“Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.” (Matthew 4:15)

Why did Jesus get baptized by John?

This is how Jesus responded when he approached John the Baptist for baptism. John had been preaching to thousands of people who came from towns and villages. They traveled miles into the wilderness to hear John's teachings.

John was an acclaimed messenger of God in line with the great Prophets. Thus Jesus' baptism by John also put Jesus within this same lineage of messengers of God.

John's Jordan River baptisms and sermons brought large crowds of people to hear from this extraordinary teacher of wisdom. Though the text records John’s humble statement praising Jesus, it is apparent that John the Baptist was a spiritual teacher renowned throughout Judea.

The texts describe John as a devoted and dedicated preacher. His teachings were critical of the Pharisees and Sadducees. He called them a “brood of vipers!” (Matthew 4:7) In other words, he was not a preacher of the established institutional religion of that time and era.

Yet at the same time, John the Baptist taught the same essential teachings of Moses, Abraham, David, Samuel, Eli, Isaiah and so on. In his sermon to the Pharisees and Sadducees, he comments about Abraham as their father - a term often used to describe one's teacher.

Where did John get his authority?

John the Baptist was also the student of another glorified messenger of God. Luke details John’s father, Zechariah, and how John’s birth came to be. Zechariah was a priest “who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah” (Luke 1:5).

Luke further describes Zechariah and his wife Elizabeth: 

“Both of them were upright in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commandments and regulations blamelessly” (Luke 1:6)

As Zechariah and Elizabeth were older and Elizabeth was thus far barren, the birth of John was preceded by the visitation of Angel Gabriel, who identified himself, declaring that,

“I stand in the presence of God,” (Luke 1:19).

In this visitation, Gabriel proclaimed that Zechariah and Elizabeth would have a child. Gabriel spoke of this child, John the Baptist:

“... 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 1:15-17).

Was John Jesus' teacher?

From this statement, we find that John the Baptist was more than the provider of Jesus’ baptism. He was God's messenger. He brought people back to God. This means he was qualified to teach the same message of love for God that Jesus taught:

“They asked him, “Then who are you? Are you Elijah?” He said, “I am not.” Are you the Prophet?” He answered, “No.” Finally they said “Who are you? Give us an answer to take back to those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?” John replied in the words of Isaiah the prophet, “I am the voice of one calling in the desert, ‘Make straight the way for the Lord.’” (John 1:21-23)

Thus John humbly described himself. Though Gabriel may have proclaimed to John’s father the greatness of John the Baptist, John saw himself humbly, as a simple messenger of God. 

The phrase “make straight” - translated from the Greek term εὐθύνω (euthynō) meaning "to lead or guide straight" as a "helmsman" might - is about one's personal life. John certainly was not involved in governmental affairs or crowd control. “Make straight” is a personal process of preparing oneself.

“The way for the Lord” has been assumed to be some sort of description of Jesus' arrival. This is not consistent with the text. The Greek word ὁδός (hodos) means "a course of conduct" according to Thayer's lexicon. 

This means this verse is describing a person's choice to align one's life with "the Lord" - that is, with the Supreme Being.

In other words: John wanted to encourage people to have a change of heart and decide to return to their relationship with God.

These are the teachings common to all of the prophets. Every prophet, from Abraham to Ezekiel, requested from his students that they turn to the Supreme Being and learn to love and serve Him.

Now when Jesus approached John for baptism, John immediately recognized Jesus, and indicated Jesus' position:

“I need to be baptized by you and do you come to me? (Matt 3:14)

Jesus did not accept such a question born of humility. He understood John's authority and was determined to be baptized by John:

“Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness” was how Jesus responded.

What is the purpose of baptism?

We might stop to consider carefully the meaning and purpose of baptism. While some sectarian institutions might consider baptism to be the process of cleansing the sins away from a person, there is certainly another intention involved in the process.

Today sectarian baptism is conducted by a priest or minister, but during John and Jesus' time it was the process of a spiritual teacher accepting followers, who could then become spiritual teachers. It was not a ceremony to join a sect or cleanse sins. It was to symbolize someone becoming a follower of that spiritual teacher.

This process of accepting a teacher, who has accepted a teacher creates a lineage of teachers who are essentially passing on the same teachings.

Moses, Abraham, Isaiah and so many others who were shown to have authority in the Gospels all themselves were followers then teachers within the same succession or lineage of teachers.

John the Baptist was a teacher and follower of a teacher within the lineage of Abraham.

Jesus had no need to accept the position of John’s follower. But he did so to illustrate the process of accepting a teacher within the lineage of God's messengers.

Did Jesus follow John's example by taking on his own disciples?

Once Jesus received the baptism from John he began taking on his own disciples. If Jesus were to gather his own disciples and baptize them prior to his baptism by John, we would probably not see the importance of accepting a teacher.

However, Jesus did indeed accept not just any teacher—not just any Pharisee from the local synagogue. He did not just walk into any church and take the baptism as a mechanical process. He approached a specific person, a dedicated preacher and the student of an esteemed priest named Zechariah, “who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah” (Luke 1:5).

Thus we can understand that Jesus accepted a bonafide teacher before he became a teacher. This is the example that Jesus set for his own students, who eventually also became teachers.

This is why Peter, James, Thomas, John and other disciples began their own ministries after Jesus departed.

Is this about a family lineage?

From Jesus' life we can see that his disciples were not his family members. Yes, there were a few, such as James, that were part of his physical family. But the bulk of his followers were not part of his physical family.

This and other indications tell us that the lineage of ancient teachers is not about family heritage.

Much of the teachings of the Old Testament were presented and handed down through the generations of the teaching lineage of Abraham. Isaac, Jacob, David, Solomon, Josiah, and other saints and teachers who were all students of Abraham’s teachings. Some were related as in the same family, and some were not.

This is also confirmed by the fact that Jesus chose someone who was not his father to take baptism.

It should be pointed out that Joseph did not take up the priesthood or become a teacher. Yet because both Zechariah and John were students before they were teachers, and Zechariah took his training in the lineage of Abijah, we see that the lineage from teacher to disciple was not necessarily a family thing.

As we look deeper into the Old Testament, we find that many of the descendants of Abraham were kings or leaders of their day, but a priestly lineage was present yet often separate from the family. Though we find Jacob, Lot and Isaac were students of Abraham during the time of Elijah, we find instructions were “in accordance with the word of the Lord spoken by Joshua son of Nun.” (1 Kings 17:1)

We also find many other cases where a descendant of Abraham’s family did not “walk in the ways of the Lord” as did others, while many, such as David and Solomon, certainly did walk with God. This confirms it is not simply a bloodline - but a spiritual family.

Were the teachings of Moses and Abraham lost during these times when Abraham's bloodline did not worship the Supreme Being? Certainly not. The teachings were carefully being passed down through the priestly lineage. And it was such a lineage that Jesus decided to take baptism from.

This bears a discussion regarding the current state of affairs among some sectarian institutions. Though we know that Jesus took on and baptized students, and he instructed them to go out and preach the gospel and take on their own students, the lineage coming from Jesus has been given up by ecclesiastical institutions that appoint and elect their teachers much as politicians are elected. Thus the lineage has been effectively abandoned by these organizations.

