in power. Samuel then went to Ramah. (1 Samuel 16:12-14)

He said to his men, "The LORD forbid that I should do such a thing to my master, the LORD's anointed, or lift my hand against him; for he is the anointed of the LORD." (1 Samuel 24:5-7)

This day you have seen with your own eyes how the LORD delivered you into my hands in the cave. Some urged me to kill you, but I spared you; I said, 'I will not lift my hand against my master, because he is the LORD's anointed.' (1 Samuel 24:9-11)

What does being 'anointed' mean?

We can see from these statements that to be "anointed" was to become baptized or blessed as a student by the spiritual teacher. The teacher was accepting the student as a follower. And eventually, as their learning matured into the "priesthood." And what is the priesthood? The priesthood is the empowerment of being one of God's loving servants and messengers: Someone who passes the Supreme Being's message on to others, as did Jesus and the other prophets.

This empowerment of becoming anointed is not simply a ritual, however. It is a process. It is the process that Jesus' disciples underwent as they heard from Jesus and were disciplined by Jesus. It is, in other words, a process of learning and applying the teachings of the spiritual teacher, and then passing those teachings on to others. This process requires not just learning from a philosophical sense: It requires establishing a relationship with the Supreme Being through God's representative.

This is like an introduction. The best and easiest way to come to know someone we don't currently know is to be introduced by someone who already knows them, yes? This is also God's process. He utilizes those who have established a loving relationship with Him to also introduce Him to others. This is what the teacher-student process is: It is the process of establishing a loving relationship with God. This is why Jesus, Moses and all of the other empowered representatives of God taught:

“ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment.” (Matthew 22:37-38)

“I will also ask you one question. If you answer me ...” (Matthew 21:24-25)

Jesus entered the temple courts, and, while he was teaching, the chief priests and the elders of the people came to him. "By what authority are you doing these things?" they asked. "And who gave you this authority?" Jesus replied, "I will also ask you one question. If you answer me, I will tell you by what authority I am doing these things. John's baptism—where did it come from? Was it from heaven, or of human origin?" They discussed it among themselves and said, "If we say, 'From heaven,' he will ask, 'Then why didn't you believe him?'" (Matthew 21:24-25)

What did they mean by 'authority'?

The institutional temple chief priests and elders saw Jesus teaching in the temple courts. They asked him, “By what authority are you doing these things?”

They were questioning whether Jesus had the authority to stand on temple grounds and teach the people. Why?

Because they had their own system of appointing rabbis and priests. And Jesus was not operating within that system. Jesus had been baptized by John.

This baptism by John was essentially his anointing - a rite of passage within the teaching lineage of the Prophets. This rite - baptism by John - gave Jesus his authority, because it confirmed that Jesus was passing on the teachings of John and the Prophets before him.

This is why Jesus responded to them with the question about John's baptism.

In other words, Jesus did have the authority to teach. This authority ultimately came from God.

What does 'from heaven, or from men' mean?

This is the one question Jesus asks because this is the key to Jesus' authority.

Jesus is referring to his being baptized by John the Baptist. This confirms that Jesus became the disciple of John the Baptist, and that John had many other disciples, and Jesus was also baptizing but Jesus' disciples were doing most of it:

Now Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that he was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John — although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples. (John 4:1-2)

This is confirmed as we find that Jesus baptized his own disciples, and delegated much of the act of baptizing to how disciples.

So Jesus is saying that John's baptism is what gave him authority. This is why Jesus asked them if John's baptism "came from heaven, or from men."

Where did baptism come from?

One might think - since there is no baptism in the Old Testament - that this process originated with John the Baptist.

However, this is not true. Baptism is essentially the same process utilized in the Old Testament and translated to the word 'anointing:'

“Anoint Aaron and his sons and consecrate them so they may serve me as priests." (Exodus 30:30)

This was God's instruction to Moses, as the process to be used to symbolize becoming a disciple of Moses. As mentioned in the above verse, this is also described as serving to 'consecrete them.'

Baptism is essentially the same process, as liquid is poured over the head in a ceremony of consecration. Oil was often used, but water was also used:

Then Moses brought Aaron and his sons forward and washed them with water. (Lev. 8:6)

We find from this that both John and Jesus utilized baptism to 'consecrate' [or purify] people, leading to their becoming disciples.

Therefore, one might consider using water from a river to baptize or consecrate as 'the poor man's' version of anointing.

