"What do you think about the Messiah? ... " (Matthew 22:41-45)

While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, "What do you think about the Messiah? Whose son is he?" "The son of David," they replied. He said to them, "How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him 'Lord'? For he says, " 'The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet." ' If then David calls him 'Lord,' how can he be his son?" (Matthew 22:41-45)

Why is Jesus asking this?

Jesus asked the Pharisees and High Priests this because at the time they were teaching about the coming "Messiah," as they still do to this day. They taught that a future coming Messiah would save all of humanity. 

Even today the institutions that followed these teach that the Messiah has yet to come and will come in the future.

They also do not believe that Jesus was Messiah. Thus, they did not refer to Jesus as the "Messiah."

The Greek word Χριστός is being translated to "Messiah." This is also translated to “Christ” in other Biblical versions.

Why is Jesus speaking in the third person?

Note that Jesus refers to the Messiah in the third person. While many have assumed that Jesus is speaking of himself; his question is not a first-person question.

For example, let’s say Mr. Smith wants to know what people think of him. Will he say “what do you think about Mr. Smith?" Rather, he will say, “what do you think about me?” Or if he wanted to tell others that he was Mr. Smith he would simply say, "I am Mr. Smith."

In the same way, if Jesus were referring solely to himself he would say: "What do you think about me?" Or if he wanted to ask if they believed he was the Messiah: "Do you believe that I am the Messiah?"  

Yet Jesus doesn't say anything like this. Instead, he refers to the Messiah as if it were someone else. 

We should also note that the word “Messiah” (or “Christ”) had been used for thousands of years among the Prophets and the institutions that followed them. 

Further, and Jesus was speaking to teachers of those institutions. The Prophets of the Old Testament spoke of the Messiah in so many instances, referring to this person as "Savior" or "Anointed One."

In fact, the Greek word Χριστός can be translated to any of these: "Messiah," "Christ," "Savior," or "Anointed One."

So was Jesus trying to insert himself into the position as this "Messiah" that the traditions of the Prophets had spoken of for thousands of years? There is no evidence of this in this exchange with the Pharisees. There is also a quite different conclusion to the discussion than assumed by many of today's institutions.

What did they mean by 'son of David'?

One of the key issues in this exchange is the use of the word "son." The Greek word used is υἱός (huios). While υἱός can indicate a relationship of offspring in the context of a physical family, within the context Jesus is speaking of - that of an exchange between David and God, and the relationship between David and the Messiah - we must use the alternate definition of the word, according to the Greek lexicon: "one who depends on another or is his follower."

Therefore, the more appropriate translation of υἱός in this context is "follower" or "servant." Since David physically passed away over a thousand years before this conversation, we can hardly assume that Jesus or the Pharisees were referring to David's physical son. The only logical translation is to follower or servant. For this discussion, we will use follower. Once we make this appropriate translation, we have a significantly clearer statement by Jesus:

What do you think about the Christ [Messiah]? Whose follower is he?" ["The follower of David," they replied.] "How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him 'Lord'? For he says, 'The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet."' If then David calls him 'Lord,' how can he be his follower?"

This exchange between Jesus and the Pharisees is a debate of logic. Jesus is showing the Pharisees that the Messiah they are waiting for cannot logically be a follower of David. This is because David is referring to the Messiah as "my Lord," and referring to God as ("The LORD"). David must therefore be the follower of the Messiah, not the reverse. Furthermore, according to David, God tells the Messiah that He will protect him ("Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.")

Who is David referring to?

Who, then, is the "my Lord" that David is referring to, who sits at the right hand of God and is protected by God? It is not a follower (or even son) of David, as Jesus proves.

We should note that Jesus' statements here stunned his disciples and the Pharisees:

No one could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions. (Matt. 22:46)

Since Jesus is challenging the position of the Jewish Pharisees that one day a "Messiah" - a follower of David - will come, when David himself refers to this person as "my Lord," we can logically conclude that Jesus does not agree with the assumption of the temple teachers that the "Messiah" David is speaking of will come one day in the future. This is the purpose of Jesus' challenge.

Why would Jesus be indicating that he was the Messiah that David refers to as "my Lord?" Jesus was disproving that the Messiah was a follower of David (considering that Jesus was a follower of David).

The answer to the puzzle is that the word Χριστός ("Messiah," "Christ," "Anointed One," or "Savior") can refer to a particular individual, as well as refer to a particular role or position - specifically, one who is "anointed by God."

We might compare this to the position of Lieutenant: Let's say a person has received the title of Lieutenant, and that puts him in charge of a legion of the military. When a Sergeant approaches the Lieutenant, he will salute, and call him "Lieutenant." Here the Sergeant is referring to a single, individual person when he says the word, "Lieutenant." 

However, we also know that there are many others who have also had this title. And if there were a room of Lieutenants, calling out "Lieutenant" would create confusion. Therefore, "Lieutenant" can be used to refer to an individual within a conversation, as well as considered a title that has been assumed by many over the years.

The pure meaning of "Messiah," as indicated by both David in his Psalm, and Jesus, with this debate, is "God's representative."