Was Jesus indoctrinated?

Jesus chose a teacher who was not part of any organization or “church.” John was considered an outcast, teaching the Truth in the desert, where people had to travel to hear him speak. 

John was also critical of the local organized institution and its teachers:

“You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? Produce fruit in keeping with repentance.” (Matt 4:7-8)

These words obviate that John was his own man - serving the Supreme Being - and not part of the establishment. The fact that he instructed them to “produce fruit in keeping with repentance” is clear. He was obviously requesting that they give up their pride and become devoted to God.

“And do not think you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father,’” (Matt 4:9) John said. He made it obvious that producing fruit is connected to devotion to God and not related to belonging to any particular family, club, or group.

Jesus chose a particular teacher of the Truth, not an organization to join. Jesus never went around saying he was part of a particular church or organization either, just as John did. Herein lies the “righteousness” of the situation. Jesus was teaching us by example not to join a club or organization, but to carefully choose a teacher who keeps the Truth close, and focuses on devotion to God.

Jesus' purpose was to serve the Supreme Being and serve God with his activities. He didn't make up his own system or just appoint himself. He didn't set up an electoral college or a council of deacons to pick the teacher through politics. Before he began preaching and taking on students, he accepted a teacher, stating:

“Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.”

“Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near.” (Matthew 4:17)

Is this the correct translation?

This statement by Jesus has been translated differently among the different Bible versions:

"Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near." (New International Version 2011)

"Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." (King James version)

“Repent of your sins and turn to God, for the Kingdom of Heaven is near.” (New Living Translation)

“Repent, because the kingdom of heaven has come near.” (Christian Standard Bible)

"Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!" (Hebrew Names Version)

"Repent, for the kingdom of the heavens has drawn nigh." (Darby Translation)

'Reform ye, for come nigh hath the reign of the heavens.' (Young's Literal Translation)

"Repent ye; for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." (American Standard Version)

"Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." (Revised Standard Version, English Standard Version, New American Standard Bible)

“Change your heart, for the sanctuary of God is readily available.” (Lost Gospels of Jesus)

These are all translated from the same Greek phrase, μετανοεῖτε ἤγγικεν γὰρ ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν.

Isn't this also what John the Baptist taught?

Regardless of the translation, this teaching was also taught by John the Baptist before Jesus taught it:

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

These teachings were only taught by Jesus following his hearing of John the Baptist’s imprisonment:

When Jesus heard that John had been put in prison, he withdrew to Galilee. ... From that time on Jesus began to preach, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near.” (Matthew 4:12-17)

This means that this teaching was not solely Jesus' message. And just as Jesus was passing on the same teachings of his teacher John the Baptist, Jesus also instructed his own disciples to go out and teach this same message to others:

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

What does this mean? It means that this very same teaching was taught by at least three generations of teachers: John, Jesus and Jesus' disciples, and presumably, those who followed them.

Was this teaching taught before John?

This teaching did not originate with John the Baptist. We find in David's Psalms and other texts of the Bible:

But as for me, it is good to be near God. I have made the Sovereign LORD my refuge; I will tell of all your deeds. (Psalm 73:28)

We praise you, God, we praise you, for Your Name is near (Psalm 75:1)

Yet You are near, LORD, and all your commands are true. (Psalm 119:151)

The LORD is near to all who call on Him, to all who call on Him in truth. (Psalm 145:18)

“In the morning the LORD will show who belongs to Him and who is holy, and He will have that person come near Him. (Numbers 16:5)

He has brought you and all your fellow Levites near Himself, but now you are trying to get the priesthood too. (Numbers 16:10)

What other nation is so great as to have their gods near them the way the LORD our God is near us whenever we pray to him? (Deut. 4:7)

Go near and listen to all that the LORD our God says. Then tell us whatever the LORD our God tells you. We will listen and obey.” (Deut. 5:27)

And may these words of mine, which I have prayed before the LORD, be near to the LORD our God day and night (1 Kings 8:59)

Seek the LORD while he may be found; call on him while He is near. (Isaiah 55:6)

They ask me for just decisions and seem eager for God to come near them. (Isaiah 58:2)

"Heal the sick who are there and tell them, ‘The kingdom of God has come near to you.’" (Luke 10:9)

What does 'repent' mean here?

The word "repent" is being translated from the Greek word μετανοέω (metanoeō). This means "to change" or "to change one's mind" according to Thayer's lexicon. 

It means to have a change of heart. It means to make a serious change in one's life.

In other words, "repent" in this context would be to divert from those activities focused upon our own selves - exercised by our seeking satisfaction within materialism. To "repent" from these activities would mean to refocus towards regaining our relationship with the Supreme Being.

What does 'kingdom of heaven' mean here?

The word "kingdom" here is being translated from the Greek word βασιλεία (basileia). The lexicon describes this word to mean, "royal power, kingship, dominion, rule: not to be confused with an actual kingdom but rather the right or authority to rule over a kingdom."

From this, we know that Jesus and John were speaking of accepting the Supreme Being's dominion - His ultimate authority. So the kingdom of heaven relates to the consciousness of accepting the ultimate authority of the Supreme Being. This is describing the refuge, the shelter, or the sanctuary, of God.

The use of "kingdom" here comes from a time when there were many different kings - who were basically tribal rulers - in different regions. Using their armies, these kings protected the people of the kingdom. As such, the people revered the king and took shelter or refuge under the king's protection. Using their assembled armies and barriers, the king would protect the populace from invading armies. As such the "kingdom" was the name given to that place of refuge, shelter, or sanctuary.

Having a change of heart and taking refuge or shelter or taking sanctuary of God requires humility. It means accepting that we don't know it all. It means accepting that we don't have the means to protect ourselves. It means accepting that the Supreme Being is my only real protector and salvation.

The Supreme Being is a person, and each of us has an innate relationship with God. We have forgotten this loving service relationship as we seek our own satisfaction away from God. In order to regain our lost relationship with God, our approach must come with humility, because we were the ones who decided to leave Him.

This runs contrary to the popular connotation of "repenting" as professed by many teachers. Many see repentance as some sort of public proclamation: To proclaim “I repent,” in a public ceremony, or “I surrender to Jesus” is not the same as having a personal change of heart - as Jesus, John and Jesus' disciples were requesting.

A real change of heart does not come with public proclamation or grandstanding. It is rather the opposite: It is an extremely personal and private decision to redirect one's life towards coming to know and love the Supreme Being.

Is this about the end of the world?

Even with this clarity, many teachers have interpreted this statement as referring to a coming end of the world or some kind of apocalypse. This is despite any evidence, from either the words or the context of Jesus' statement.

Consider first the audience of these teachings. Who was Jesus preaching to? Certainly, he was preaching to those around him at the time. And yet some 2,000 years later, the end of the world still has not come.

Was Jesus misleading his followers - telling them that the end of the world was "near" or "at hand" and it wasn't? Certainly not.