As to the question asked by Jesus - whether John's baptism came from heaven or men, we find the answer in Exodus 30:30 above. Since God instructed Moses to do this, we must accept that John's baptism was 'from heaven.'

It is essentially a ritual, but it symbolizes a purification derived from devotion to God.

Was authority handed down through the Prophets?

The ritual of anointing or baptism leading to purification and becoming a disciple is consistent with the process of authority being passed down through the lineage of the Prophets for thousands of years.

Knowledge - and the authority to pass on that knowledge - was passed from Abraham to Lot and Isaac. From Isaac to Jacob. From Jacob to Joseph. From Joseph to the sons of Israel. From Jethro to Moses. From Moses to Joshua. From Eli to Samuel. From Samuel to Saul and David. From David (and Zadok the priest and Nathan the Prophet) to Solomon. This lineage descended from David and Solomon down to the devoted priest Zachariah - John the Baptist's teacher.

And Jesus accepted baptism from John the Baptist, and then baptized his own disciples, who baptized their own.

The scriptures are a testament of this lineage of teachers and students through the ages. Sometimes the teachings of loving service to God were given from a father who was a loving servant of God to his son, and sometimes they were passed from a priest who was a loving servant of God to his student.

In all cases, we see a tradition among God's prophets. Their empowerment came from God. Their service began to the Prophet and was symbolized by "anointing" or "baptizing." Once the disciple learned at the feet of the Prophet they would then apply this knowledge. As their relationship with God developed, God might empower them to become a teacher. This is the authority that Jesus is speaking of here.

Did the Pharisees accept this process?

The officials of the institutional temple that Jesus was speaking to here were not following this tradition. They had developed a political hierarchical system whereby councils of men appointed other men to become their "authorized" teachers. This is diametrically opposed to what is illustrated in the scriptures, and what Jesus is referring to here as the true authorization to teach.

We also see that Jesus not only accepted this process as he was baptized by John. He also baptized his followers. And he requested of those who were dedicated to his teachings to go out and also become teachers to others (which they did). In other words, Jesus authorized those followers, just as John the Baptist authorized Jesus. This is the process authorized by God as documented in Exodus.

The political process of the Pharisees was not authorized by God because the teachers and leaders were being elected by councils of men. This means their "authority came from men," as Jesus put his question.

The same goes for the political process used today among many institutions, as councils of men will elect priests, pastors, cardinals, deacons and so forth.

Yes, ironically, even though Jesus practiced this ancient process of a teacher transmitting instructions and teachings to a follower who then becomes a teacher, most of today's sectarian teachers subscribe to the political method of being "authorized by men."

It is not as if baptism is separated from teaching. As we can see from the record of John the Baptist, he was not simply dunking people in the water and then sending them off.

Rather, John was teaching from the river Jordan. He was giving them knowledge. The rite of baptism is simply a symbolic activity that represents a person accepting the teachings of his teacher, just as the anointing with oil was a symbolic activity among the ancient Prophets.

What about today's baptisms?

Today many teachers and their institutions are dunking or splashing people with water without any value. It has become an empty ritual.

That is because their authority has 'come from men.' The authority of most of these teachers comes in the form of elections or appointments from politically assembled councils. Therefore these teachers are receiving a political appointment.

The baptism ritual has become a ceremony of joining a particular sect or group in many cases. This is arguably offensive to Jesus because his core teachings (of loving and serving God) have been put in the background:

“Not everyone who says to me ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will come to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles? Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!” (Matthew 7:21-23)

From these teachings, we can conclude that simply dunking someone in water “in the name of Jesus” is not in itself pleasing to Jesus or God. The activity can only have value if it is accompanied by the acceptance of the core teachings of Jesus - the first and foremost being to love God and do God’s will.

Only then can the submission (or baptism) come "from heaven" and not "from men."

“First clean the inside of the cup and dish ...” (Matthew 23:25-26)

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.” (Matthew 23:25-26)

Why is Jesus talking about cleaning a cup and dish?

Jesus continues the analogy using the cup and dish. Again he uses the word "inside" - ἔσωθεν (esōthen) - referring to the soul or inner self.

By cleaning the "inside of the cup and dish" Jesus is referring to purifying one's consciousness. How can one's consciousness become purified?

By submitting oneself to the Supreme Being. Because the Supreme Being is all-purifying and merciful, by approaching Him with humility, our consciousness will become purified.