This hasn't stopped the unsupported interpretation. Below is a list of some of the many teachers who have claimed to represent Jesus, teaching that Jesus was predicting the end of the world (doomsday) on a certain date. (The date they predicted the world would end follows their name):

Hilary of Poitiers: 365 AD (predicted doomsday date)
Martin of Tours: 375 to 400 AD (predicted doomsday date)
Hydatius (Bishop of Aquae) 482 AD (predicted doomsday date)

Sextus Julius Africanus: 500 AD (predicted doomsday date)
Hippolytus of Rome: 500 AD (predicted doomsday date)

Beatus of Leibana: 793 AD (predicted doomsday date)

Gregory of Tours: 799 to 800 AD (predicted doomsday dates)

Thiota: 847 AD (predicted doomsday date)

Pope Sylvester II: 1000 AD (predicted doomsday date)

Gerard of Poehlde: 1147 AD (predicted doomsday date)
John of Toledo: 1179 AD (predicted doomsday date)
Joachim of Fiore: 1205 AD (predicted doomsday date)
Pope Innocent III: 1284 AD (predicted doomsday date)
Joachimites: 1290 and 1335 AD (predicted doomsday dates)

Jean de Roquetaillade: 1368 and 1370 AD (predicted doomsday dates)

Amaldus de Villa Nova: 1378 (predicted doomsday date)

Thomas Muntzer: 1525 AD  (predicted doomsday date)

Johannes Stoffler: 1524 AD (predicted doomsday date)

Hans Hut (Anabaptist): 1528 AD (predicted doomsday date)

Melchior Hoffman (Anabaptist): 1533 AD (predicted doomsday date)
Jan Matthys (Anabaptist): 1534 AD (predicted doomsday date)

Martin Luther (Augustinian monk): 1600 AD (predicted doomsday date)

Christopher Columbus: 1658 AD (predicted doomsday date)

Joseph Mede: 1660 AD (predicted doomsday date)

Sabbatai Zevi: 1648 and 1666 AD (predicted doomsday dates)

Fifth Monarchists: 1666 and 1673 AD (predicted doomsday dates)

Benjamin Keach (Baptist): 1689 AD (predicted doomsday date)

Pierre Jurieu: 1689 AD (predicted doomsday date)

John Mason (Anglican): 1694 AD (predicted doomsday date)

Johan Heinrich Alsted (Calvinist): 1694 AD (predicted doomsday date)

Cotton Mather (Puritan): 1697, 1716 and 1736 AD (predicted doomsday dates)

Henry Archer (Fifth Monarchist): 1700 AD (predicted doomsday date)

Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa: 1700 to 1734 AD (predicted doomsday dates)

Camisards: 1705 and 1708 AD (predicted doomsday dates)

William Whitson: 1736 AD (predicted doomsday date)

Emanuel Swedenborg (Lutheran): 1757 AD (predicted doomsday date)

The Shakers (Ann Lee): 1792 and 1794 AD (predicted doomsday dates)

Cardinal Pierre d'Ailly: 1789 AD (predicted doomsday date)

Charles Wesley (Methodist): 1794 AD (predicted doomsday date)

Christopher Love (Presbyterian): 1805 AD (predicted doomsday date)

Margaret McDonald: 1830 AD (predicted doomsday date)

Joseph Smith (Mormon): 1832 and 1891 AD (predicted doomsday date)
Johann Albrecht Bengel (Lutheran): 1846 AD (predicted doomsday date)

John Wesley (Methodist founder): 1836 AD (predicted doomsday date)

William Miller (Millerites founder): 1843 and 1844 AD (predicted doomsday dates)
George Rapp (Harmony Society founder): 1847 AD (predicted doomsday date)

Harriet Livermore: 1847 AD (predicted doomsday date)

Ellen White (Seven Day Adventists): 1850, 1856 and "early 1900s" AD (predicted doomsday dates)

John Cumming: 1862 AD (predicted doomsday date)

Joseph Morris (Mormon): 1862 AD (predicted doomsday date)

John Wroe (Christian Israelite Church): 1863 AD (predicted doomsday date)

Jonas Wendell and other Adventist preachers: 1863, 1874, 1870 AD (predicted doomsday dates)

Mother Shipton: 1881 AD (predicted doomsday date)

Wovoka (Ghost Dance): 1890 AD (predicted doomsday date)

Catholic Apostolic Church: 1901 AD (predicted doomsday date)

Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (Jehovah's Witnesses): 1914, 1915, 1918, 1920, 1925, 1941, 1975, 1994 and others more recent. (predicted doomsday dates)

Margaret Rowen (Seventh-Day Adventist): 1920 AD (predicted doomsday date)

Spencer Perceval (Catholic Apostolic Church): 1926 AD (predicted doomsday date)

Wilbur Glenn Voliva: 1935 AD (predicted doomsday date)

Herbert Armstrong (Worldwide Church of God founder): 1936 AD (predicted doomsday date)

Florence Houteff (Branch Davidians): 1959 AD (predicted doomsday date)

Johann Bischoff (New Apostolic Church): 1951 and 1960 AD (predicted doomsday dates)

Jim Jones (People's Temple cult): 1967 AD (predicted doomsday date)

George Williams (Church of the Firstborn): 1969 AD (predicted doomsday date)

Herbert Armstrong (Worldwide Church of God): 1972 AD (predicted doomsday date)

John Wroe (Christian Israelite Church): 1977 AD (predicted doomsday date)

William Branham (evangelist): 1977 AD (predicted doomsday date)

Chuck Smith (Calvary Chapel): 1981 AD (predicted doomsday date)

Pat Robertson (evangelist): 1982 and 2007 AD (predicted doomsday dates)

Lester Sumrall (Pentecostal): 1985 AD (predicted doomsday date)

Edgar Whisenant: 1988 AD (predicted doomsday date)

Elizabeth Clare (Summit Lighthouse): 1990 AD (predicted doomsday date)

Rollen Stewart: 1992 AD (predicted doomsday date)

David Berg (The Family): 1993 AD (predicted doomsday date)

Harold Camping: 1994, 1995, 2011 AD (predicted doomsday date)

Ronald Weinland (Church of God): 2011 and 2012 AD (predicted doomsday date)

Aggai: 1997 AD (predicted doomsday date)

Marshall Applewhite (Heavens Gate cult): 1997 AD (predicted doomsday date)

Archbishop James Ussher: 1997 AD (predicted doomsday date)

James Gordon Lindsay (Christ for the Nations): 1999 AD (predicted doomsday date)

Jerry Falwell (evangelist): 2000 AD (predicted doomsday date)

Ed Dobson: 2000 AD (predicted doomsday date)

Lester Sumrall: 2000 AD (predicted doomsday date)

Jonathan Edwards (Congr. Protestant): 2000 AD (predicted doomsday date)

David Meade: 2017 and 2018 AD (predicted doomsday dates)

Were Jesus and John deceiving their students?

Since John also taught this, and since the end of the world hasn't come, were they both misleading their followers? Were they both making idle threats about doomsday?

What would be the purpose of threatening the end of the world to them - as "near" - since it would not happen during their lifetimes or even within the lifetimes of their children - or even in the next 2,000 years? Does more than 2,000 years later mean "near"?

Why, if John and Jesus were predicting an event that will take place more than 2,000 years later, would they use the word "near"?

The simple answer is that this statement has been mistranslated and misinterpreted.

What does 'near' or 'at hand' mean?

The word "near" (or in the case of other translations "at hand") is being translated from the Greek word ἐγγίζω (eggizō), which means, according to the lexicon:

1) to bring near, to join one thing to another
2) to draw or come near to, to approach

Thus it is clear that the interpretation of the word relating to time is incorrect. The word ἐγγίζω (eggizō) indicates "closeness" relative to distance - not time.

Therefore, Jesus is speaking of the kingdom of heaven - the sanctuary of God or the refuge of God - being close: Readily available.

The true meaning of “for the kingdom of heaven has come near” is that each of us can gain the refuge or sanctuary of God - the shelter of God - immediately by simply turning to the Supreme Being - by worshiping Him and relying upon Him - and dismissing ourselves ("repenting") from our search for happiness in a materialistic world of emptiness and physical gratification.

In other words, Jesus is speaking of surrendering to the Supreme Being - giving one's life to God - and thus taking shelter in the Supreme Being.

Is this about our consciousness?

Jesus is not speaking of a physical place being nearby. He is speaking of the fact that taking refuge in the Supreme Being can be accomplished immediately: Because He is near to us. He is available to each of us.

Certainly, if we accept that God created this world, we can also accept that He has the ability to be here. Nearby. Available. Jesus confirmed this in another statement:

"The kingdom of God does not come with observation; nor will they say, 'See here!' or 'See there!' For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you." (Luke 17:20-21 NKJV)

The Supreme Being designed the physical body in such a way so that our physical eyes cannot see Him. This is in order to give each of us the freedom to ignore God if we choose. It also gives us the freedom to love God - or not.

Therefore, we have to open our hearts in order to see Him from within. If God is with us - near - and we can refocus ourselves upon Him with humility and love, then we have the ability for our consciousness to enter the kingdom of God where ever we are. This translates to becoming focused on doing His will rather than our own will.

Jesus also indicates that this consciousness does have a place: Not a physical place, but a context - this is the spiritual realm - evidenced by Jesus' use of the word οὐρανός (ouranos) in this verse - mistranslated to "heaven."

Yes, since Jesus is indicating that this consciousness related to giving one's life to the Supreme Being is available - Jesus is not speaking of a location called "heaven." He is speaking of a heavenly consciousness, which creates "heaven" where ever we might be.

Such a consciousness creates sanctuary: The safety or refuge of our relationship with God. The Greek word οὐρανός (ouranos) indicates the consciousness of the spiritual realm, which can be accessed from any location - because after all, everywhere is part of God's creation. Thus, the use of οὐρανός (ouranos) indicates that consciousness where the Supreme Being is loved and worshiped.

This great teaching is suggesting that we can reject our self-centered chase for happiness within materialism and give ourselves to the Supreme Being. We can decide to dedicate our lives to coming to know and love the Supreme Person and learning to do His will (what pleases Him). This will immediately transport us to the sanctuary (or kingdom) of God, even as our physical bodies might remain here in the physical world.

Yes, according to Jesus' teachings, God and His sanctuary are near. God is available to us, and we can take refuge in Him at any time. We each have that choice.

“How can the guests of the bridegroom mourn ..." (Matthew 9:15)

“How can the guests of the bridegroom mourn while he is with them? The time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them; then they will fast." (Matthew 9:15)

Why does Jesus tell this parable?

This parable is Jesus’ reply when John the Baptist’s disciples challenged the fact that Jesus’ disciples did not fast on a day they and the Pharisees fasted.

Jesus is responding to this:

Then John's disciples came and asked him, "How is it that we and the Pharisees fast often, but your disciples do not fast?" (Matthew 9:14)

Fasting in remembrance of a particular prophet or saintly teacher is an ancient custom among many traditional religious disciplines: This is why the Pharisees and John's disciples fasted on days to commemorate Prophets such as Moses, Abraham, or Jacob.

These traditions honor the representative of God or Prophet, often on their day of appearance (birthday) or disappearance (death of their body).

In much of the world, the appearance of Jesus is now celebrated as Christmas and his disappearance as Good Friday. In this case, scholars have determined that these dates do not correspond with Jesus' actual birth or death.  These dates were politically determined by the Roman Catholic institution to coincide with two secular holidays - the solstice celebrations and the beginning celebration of the Saxon idol Oestre or Eastre, respectively.

What does the parable of the bridegroom mean?

The word "guests" is a mistranslation of the Greek word υἱός (huios), which means, according to the lexicon, either a son (in the case of a family) or servant or follower (if not of the physical family - "used to describe one who depends on another or is his follower"). 

In fact, this is the same word translated to "son" in "son of God" and "son of man" along with other uses, such as "children of God" (Matt. 5:9), "your people" (Matt. 12:27), "people of this age" (Luke 20:34) and so on.

As such, "guests" would be an inappropriate translation. As mentioned above, the word relates to someone who is a servant or follower, not a "guest." The more appropriate translation would be "attendants" or "servants" of the bridegroom. This is similarly stated in the wedding parable.

In ancient times, large weddings were galas typically done by wealthy landowners who had servants and attendants. As the couple was married, these servants or attendants took care of things. Over the centuries this custom evolved into more of a family affair. But still even today we find that a groom will often have several "groomsmen" and the bride will have several "bridesmaids." 

Notice the word "maid" in the latter. This comes from the tradition of them being attendants or servants of the bride and groom.

This understanding is critical to the meaning because Jesus is comparing those who are the servants of a bridegroom during a wedding to those who are the servants of the spiritual teacher - the representative of God in Jesus' case.

The point Jesus is making here is that for Jesus’ disciples, Jesus is in the same role as representative of God that those previous prophets had been in. Jesus is stating that there was no need to “mourn” the passing of a prior representative of God if the disciples are in the service of a current representative of God - especially if that fasting interfered with their service.

The analogy is even more applicable when we consider the intimate relationship of love between Jesus and God. This concept of "bridegroom" illustrates a relationship between two persons - a relationship of love that exists between God and His representative.

While some might feel that this role of representative of God somehow diminishes Jesus’ stature or identity, quite the opposite is true. To be the authorized representative and servant of God is the highest position in the kingdom of God, as it relates to having an intimate devotional relationship with God. 

Jesus indicated this esteemed position of being a servant of God in many previous statements. For example:

"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 the One who sent me." (John 7:16)

and

"The One who sent me is with me; He has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases Him.” (John 8:29)

These statements by Jesus reflect his self-identification as God's servant.

What is Jesus providing them?

For Jesus’ disciples, Jesus is their access and doorway to re-establishing their own relationship with God. Thus their focus, according to Jesus' statement, should be upon Jesus’ teachings so that one day they might also be prepared to serve and represent God.

This event also communicates the relationship that existed between Jesus and his teacher, John the Baptist. Why would John the Baptist's disciples challenge Jesus on how his disciples acted?

It is because Jesus was also a disciple of John the Baptist, evidenced by his baptism by John. So John's other disciples were seeing themselves as Jesus' peers. And thus they were wondering why Jesus did not follow the same practices with regard to fasting during the commemoration of previous prophets.