Jesus is speaking of substance versus perception. A person may strive to appear religious in order to impress others. Rather, the substance of religious practice is our relationship with God.

Jesus' criticism was aimed at these institutional temple priests, but the issue is pertinent to each of us. Jesus' statement can help us look at ourselves, and consider our own activities.

This is a reference to physical appearances versus the status of the heart. A person may wear flowing robes and otherwise appear to be religious. But within their hearts, they may be only interested in themselves.

This self-centeredness is our disease, and why we are here in the physical world in the first place. This physical body allows us to exercise our self-centeredness with seeming independence.

The Supreme Being allows this because love requires freedom. He gave us the facility of the temporary physical world - full of the illusion of permanence and appearing to be a place of enjoyment - in order to allow us the freedom not to love and serve Him.

But we are not these physical bodies and this physical world is not our home. These physical bodies are temporary vehicles that will die within a few years and thence decompose. And everything we thought we owned - including our name, reputation, house, wealth, and family - are lost at the time of death of this body.

In this verse, Jesus is metaphorically referring to the physical body as the outside of the cup and dish.

We are the spirit-persons residing within the physical body. This person leaves the body at the time of death and moves on. This spirit-person being referred to by Jesus with the word "inside" - translated from the Greek word ἔσωθεν (esōthen) - which literally means "from within" and "your soul" according to the lexicon. The "soul" is the spirit-person. We are each a soul.

The condition of this spirit-person - also metaphorically considered the condition of the heart - determines our destination after the death of our physical body. This condition is the state of our consciousness.

Why does Jesus call 'teachers of the law and Pharisees 'you hypocrites'?

Jesus is calling these institutional teachers "hypocrites" because their hearts did not reflect their shows of religiosity. The real servant of God does not utilize their relationship with God for the purposes of fame, glory or wealth. The two are polar opposites.

The relationship between God and His loving servant is such that the loving servant seeks to glorify God, not themselves. God still may choose to glorify his loving servant - as he did with Jesus - but the loving servant does not seek that glory.

Ironically, Jesus' description of the Pharisees and the "teachers of the law" can also be applied to many of the sectarian institutions today that claim to follow Jesus.

Being appointed as a temple priest or Pharisee does not indicate a relationship with the Supreme Being. In the same way, going to seminary school and passing the examinations, and being selected by councils has nothing to do with the heart of a priest, minister, or reverend.

Appointments or seminary tuition payments tell us nothing about that person's relationship with God. As we saw in sexual abuse cases, a person could pass the seminary with flying colors and still be an enemy of Jesus and God.

Once seminary school is completed, appointments to positions such as a priest, pastor, minister or reverend, bishop are often made using political processes. This requires candidates to impress councils of deacons and other institutional officials.

Furthermore, maintaining a position of priest, pastor, minister, preacher, or reverend requires continuing to please those councils and officials. They become obligated to those councils and officials that appointed them. And because they are paid salaries for their positions, they must please the councils in order to maintain their livelihood.

This has nothing to do with the work of pleasing God or representing God. The role of being God's loving servant is not displayed in a title. It is not evident from a resume. It is not evident from political recommendations.

Becoming God's servant is strictly something that occurs internally, between a person and the Supreme Being. This has been established by Jesus through his teachings and example.

This is consistent with all relationships. Let’s say we meet someone, and we make friends with them. We spend time with them, hanging out together and sharing intimate things about each other. We begin to trust each other. Would we then take advantage of that friendship in order to impress others or make some money? A true friend would not do this. A true friend would not try to take advantage of their friend in order to gain something.

It is no different in our relationship with the Supreme Being. If we utilize the beginning of a relationship with God - whether God gave us a glimpse of Himself or some understanding - for the purposes of our own success, fame or wealth - we would be doing the same thing: We'd be using God. We would be abusing our relationship with Him.

Why is Jesus so upset with them?

As we can see here, trying to take advantage of a position with God is extremely distasteful to Jesus. Why? Because Jesus is maintaining an intimate relationship with God. He is upset that these Sadducees and Pharisees (the priests, ministers, preachers, rabbis, and reverends of those times) were using their positions with the temple for self-centered purposes.

We see from the Book of Matthew that Jesus was accepted into synagogues to teach: But he neither sought nor held an appointment as a rabbi, Pharisee, or Sadducee by any council or assembly. Instead, Jesus became the disciple of John the Baptist, who was a student of the priest Zechariah, a devoted servant of God in the tradition of Melchizedek - who was Abraham's spiritual teacher.