This, however, was a short-sighted understanding of Jesus' actual position. They obviously did not see Jesus' true exalted position as God's representative and loving servant.

Is this about honoring Jesus?

We can understand from this event that Jesus was one of John’s disciples. This is clear by Jesus' having traveled to the place where John was teaching, and by Jesus' eventual baptism by John.

We also know from this event that both the Pharisees and John’s disciples were observing the same religious holidays. We also know that Jesus and his disciples also observed these same holidays.

However, Jesus did not request from his disciples they fast. Why not?

Because they were traveling the (hot) countryside by foot and were doing God's service. He was teaching them to put their focus upon the practical matters of serving God. The ritual of observance by fasting was replaced by their practical service.

Jesus indicates here also that once he leaves the planet, his disciples should then honor his birth and death as the others were honoring the prophets before: with fasting.

"The time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them; then they will fast."

The representative of God's appearance and disappearance should be honored with fasting, prayer and service. Currently many disrespect Jesus’ appearance and disappearance with a mad chase for materialism and commercialism. Both Christmas and Easter are typically celebrated with indulgence and a focus on materialism rather than a thoughtful day of fasting, worship and service.

On the day celebrated as Jesus’ appearance, the sectarian and secular worlds would rather honor a fat man in a red suit than honor God and His representative.

This is truly offensive to God and Jesus - who came to teach us to focus our lives upon God, not materialism. To use this day (Christmas) to celebrate materialism is truly a desecration. 

Jesus instructed his students to love God with all our heart and soul, and not love the world.

“No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment ..." (Matthew 9:16-17)

“No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment, for the patch will pull away from the garment, making the tear worse. Neither do men pour new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the skins will burst, the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved." (Matt. 9:16-17)

What does the parable of the 'unshrunk cloth' mean?

Many have called this a parable by Jesus, but it is really more of an analogy. The difference between a parable and an analogy is that a parable is a symbolic tale - a story of sorts. An analogy, on the other hand, is a metaphorical comparison.

Jesus is making a metaphorical comparison in this instance. He is making a comparison between wineskins and spiritual teachings.

This analogy by Jesus - spoken to the disciples of John the Baptist when they questioned Jesus' disciples' not fasting - indicates Jesus' role as the authorized prophet and representative of God ("Messiah").

Let's consider the meaning of this analogy more specifically:

"No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment"

The "patch" here represents the message of the Supreme Being - which is ever-fresh and applicable to our particular culture, time and circumstance.

The "old garment" represents the teachings of sectarian teachers that teach out of context with the time and circumstances. This was the case with the institutional temple teachers during Jesus' time - who claimed their teachings represented the Prophets and quoted them out of context with current events and issues.

Today, this would be applicable to those sectarian teachers who quote Jesus out of context to his message, and the time and circumstances of today.

What is the difference between specific and general teachings?

There are generally two types of instructions given by a spiritual teacher, not just Jesus, but John and the other Prophets as well. There are specific instructions regarding how to live our lives in current circumstances, current society and situation. Then there are general universal teachings that apply to anyone at any time.

The specific instruction may apply to a particular individual or audience at a point and time. It might be appropriate at that time and circumstance, but may not be able to be applied centuries later, during a different time, circumstance and society.

The timeless universal teaching can be applied to any time or circumstance. For example, Jesus taught his students to love the Supreme Being. This is an example of a timeless universal teaching.

Specific instructions given by a teacher can easily be misunderstood and misapplied if they are applied centuries later.

Timeless universal teachings from ancient times can be applied in later centuries. 

This means that one must be able to distinguish between an ancient teacher's specific instructions and their universal teachings.

This is the topic of Jesus' analogy of sewing a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment:

The specific instruction misapplied centuries later is being symbolized by Jesus as like a "patch" pulling away from an old "garment." The specific outdated instruction will not apply to the current situation. Thus it can be seen as "making the tear worse."

This applies similarly in Jesus' next analogy:

"Neither do men pour new wine into old wineskins."

The "new wine" represents the teachings of God's representative that can be applied in the current time and circumstances. And the "new wineskins" represent the physical vessel - the current representative of God who speaks in contemporary language to a particular time and circumstance.

Jesus is responding to the fact that the specific instructions of a former teacher - remember Jesus is speaking to John the Baptist's disciples - may not be applicable to the current condition - time and circumstance - of the audiences and students Jesus was teaching.

For this reason, the Supreme Being periodically sends His representatives to teach us in different times and circumstances. They may, or likely not, be obvious to the general public. This is because God specifically steers those who are serious to those He sends to earth. Jesus stated this clearly:

“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them ..." (John 6:44)

We can see that Jesus also applied this by the preaching efforts of many of Jesus' disciples who became teachers after Jesus left the planet. Those that did took on the role of representative of God. This is why Jesus sent them out to preach:

"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." (Matthew 28:19-20)

Furthermore, Jesus acknowledges that before him came many Prophets, who also were representatives of God. This included John the Baptist, who Jesus highly praised, calling him:

Truly I tell you, among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet whoever is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. (Matthew 11:11)

It is obvious from this question by John's disciples and the above statements that the holiday that John’s disciples and the Pharisees were observing commemorated a particular Prophet from the past. To honor a past Prophet’s day with fasting was a tradition for thousands of years in ancient times, as documented in various scriptures.

This also illustrates an accepted lineage of teachers - accepted by John the Baptist, the Pharisees, and Jesus himself. This is why Jesus often quoted the teachings of the Prophets.

"No, they pour new wine into new wineskins..."

God uses a living person who is surrendered to Him to communicate to us his message with words and example. We can see this by the many practical teachings made by God's representatives throughout the ages. We can also see that in each era, those teachings were applicable to the customs and the circumstances of that particular society.

While the same overall message can be received from these messages - to love and serve the Supreme Being - specific practical instructions may not apply to a later society and culture.

Assuming a person can distinguish between specific instructions and timeless universal instructions, we can follow the ancient teachers including Jesus in terms of guiding our lives. But attempting to apply specific instructions from 2,000 years ago today can cause confusion and misunderstanding.

What do the wineskins becoming 'ruined' mean?

Many from different sects around the world teach that their particular Prophet or Saint is the only real messenger of God. This may seem loyal, but it is an offense - not only to the Supreme Being's ability to have and send His other servants to save us - but also to those many servants who made a sacrifice coming here to the physical world to help bring us home in different times and places.

The culture and society of Jesus’ time were dramatically different from what prevailed when Moses or Abraham lived thousands of years earlier. The environment, customs, and daily circumstances were entirely different. Yet each was able to spiritually elevate those students who followed them - bringing them closer to the Supreme Being.

This analogy of the "ruining" of the "wineskins") that Jesus was speaking of, has also happened with respect to the use and interpretations of Jesus' teachings today. This comes as a result of political manipulation by ecclesiastical organizations who want to utilize Jesus' teachings to bolster the strength of their institutions and their quest for power and followers.

This was predicted by Jesus - who gave this clear answer:

“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.” (Matthew 7:22)

Jesus is stating the bottom line here. Having a relationship with the Supreme Being is the goal. (Doing someone else's will requires knowing what that will is - and that requires a relationship.)

Jesus came to teach us - in words and actions - how to love God and do God’s will. And he was willing to suffer to underscore the importance of those teachings. He put aside his own physical comfort in order to serve the Supreme Being, and show us the ultimate love and sacrifice in that service.

But imitation is not the same as service. Service means understanding what the Supreme Being wants us to do now.

Through dedication, commitment, praise, prayer and making offerings to God - all universal teachings, we can connect with God. Gradually, we can change our consciousness from self-centeredness to God-centeredness: We can gradually develop our own personal relationship with the Supreme Being, and make Him the center of our lives.

As this takes place, He opens up more to us, and we begin to know Him more. As we come to know Him more, our love for Him can begin to blossom.

Developing this relationship with God is precisely what Jesus illustrated to us with both his teachings and his ultimate sacrifice. This is why he prayed to God:

“My Father, if it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may Your will be done.” (Matthew 26:42)

“Do you believe that I am able to do this?” (Matthew 9:28)

Jesus asked this question of two blind men who followed Jesus and called out to him:

“Have mercy on us, Son of David!” (Matt. 9:27)

After Jesus went inside a building they followed him in, and this is where Jesus confronted them with the above question:

“Do you believe that I am able to do this?” (Matthew 9:28)

"Yes, Lord," they replied. (Matt. 9:28)

Why did Jesus ask them this?

Jesus was most interested in knowing that they were relying upon the Supreme Being. To trust Jesus is to trust the Supreme Being according to the teachings of Jesus.

That's because Jesus is representing God. He is God's ambassador. As God's emissary, Jesus wants to know if they are trusting in the Supreme Being and not just pretending so they can be healed.

How was Jesus the 'son of David'?

One of the essential points of this exchange is that the blind men greeted Jesus as the “Son of David.”

But we know that David was not literally Jesus’ father. We know that David lived about a thousand years before Jesus’ time - his life is put at around 1040 BCE to 970 BCE. So how could Jesus be David's son?

Yes, Matthew gives a genealogy connecting Jesus’ ancestry to King David. But this hardly makes Jesus David’s son. That might make David a distant relative of Jesus, but this is kind of relationship is not described as being someone's son.

Furthermore, there are issues with the genealogy in Matthew, making the conclusion that Jesus is David's son even more problematic.

The first problem is that according to New Testament texts and their translations, Mary was a virgin. This would mean that Joseph did not father Jesus. If we accept that Joseph did not father Jesus we cannot accept that Jesus' physical body is in line with David's family according to Matthew 1:1-16.

And yet, two verses later, it states in Matthew:

This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. (Matt. 1:18)

And yet Matthew 1:1 still states, before it lists the fathers and sons supposedly leading up to Jesus:

This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah the son of David, the son of Abraham. (Matt. 1:1)

So how could Jesus be the "son of David" who was the "son of Abraham" if Joseph - the son of Jacob the son of Matthan the son of Eleazar and so on up to Abraham according to Matthew 1:1-16 - was not the father of Jesus' physical body?

What was Jesus' lineage?

Furthermore, the lineage detailed in Matthew 1:1-18 is completely different than the lineage detailed in Luke 3:23-38. This genealogy starts backward from Joseph:

Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melki, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai, (Luke 3:23-25)

This lineage continues not just back to Abraham, but also to Adam. The problem is that the genealogy is completely different between Joseph and Abraham. Consider just the portion of the lineage right before Joseph according to the Book of Matthew:

Zerubbabel the father of Abihud, Abihud the father of Eliakim, Eliakim the father of Azor, Azor the father of Zadok, Zadok the father of Akim, Akim the father of Elihud, Elihud the father of Eleazar, Eleazar the father of Matthan, Matthan the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Joseph (Matt. 1:13-16)

This says that Jacob is Joseph's father, but in Luke, it says that Heli is Joseph's father. The Book of Matthew says that Matthan is Joseph's grandfather and Eleazar is his great-grandfather while Luke says that Matthat is Joseph's grandfather and Levi is his great-grandfather.

The differences between the genealogies of Luke and Matthew don't stop there. The genealogy is completely different all the way through to David. In Matthew, Joseph is in line with David's son Solomon while in Luke, Joseph is in line with David's son Nathan. And there are other differences as well between the two genealogies.

So they are completely different genealogies to Joseph, and Joseph was not even the father of Jesus' physical body according to the texts.

Furthermore, we find this statement in Luke's genealogy to consider as it rises up the chain to Adam:

the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God. (Luke 3:38)

So rather than Jesus being the son of God, Adam is the son of God? And Jesus, who is by these texts, not Joseph's son, is the son of David - even though David lived 1,000 years before?

Why is the genealogy different between Luke and Matthew?

Quite simply, Jesus has been misidentified and misunderstood by those who have managed the assembly of the ecclesiastical versions of the New Testament.

These texts have suffered from a combination of manipulation, deletion and addition over the centuries, beginning with the Latin version of the New Testament as assembled by Eusebius in the Fourth Century. Eusebius was contracted for this project by none other than the Roman Emperor Constantine.

Can you believe the irony? The same Roman government that crucified Jesus took the opportunity to assemble the life and teachings of Jesus?

Yes, it is not only irony. In fact, the manipulation of the remaining texts continued for at least 200 years by the Roman Catholic institution. There are proven instances of manipulation of these texts:

1) The dramatic exclusion of so many Scriptures such as the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Mary, which reveals many more teachings of Jesus.

2) The addition of a variety of verses throughout the four Gospels. This includes Mark 9 through Mark 20. This entire section was added after the earliest records of Mark were recorded. Various other verses were added. A variety of single verses were added or deleted as well. Just in the Gospel of Matthew, the verses of Matt. 6:13, Matt. 16:3, Matt. 17:21, Matt. 18:11, Matt. 23:14, and Matt. 27:35 were either added altogether or added to. These and others are documented in the footnotes of the Lost Gospels of Jesus for Matthew and the other books.

3) The Romans and the Roman Catholic Church burnt all the other libraries containing other Gospels that should have been included in the New Testament. Many of these were found in the desert in the Nag Hammadi library and elsewhere. For some, copies have never been found, but we know they existed because the early Fathers quoted from them.

4) The Romans and Roman Catholic Church persecuted anyone that taught anything that was taught by Jesus and documented in other Gospels, outside the four approved by the Romans. People were systematically burnt at the stake or otherwise persecuted. This began with the disciples of Jesus, most of whom were jailed or otherwise persecuted. Peter was crucified upside down. And James was also persecuted.

5) For nearly 1,000 years, the Roman Catholic institution did not even allow the Latin Bible (Vulgate) to be publically available. The only people who could personally read the Vulgate were priests, Cardinals, Bishops, Pope and other officials of the Church. The only way a "commoner" could access the Bible was through hearing selected readings given by Priests during their sermons.

Even today, the Roman Catholic institution will not open its library of manuscripts to the public. They say now that they plan to make some of the library digitally available, but again not to the public. They will only make it available to Biblical scholars. Who determines who is a biblical scholar? Certainly, it is the Roman Catholic institution.