Jesus also carried on this ancient tradition by teaching his own disciples and students, and then asked those disciples and students to each go out and teach others.

Thus we can see by Jesus' example that the authority to teach comes not from a political election by councils of men. Rather, it comes from becoming the sincere student and servant of a spiritual teacher who is themselves a student and servant of a spiritual teacher who is themselves a student and servant of a spiritual teacher, and so on. In this way, each student and teacher is a loving servant of the loving servant of God.

The sincere student of an ancient line of bonafide teachers carries not an appointment by that teacher because a sincere teacher authorizes every student they teach to carry on their teachings. Rather, it is God who ultimately empowers such a student. This empowerment comes in the form of a personal relationship with God, which is fostered by one's teacher. An example of this is Eli's fostering of his student Samuel's relationship with God. Just consider this excerpt from 1 Samuel:

The boy Samuel ministered before the LORD under Eli ...
Now Samuel did not yet know the LORD: The word of the LORD had not yet been revealed to him.
The LORD called Samuel a third time, and Samuel got up and went to Eli and said, "Here I am; you called me."
Then Eli realized that the LORD was calling the boy. So Eli told Samuel, "Go and lie down, and if he calls you, say, 'Speak, LORD, for your servant is listening.' " So Samuel went and lay down in his place.
The LORD came and stood there, calling as at the other times, "Samuel! Samuel!"
Then Samuel said, "Speak, for your servant is listening."
(1 Samuel 3:1-10)

"You have said so" (Matthew 26:64)

But Jesus remained silent. The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God." "You have said so," Jesus replied.

Why was Jesus being interrogated?

After the other chief priests had interrogated Jesus, the Temple High Priest Caiaphus began interrogating Jesus. Jesus remained silent for the other priests' questions.

Jesus' response came only after Caiaphus asked him bluntly, "under oath by the living God."

Did Jesus affirm that he was the Messiah? Not exactly. He confirmed only that the high priest said it.

But this question indicates precisely why they were interrogating Jesus: They were envious of the fact that Jesus was a true teacher and representative of God. 

They were envious that people were saying that Jesus was the Messiah.

Why didn't Jesus say that he was the Messiah?

First, because he was speaking to the high priest, who is supposed to be, according to Jewish custom, the representative of God. To outwardly claim to be the Messiah would have offended the high priest. This is why Jesus instead said, "you have said so."

Second, because Messiah is a role, not an individual. The person who plays that role is authorized by God. It was not Jesus' right to insist he was playing that role.

The word "Messiah" is being translated from the Greek work Χριστός. According to the lexicon and according to Biblical scholars, this word can be translated to either mean "Anointed," "Messiah" or "Christ."

But we also find within this word, a deeper connection to the Supreme Being. And there is a connection between "Messiah" and "Son of God" according to this. The term, "Son of God" is not the best translation of the Greek.

Being "anointed" has a long and cherished meaning in Jewish history. All of the great saints and prophets of the Old Testament, indeed, were anointed. This includes Abraham, Moses, Joshua, David, Samuel, Saul, and many others. Just see this clear statement by God to the Israelites about what this meant:

"Anoint them just as you anointed their father, so they may serve Me as priests. Their anointing will be to a priesthood that will continue for all generations to come." (Exodus 40:15)

Those were the names of Aaron's sons, the anointed priests, who were ordained to serve as priests. (Numbers 3:3)

In fact, an "anointed one" as confirmed in the scripture, is God's representative. His loving servant, who served as a priest to teach others about Him. Here is a clear statement by God about His anointed:

"I will raise up for Myself a faithful priest, who will do according to what is in My heart and mind. I will firmly establish his house, and he will minister before My anointed one always." (1 Samuel 2:10)

Notice that God also says "he will minister before My anointed one" here. This means that not only does God's anointed worship Him, but His anointed also serves His anointed. This refers to the service relationship between the teacher and student.

What is being anointed mean?

We find that Moses, Joshua, Samuel, Saul, David, Solomon and so many others were anointed. They also each "ministered before" (served or subjected themselves to) their predecessor. While we do find anointing ceremonies among these, we also find that the sacred anointment was actually a confirmation of their growing relationship with God:

Then Samuel took a flask of oil and poured it on Saul's head and kissed him, saying, "Has not the LORD anointed you leader over His inheritance?" (1 Samuel 10:1)

While some of the translations and interpretations of the Old Testament make it seem as though an anointing was specific to becoming the king of Israel as a governor, this is an oversight by professional sectarian translators. some of God's anointed were also kings. But in many of these cases, being a "king of Israel" more precisely meant being God's representative within the Jewish nation. Jesus was also from time to time referred to as a king of Israel, for example. And Jesus confirmed this definition regarding his particular service to God:

"I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel." (Matthew 15:24)

Many other scriptural texts clarify that the anointing ceremony is a formalization of an appointment by God to represent Him. In the above verse (1 Samuel 10:1) for example, Samuel follows with these clear statements to Saul:

"The Spirit of the LORD will come upon you in power, and you will prophesy with them; and you will be changed into a different person." (1 Samuel 10:6)

The verses afterward confirm Saul's relationship with God:

As Saul turned to leave Samuel, God changed Saul's heart, and all these signs were fulfilled that day. (1 Samuel 10:9)

So we can see that while there was a ceremony, the actual change of consciousness came from God, as He changed Saul's heart.

What does it mean to change Saul's heart? Love. Saul became one of God's loving, devoted servants. From that point forward, he sought to please God, and teach on behalf of God:

When they arrived at Gibeah, a procession of prophets met him; the Spirit of God came upon him in power, and he joined in their prophesying. When all those who had formerly known him saw him prophesying with the prophets, they asked each other, "What is this that has happened to the son of Kish? Is Saul also among the prophets?" (1 Samuel 10:10-11)

Biblical translators and interpreters like to downplay what "prophesying" means. They have made it out like it was simply predicting the future.

This is not the case. The Hebrew word נבא (naba') might be translated to "prophesize," but it means, according to the lexicon, to come "under influence of divine spirit." In other words, it means to begin speaking on behalf of God. It means to represent God in one's teachings. This is also the same as being a Messiah (or Christ - 'savior'): God's messenger and representative.

This is confirmed in scripture:

Formerly in Israel, if a man went to inquire of God, he would say, "Come, let us go to the seer," because the prophet of today used to be called a seer. (1 Samuel 9:9)

And the meaning of being anointed? It is a ceremony that expresses a commitment by a person to God, and the teachings of the teacher representing God: It is disciple-ship. It is a commitment to the teachings of God's representative.

We can see this relationship between Samuel and Saul:

As they were going down to the edge of the town, Samuel said to Saul, "Tell the servant to go on ahead of us"--and the servant did so--"but you stay here awhile, so that I may give you a message from God." (1 Samuel 9:27)

Samuel was teaching Saul about God. To give "a message from God" means to 1) be teaching on behalf of God; and 2) be teaching about God.

We also see that Samuel knew from God that God had chosen Saul to represent Him:

When Samuel caught sight of Saul, the LORD said to him, "This is the man I spoke to you about..." (1 Samuel 9:17)

We see similar events between Jesus and John the Baptist. We also see in Jesus' life, a ceremony that was by all tense and purpose an anointing: His baptism by John the Baptist. Remember again that Samuel knew Saul's greatness and that God chose Saul at that time:

Then Samuel took a flask of oil and poured it on Saul's head and kissed him, saying, "Has not the LORD anointed you leader over His inheritance?" (1 Samuel 10:1)

We also see that John the Baptist represented God:

In those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the Desert of Judea, and saying, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near." (Matthew 3:1-2)

And John, like Samuel, saw that Jesus was being sent by God, as he ascribed (humbly, as loving servants of God will do) about Jesus:

"I would not have known him, except that the One who sent me to baptize with water told me, 'The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is he who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.'" (John 1:33)

After his baptism (or anointing), Jesus then went out and preached the very same teaching that John taught:

From that time on Jesus began to preach, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near." (Matthew 4:17)

Was Jesus passing on John's teachings?

And Jesus later instructed his disciples to go out and teach the very same thing:

"As you go, preach this message: 'The kingdom of heaven is near.'" (Matthew 10:7)

While this phrase does not encompass all of Jesus' teachings, it represents the reality of a lineage of teachings descending from John, Jesus and Jesus' disciples - which descended from the prophets.

And what does this "message" mean: 'The kingdom of heaven is near.'? As we discussed with the Matthew 10:7 verse, the word "near" has been misinterpreted by some sectarian teachers who have taken it to mean the end of the world is almost upon us.

Rather, "near" is not a word indicating time: It is a word indicating distance. It means close by. The message is that God and His kingdom are close by, and all we have to do is submit ourselves to God and commit our lives to Him and we can enter the kingdom of God.