Does this sound like an organization we should trust to reveal the true teachings of Jesus? Yet it is the translations and interpretations of the Roman Catholic Church that have become indoctrinated (i.e. brainwashed) into the consciousness of practically every other sect that sprouted up in the centuries following the Holy Roman Empire.

Most of the early English and other language translations were translated from the Roman Catholic Latin translation (Vulgate). Thus the foundation of the King James and other early English and other language translations of the Bible is the Roman Empire's Latin translations.

Translating any differently often resulted in being banned and called a heretic by the Roman Catholic institution. The prime example here is John Wycliffe.

Could there be another interpretation?

The critical word used in these verses is the Greek word, γένεσις (genesis). This word means “source, origin,” and “a book of one's lineage” according to the lexicon. Matthew 1:16 and 1:18 illustrate that Joseph was not Jesus’ father. This and other inconsistencies conflict with the notion of ancestry.

The Greek word γεννάω (gennaō) used here as well can mean “to father” but also, according to the lexicon, “in a Jewish sense, of one who brings others over to his way of life, to convert someone.” Such a scenario requires providing guidance and mentorship. This would indicate the list documents a heritage of spiritual teachers and mentors leading up to Jesus, indicating that his teachings had been handed down through a lineage of Teachers and Prophets.

The list may better reflect a lineage of spiritual mentors or teachers as indicated in the next verse.

The central problem is the misunderstanding relating to Jesus' relationship with the Supreme Being and the Prophets. The other part of the issue is the mistranslation and misinterpretation of the texts by those ecclesiastical scribes who did not understand the basics regarding Jesus' relationship with the Supreme Being.

A critical element relates to the translation and use of the Greek word υἱός (huios). It is clear from not only the lexicon but other uses of this word throughout the scriptures, that this word does not always mean "son" as in the male son - the physical body - of a father. Just consider these other uses of the word υἱός (huios) (in bold):

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God." (Matthew 5:9)

"But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous." (Matthew 5:44-45)

"And if I drive out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your people drive them out? So then, they will be your judges." (Matthew 12:27)

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

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

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a childof hell as you are." (Matthew 23:15)

"Yet to all who received Him, to those who believed in His name, he gave the right to become children of God."(John 1:12).

We can see from these translations of υἱός (huios), that the word doesn't always mean "son" as in the physical male son of a father.

Thayer's lexicon elaborates on this meaning:

Used to describe one who depends on another or is his follower 1) a pupil

and further, with respect to υἱός related to God (typically translated to "son of God"):

"Pre-eminently, as the supreme representative of God"

and

"those who revere God"

and the pious worshipers of God

Thus we can apply the word υἱός to the situation where a person is a follower of another - or dependent upon another. These two applications cover many of the uses above.

And in the case of Jesus being the "son of David" - we can clearly understand this is a mistranslation by those who have misunderstood the devotional relationship between Jesus and David.

This misunderstanding has missed the reality that Jesus was essentially a devoted follower of David.

In this sense, a devoted follower as in someone who is practicing the teachings of David. One who is in line with David's teachings and living those teachings.

What about the misunderstanding regarding the Messiah?

This is the same misunderstanding with respect to those who were "anointed" - which was translated in the New Testament to "messiah."

While the sectarian interpreters of the Old Testament texts would like us to think the "anointed one" relates to someone who was the king of Israel - it actually refers to someone who was a spiritual teacher - someone empowered by the Supreme Being to represent Him. This is confirmed in this statement by God:

"Bring Aaron and his sons to the entrance to the tent of meeting and wash them with water. Then dress Aaron in the sacred garments, anoint him and consecrate him so he may serve Me as priest. Bring his sons and dress them in tunics. 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 throughout their generations."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 throughout their generations.” (Exodus 40:15)

This word - anoint - coming from the Hebrew word מָשַׁח (mashach) is a synonym of the Greek word Χριστός which also means "anointed". It relates directly to the empowerment of someone by the Supreme Being to be His representative:

"so they may serve me as priests"

This was Jesus' role, and he admitted this was his role:

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

Jesus also said:

"For I did not speak on my own, but the Father who sent me commanded me to say all that I have spoken." (John 12:49)

These two statements - along with many others - clearly indicate that Jesus was empowered by the Supreme Being as His representative. This is Jesus' role and identity.

Was Jesus God's representative?

This does not reduce Jesus' importance. The issue is that when we are reading about Jesus' teachings and his activities, we can understand that those teachings are coming from the Supreme Being, and those actions are pleasing to the Supreme Being. This was confirmed by Jesus:

"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)

"By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but Him who sent me." (John 5:30)

This specifically relates to Jesus' statement above - “Do you believe that I am able to do this?”

Jesus is not feeling that by having faith that Jesus is able to do this is only having faith in Jesus alone. Jesus is referring to the power and authority given by the Supreme Being to Jesus.

And thus believing in Jesus' abilities is believing in the Supreme Being. He said this specifically:

“Whoever believes in me does not believe in me only, but in the One who sent me." (John 12:44)

This is a central point about who Jesus was and where he gained his authority. When Jesus went to John the Baptist to be baptized, this sends the message of Jesus' authority. Jesus was not teaching on his own authority. He was clearly accepting himself a student of a teacher following and teaching the teachings of David, Abraham and Moses. Becoming a follower of John made Jesus a follower of David, Moses and Abraham.

John had also trained under a particular teacher in line with David. This tradition of teacher and student has been an honored tradition and the process for passing God's information and becoming linked up with God. 

We can also see this when Jesus taught his followers and then told them to go out and pass on his message to others - taking on their own students. In other words, Jesus wanted his students to in turn teach and take on students - which they did.

Since Jesus was also passing on the same message as John the Baptist, and John was passing down the message of his teacher, we can know that God utilizes a lineage of messengers as His representatives, in order to pass on the essence of how to return home to Him to different generations and cultures.

Therefore, the authority to represent God is not created by an election by men in an ecclesiastical-political process. It is transmitted and given via a personal relationship between the teacher and the student - and ultimately, the Supreme Being.

This defining of the position and authority of Jesus in no way diminishes Jesus’ position as our savior and master. Jesus had an intimate relationship with God: A relationship that transcends time and space. A special and deep relationship of loving service. 

Through the writings of Jesus' followers, we become aware of the teachings of Jesus. These followers - to the degree they were empowered by their relationship with the Supreme Being - became linked up with Jesus' mission, and recorded Jesus' teachings for us. It is through them that we know today that Jesus' most important instruction mirrored Moses' most important instruction:

" '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)

“Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. ..." (Matthew 10:5-10)

“Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel. As you go, preach this message: The kingdom of heaven is near.’ Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy, drive out the demons. Freely you have received, freely give. Do not take along any gold or silver or copper in your belts; take no bag for the journey, or extra tunic, or sandals or a staff; for the worker is worth his keep." (Matt. 10:5-10)

Why didn't Jesus want them to preach to Gentiles and Samaritans?

Jesus is giving specific instructions to his students according to a particular time and circumstance. The context of those teachings was founded upon the teachings of the Prophets.