The sum and substance of this teaching is that the Supreme Being wants us back. He is trying to give us a clear message, through those who have already committed their lives to Him. This is how God reaches out to us - through teachings and example.

We don't need to argue about which religious faith is right. All we need to do is turn to God, and accept His message carried through His representatives. All we need to do is reach out to Him from within our hearts. Because God is truly near.

This very same message from God has also been taught by all of the ancient teachers like Samuel, Saul, Moses, Abraham, David, Job and so many others. They were all messengers of God, just as Jesus admitted he was:

"For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of Him who sent me." (John 6:38)

and

"My teaching is not my own. It comes from Him who sent me." (John 7:16)

So we can see from scripture that by accepting himself as "Messiah," "Christ" or "Anointed," Jesus was not claiming to be anything other than God's loving servant and messenger. He came to give us God's message. 

Because God wants us back. He wants us to come home to Him. God knows that we will only be happy when we are back in His loving arms. This is why Jesus clarified His message:

"'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment." (Matthew 22:37-38)

"Therefore go and make disciples ... teaching them ..." (Matthew 28:18-20)

When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." (Matthew 28:17-20)

Why does it say 'some doubted'?

When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted.

Why would they doubt? They were looking right at Jesus, weren't they?

As evidenced by the previous verse about Jesus asking the Marys not to be afraid, they didn't recognize Jesus. This is because Jesus was not appearing to them in his physical body. If he was appearing in his physical body they would have immediately recognized him without a doubt.

But Jesus didn't appear in his physical body, because his body died. At the time of death, Jesus rose up and left his physical body.

This also means that when he appeared to his disciples at Galilee, some did not believe it was Jesus because they did not recognize him.

They did not recognize him because he had risen from his physical body at the time of death.

And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit. (Matthew 27:50)

The phrase, 'gave up his spirit' means the spirit of Jesus left his body. Jesus' spirit left his body. This is the definition of death - the spirit-person leaves or passes away from the body.

This is also confirmed in the Book of John when the soldiers tested to make sure Jesus was dead. His body was dead:

But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. (John 19:33-34)

Indeed, Jesus' own disciples confirmed that Jesus' body was dead:

Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the Council, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for Jesus' body. Pilate was surprised to hear that he was already dead. Summoning the centurion, he asked him if Jesus had already died. When he learned from the centurion that it was so, he gave the body to Joseph. So Joseph bought some linen cloth, took down the body, wrapped it in the linen, and placed it in a tomb cut out of rock. Then he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb. (Mark 15:43-46)

What did the disciples see and what happened to his body?

If Jesus' physical body was dead and his spirit had passed away (risen from the body), then what appeared to his disciples was an apparition - the spirit of Jesus. This is why some doubted.

This might bring up the question of what happened to Jesus' body if they did not find it in the tomb on the third day. We find that Jesus' body was put into a tomb, as was the custom during those times:

As evening approached, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who had himself become a disciple of Jesus. Going to Pilate, he asked for Jesus' body, and Pilate ordered that it be given to him. Joseph took the body, wrapped it in a clean linen cloth,  and placed it in his own new tomb that he had cut out of the rock. He rolled a big stone in front of the entrance to the tomb and went away. (Matthew 27:57-60)

We also find clear evidence that the tomb Joseph put Jesus' body into was not to be his permanent resting place:

Later, Joseph of Arimathea asked Pilate for the body of Jesus. Now Joseph was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly because he feared the Jewish leaders. With Pilate's permission, he came and took the body away. He was accompanied by Nicodemus, the man who earlier had visited Jesus at night. Nicodemus brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds. Taking Jesus' body, the two of them wrapped it, with the spices, in strips of linen. This was in accordance with Jewish burial customs. At the place where Jesus was crucified, there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb, in which no one had ever been laid. Because it was the Jewish day of Preparation and since the tomb was nearby, they laid Jesus there. (John 19:38-42)

This indicates that the tomb that Joseph of Arimathea brought the body to was not meant to be Jesus' permanent burial tomb. The statement, "since the tomb was nearby" indicates that this location was a matter of convenience. Because of the holiday and the lack of resources, they could not properly bury Jesus' body.

The earlier verses indicate that this was Joseph's tomb. Matthew states, "placed it in his own new tomb." It was against Jewish law to bury a body in another family's tomb.

These points mean that Jesus' body would have to be moved to his own family tomb.

It is also possible that the soldiers who were guarding the tomb also moved Jesus' body. They didn't want someone to take Jesus' body so they removed it and hid it away.

Whatever happened, the bottom line is that Jesus had left that body behind. This is why others were handling the body - because it was dead. Jesus wasn't operating that body any longer. 

As far as the stone goes, the verses above indicate that Joseph rolled the stone in front of the tomb himself. Thus rolling the stone away to access Jesus' body would have been quite easy for the guards, Joseph or anyone else who wanted to move Jesus' body to a more permanent tomb.

Archaeology research has suggested multiple tomb potentials where Jesus' body ended up being buried.

Why did Jesus Jesus instruct them to teach?

This statement by Jesus directly contradicts the doctrine that Jesus' crucifixion in itself saves us and cleanses our sins. If this were true, then why would he ask them to go out and pass on his teachings? And why didn't Jesus teach or ask his disciples to teach that his crucifixion would save everyone and cleanse everyone's sins?

We should also note that the teachings of James and others did not state that Jesus' crucifixion would save everyone. This was Paul's teaching - and Paul was not a disciple of Jesus. Paul argued with James and Peter with regard to this and other teachings.

For those who did understand that this was the spirit-person of Jesus, Jesus then instructs them to go out and teach to others what he has taught them. This can be broken down into three instructions:

- Pass on his teachings throughout the world ("all nations")
- Teach what Jesus taught ("teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you")
- Make disciples so they would teach others; ("go and make disciples")

All three of these instructions are related to preaching what Jesus taught. This means teachings precisely what he taught - not making up a new doctrine as the Pauline philosophy and Nicene Creed perpetuated.

Why did Jesus Jesus instruct them to make disciples?

If all we need to do is accept that Jesus died for our sins then why did Jesus instruct his own disciples to go out and make their own disciples? Why couldn't everyone just accept Jesus' crucifixion saves us as is being taught by so many today?

Jesus became a disciple of John and then took on his own disciples. Then he taught them the teachings that were also taught by John the Baptist.

John in turn was teaching the same teachings that had been passed down for centuries through the Prophets and a lineage of teachers that included Noah, Melchizedek, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Joshua, Eli, Samuel, David, Solomon, Isaiah and Zechariah - John the Baptist's teacher and father.

Jesus is now empowering his disciples to go out and teach and make disciples of their own. Just as Jesus was a disciple of John the Baptist, he is telling them to go out and do the same as he has done. He is instructing them to carry on his teachings as he had done with John's teachings.

Baptism is the same process as "anointing," described in the Old Testament. It is a ritual that represents the spiritual teacher accepting a follower as a disciple. A disciple is essentially a dedicated follower.

Today baptism has descended into a ritual signifying the joining of a particular sect.

The original intent was to signify a change of heart and a dedication of our life to the Supreme Being. While the ritual is not necessary to achieve love of God, the dedication that it was meant to signify is the cornerstone of spiritual growth. 

The ritual of baptism was never the important part. The important part is the dedication that takes place within the heart. A person who dedicates their life to following the teachings of love of God, then passes on those teachings is a disciple regardless of whether they have undergone the ritual.

But Jesus underwent the ritual in public because he wanted others to understand that becoming dedicated to the teachings of God's messengers is important. It was a public display of dedication to God.

What does 'in name of the Son' mean?

Jesus says to baptize them "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." What does this mean?

The word "son" is a mistranslation in this context. This word comes from the Greek word υἱός (huios). This word, according to the lexicon, can only mean "son" "in a restricted sense." This "restricted sense" would apply only to, "the male offspring (one born by a father and of a mother)."

This, however, is not the only meaning of the Greek word translated to "son."

Thayer's lexicon also defines υἱός (huios) as: "used to describe one who depends on another or is his follower."

What is a person who "depends on another or is his follower"? A person who depends upon another is a dependent.

And a person who follows another is a follower - someone devoted to that person.

This can better be described as a devoted person - a devoted follower or servant.

In the context of God, it can only mean a follower of God or a servant of God.

This is confirmed by Jesus when he said:

“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons [servants or followers] of God.” (Matthew 5:9)

Jesus is quite certainly expanding the definition of "sons of God." This makes it apparent, as we've pointed out with this statement, that Jesus is referring to the followers of God in general with the word υἱός (huios) - which would be more responsibly translated to "servant" or "follower" in this context.