Jesus is sending them out to teach the message of love for the Supreme Being to a specific group of people. He is also passing on the teachings of John the Baptist. How do we know this?

Consider these prior verses:

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

From that time on [after Jesus had heard of John's imprisonment] Jesus began to preach, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near." (Matt. 4:17)

And now we find in this verse above that Jesus was telling his own disciples to carry on that same teaching:

"As you go, preach this message: 'The kingdom of heaven is near.’"

These verses indicate that Jesus did not make up his teachings. Once his own teacher - John the Baptist - was imprisoned, Jesus carried on those teachings and asked his own followers to do so as well.

This is the tradition of all the prophets and messengers of God. They each became the student of a teacher, taught those teachings, and then told their students to pass on those teachings.

One might ask why the Gentiles or Samaritans were not to be taught. To answer this we must understand that Jesus is asking his students to teach a particular message to a particular people. It is not as if Jesus’ mercy and teachings are not to be spread to anyone and everyone.

Rather, this is a testament to the fact that particular messages are given at particular times to particular people. For example, a college professor would have an altogether different set of instructions to a college class than a kindergarten teacher would have for a class of kindergartners. The two teachers have the same goal in mind - to teach the children. But their specific information is tailored to the age, maturity and education level of the students.

In the time of Jesus, the people of Judea generally had access to a collection of knowledge that had been handed down from the great prophets such as Abraham and Moses. As such, teaching specifically to that segment of society had to be altogether different than the teachings Jesus would have for Gentiles and Samaritans. This is not to say that Jesus did not teach to the Gentiles and Samaritans - he certainly did, as evidenced in other verses.

As for the specific instructions he gave them to teach the people, “The kingdom of heaven is near;” the interpretation that this is an 'end of the world' statement was put forth by politically-oriented institutions to help create a false sense of urgency among the population. This is an attempt to scare people into joining their institution.

This 'end of the world' interpretation grew out of the Fourth Century's First Council of Nicaea - organized by the Roman Emperor Constantine to politically organize and control the Christian world. This manipulation continued through the Second Council of Ephesus in 449 put together by the Roman Emperor Theodosius II, which led to the creation of the Roman Catholic Church.

The manipulation of information by the Roman Empire continued through the centuries by the Roman Catholic institution - often called the Holy Roman Empire.

As a result, for many centuries, some claiming to follow Jesus have preached that the world is coming to an end based upon this statement by Jesus. (See this page for a partial list.) In each generation, different “signs” have been used together with various quotes from different books within the Bible to offer proof that the world will end next year or even tomorrow.

So many centuries have passed, and still the world has not come to an end. Yet these false prophets are still teaching that the world is coming to an end on a particular date. At what point will we figure out that this interpretation is wrong?

What does the 'kingdom of heaven is near' mean?

The correct interpretation of "The kingdom of heaven is near" is quite different: The Greek word used is ἐγγίζω, which means, according to the Greek lexicon:
1) to bring near, to join one thing to another
2) to draw or come near to, to approach

Near is not a time element: Near is an element of distance.

Near means 'close by.' For each of us, the kingdom of heaven is truly near. For Israelites who had been taught strict adherence to the scriptures, we might say the kingdom of heaven was especially near, because they had access to the scriptures and the teachings of the prophets. They simply had to understand those teachings and apply them within their hearts. They had to simply realize, as Jesus and Moses taught, that love for God is the “first and foremost commandment.” (Matt. 22:38)

More importantly, the Supreme Being in His expansion as the Holy Ghost is right next to each of us: He is truly near.

What does 'kingdom' mean?

The word "kingdom" is being translated from the Greek word βασιλεία (basileia) - which means, according to the lexicon, "royal power, kingship, dominion, rule" and "not to be confused with an actual kingdom but rather the right or authority to rule over a kingdom." In other words, the word refers to accepting the dominion and power of the Supreme Being. His ultimate authority.

Everything is part of God's kingdom: He owns everything and He controls everything. We can thus have a relationship with Him in whatever part of His kingdom we may reside. The "kingdom" that Jesus is referring to is the consciousness where we are devoted to Him. It is the place in our hearts where we are thinking of Him, and wanting to please Him and do His will.

The kingdom of God is so near that all we have to do is make a decision. We don't have to go anywhere special. We don't have to join any special organization. We don't have to undergo any special ceremony. All we have to do is drop to our knees and ask God directly, by the grace of His representatives like Jesus and Moses, to help us re-establish our loving relationship with Him.

Where are we now?

The physical world is that place where He sends those souls who need to grow spiritually. This physical world and these physical bodies are classrooms. Here we have the opportunity to learn to love and develop our loving relationship with God.

But this doesn't mean we aren't within the kingdom of God here? Everywhere is part of God's kingdom.

In this section of God’s kingdom - within the gross physical world - most of us wholly disregard God. We have the opportunity to chase our dreams for a while. We can now pretend that God doesn't exist.

This illusion allows us to chase our dreams of becoming wealthy, famous, attractive and whatever else we desire. Because we are forgetting our relationship with God we chase these things in order to gain the love of others.

But even if we gain those things we typically don't get any love from others. We typically only get envy. This is the nature of the physical world where everyone is chasing the same things.

Today some manipulate the teachings of Jesus to proclaim that we are each God. This is the epitome of our forgetfulness of the Supreme Being. They are proclaiming that we are all God but we forgot, and now they will teach us to remember we are God.

As if God can forget He is God. This is how far away from God we can get in the physical world. We want to enjoy the world as though we were God, and bend His scriptures to accommodate our goal.

But what about the kingdom of God?

Even though we might still be located within the kingdom of God - because everything is within God's kingdom - the question is where is our consciousness. 

A person whose consciousness is focused on love for God is situated in the kingdom of God.

In the kingdom of love for God, the residents are all concerned about God's happiness. They are concerned about others' happiness. We don't have to imagine such a world, as John Lennon sang. It does exist. We just are not in it because we are self-centered instead of being God-centered.

This is the kingdom that Jesus is referring to as near. This kingdom is ridiculously "near." It is as near as each of us making a decision to change. It is as near as a simple, heartfelt, and apologetic prayer asking forgiveness and offering ourselves to the Supreme Being. It is as near as the ground, where we can place our head and ask the Supreme Being - our Best Friend - if He will take us back, and teach us to love and serve Him again. Jesus illustrated how to do this:

Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as You will." (Matt. 26:39)

This simple key opens God’s personal kingdom to us. This is how near His kingdom is.

Can we depend on God?

We don't need to pretend to be God in order to become empowered. We can simply pledge ourselves, personally and internally, to the Supreme Being. We can become an associate of God's by asking God what we can do to serve Him and please Him.

This is clearly what gave Jesus his power and authority, and what he taught his followers to do.

As for Jesus telling his students to heal the sick, cast out demons, and travel without clothes and money, these are the tools Jesus gave his disciples in order for them to depend upon the Supreme Being and illustrate to others that they can depend upon God.

This is the pure message of Jesus’ instruction: Have complete trust in God and rely upon Him, and give our lives to Him because He is our Ultimate Savior, and He is near - He is readily available to us should we decide to return to Him.

“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.