We can see how the word υἱός (huios) is used outside of the context of a physical family elsewhere by Jesus:

Jesus replied, "The people [υἱός (huios)] of this age marry and are given in marriage." (Luke 20:34)

and

"They are God's children [υἱός (huios)], since they are children [υἱός (huios)] of the resurrection." (Luke 20:36)

In both of these statements by Jesus, he is using the word υἱός (huios). In the first (Luke 20:34), "The people" is translated from υἱός (huios), and in the second, "children" is also translated from υἱός (huios). The first is referring to people who are subjects - followers - of the physical world ("of this age"), while the second is referring to people who are the followers or servants of God.

This is precisely how Jesus and others described himself:

1) υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, which means the follower or servant of God (τοῦ means "of" and θεοῦ means "God")

2) υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, which means the servant of humanity.

The correctly-translated term, "servant of humanity," is a humble self-reference that has roots in the Old Testament, though it has also been mistranslated there by ecclesiastical sectarian translators from the Hebrew word בן (ben), which can also mean "son" only within the context of a physical family, but also "a member of a guild, order, class" (similar in use to "follower").

Consider David's humble self-description:

"O Lord, what is man that You care for him, the son of man [servant of humanity] that You think of him?" (Psalm 144:3)

Job also humbly referred to himself as a servant of humanity when he prayed:

"how much less man, who is but a maggot - a son of man [servant of humanity], who is only a worm!" (Job 25:6)

God also referred to Ezekiel as the servant of humanity no less than 60 times:

"He said to me, "son of man [servant of humanity], stand up on your feet and I will speak to you."" (Ezekiel 2:1)

and

"He [God] said: "Son of man [servant of humanity], I am sending you to the Israelites, to a rebellious nation that has rebelled against Me; they and their fathers have been in revolt against Me to this very day." (Ezekiel 2:3)

In this last verse, we see that God referred to Ezekiel as the servant of humanity as He was sending him to teach to the Israelites on His behalf. This is the quintessential servant of humanity: Sent by God to help (as a service to) humankind.

We also know that Jesus' followers also referred to Jesus as υἱός (huios) of David:

The crowds that went ahead of him and those that followed shouted, "Hosanna to the Son of David!" "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!" (Matthew 21:9)

Are they really saying that Jesus is David's son? This is ridiculous, as David lived several centuries before Jesus' body was born.

But when we properly translate υἱός (huios) we can understand the reference quite clearly: Jesus was a "follower of David" or the "servant of David." This clarifies that Jesus was devoted to David, and his teachings were in line with David's.

There is a bond of devotion between Jesus and David. Jesus also comes from the same lineage of teachers as David. And because Jesus' students respected David as a great messenger of God, Jesus' being David's follower was considered an exalted position.

In other words, they were not exalting some sort of family status of Jesus - that his body belonged to the same family as David: They were speaking of his being part of the devotional family of David - the spiritual teaching lineage of David.

So when we translate the word υἱός (huios) within the context of Jesus telling his disciples to baptize "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," we can understand that Jesus was not referring to himself exclusively as υἱός (huios).

The bottom line is that Jesus was saying that they should make disciples in the name of - or on the account of - the servant of God. This brings the disciples into the lineage of becoming themselves, servants of God.

What did Jesus mean by 'end of the age'?

Jesus finishes by promising his followers:

"I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

Sectarian teachers-for-hire would have us believe that he is talking about a supposed "doomsday" scenario, now more than two thousand years later and counting.

However, the Greek phrase συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος does not indicate the end of the world. The root word αἰών (aiōn) means "forever, an unbroken age, perpetuity of time, eternity" according to the lexicon. And συντέλεια (synteleia) means "completion, consummation, end."

In other words, a more appropriate translation of his last statement to his disciples after he appeared to them after leaving his body is:

"And surely I am with you always, until the end of time."

Still in use today, the metaphorical use of "until the end of time" means eternity. It means forever.

In other words, Jesus was telling them that he will be with them for eternity. This is because their relationship is spiritual.

Their relationship is not dependent upon whether their physical bodies live or die. Their relationship was based upon their following the teachings from God as passed on by Jesus.

These were the same teachings that had been passed down through God's messengers over the centuries. They bind anyone who chooses to accept them, including any of us. Such a bond is tied together by following a simple, profound instruction by Jesus, which reiterated the teachings of Moses:

“ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'” (Matthew 22:37-39)