Indeed, David followed such a representative of God. Like any devoted disciple, David was dedicated to his teacher, and referred to him as "my Lord," and one who "sits at the right hand" of God.

A person who sits at the right hand of someone is that person's assistant. That person sitting at the right hand is the emissary of the person. God's representatives each "sit at God's right hand." They are each God's emissaries and messengers.

This is confirmed by the Supreme Being personally in the Old Testament, as he stated this about His "Anointed" - translated from the Hebrew word מָשַׁח (mashach) - which can also translate to "Messiah:"

"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)

What, do we think that God can only have one representative? One loving servant? Or even one "son"? Is this the same God Who has created the gigantic universes we see around us? Is this the same God Who, even with His dominance of this gigantic universe, still can exchange a personal relationship with each of us? 

The answer is that God has many assistants and servants, and any one of them can be empowered by God to come to the physical world and save people of any particular generation - acting as a "priesthood that will continue throughout their generations."

And yes, within the context of this meaning, Jesus was trying to also indicate that David indeed worshiped his teacher, who on a practical basis, saved him. In other words, we are speaking of David's spiritual teacher.

Who is 'my Lord'?

So who was David's spiritual teacher and personal savior ("my Lord")?

To understand this better, let's consider more of Psalm 110 (which Jesus was quoting from):

The LORD says to my lord: "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet."
The LORD will extend your mighty scepter from Zion; you will rule in the midst of your enemies. Your troops will be willing on your day of battle. Arrayed in holy majesty, from the womb of the dawn you will receive the dew of your youth. The LORD has sworn and will not change His mind: "You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek."
The LORD is at your right hand; he will crush kings on the day of His wrath. He will judge the nations, heaping up the dead and crushing the rulers of the whole earth. He will drink from a brook beside the way; therefore He will lift up His head. (Psalm 110:1-7)

Notice that there are two “Lords,” one “LORD” (God) - translated from God's Name יְהֹוָה (Yĕhovah) or Jehovah - and then one “lord” - translated from the Hebrew word אֲדֹנָי ('Adonay) which refers to a superior. First David discloses that his lord was asked by God to sit at His right hand.

Then later it states that God will be at his right hand. This indicates a relationship of service between the two - the lord is serving the LORD (being at His right hand) and the LORD is empowering David's lord by giving him strength.

Then he continues to describe him. David says that his “lord” was made a priest by God: "You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek." Then David also describes that his “lord” is also a king. A king who will fight on behalf of God:

“The LORD will extend your mighty scepter from Zion; you will rule in the midst of your enemies. Your troops will be willing on your day of battle. Arrayed in holy majesty, from the womb of the dawn you will receive the dew of your youth.”

So who was David referring to as "you" and "lord"? Was he referring to some person who would appear many centuries or even thousands of years into the future? Was he talking about Jesus? And what troops did Jesus have? What “scepter” did Jesus have? David is obviously not speaking of Jesus here.

The “my lord” David is speaking of in this Psalm is Saul who was appointed as king by Samuel, his spiritual teacher. Saul was the king of Israel, and David was referring to Saul as his superior, but also because Saul was anointed by Samuel - so David was humbly deferring to him as a priest in the order of Melchizedek, and thus also referencing the guidance of Samuel.

How is Samuel related to David?

Before he was anointed as king, David was an armor-bearer of Saul. This is a traditional way of saying that Saul was David's superior and teacher. But Samuel was Saul's teacher. Samuel also had the authority of appointing Saul as king. David was thus a follower of Saul and Samuel, and he referred to the authority of Samuel.

David would play on his harp and sing his Psalms to Saul and Samuel - often to Saul alone, and this confirms why "you" is used.

Samuel, their teacher, was an anointed king, priest and spiritual leader of Israel. This is why Samuel had the authority to teach to Saul and David. Samuel took study under his own teacher (and God's representative) Eli. Eli was also considered a great Prophet and servant of God.

As for the order of Melchizedek: This is referring to the lineage of teachers that pay homage to Melchizedek - who was Abraham's teacher. Melchizedek is described in Genesis:

"He was priest of God Most High" (Genesis 14:18)

How do we know that Abraham accepted Melchizedek as his spiritual teacher?

Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. He was priest of God Most High, and he blessed Abram, saying, "Blessed be Abram by God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth. And praise be to God Most High, who delivered your enemies into your hand." Then Abram gave him a tenth of everything. (Genesis 14:18-20)

We see here that Melchizedek blessed Abraham. And then we see that Abraham gave him a tenth of everything - in the service of his teacher. This "blessing" is the same as "anointing" or "baptizing" - it is the process of initiation of a student by God's representative.

In some Talmud versions, Melchizedek is considered a nickname for Shem - who was the son and student of Noah.

This priesthood order of Melchizedek-Abraham-Isaac/Lot-Jacob-Joseph-Moses-Joshua-(et al)-Eli-Samuel-David-(et al)-John the Baptist-Jesus succession indicates a lineage of students and their teachers, with each student following their teacher and considering their teacher God's representative and their personal savior. It is a teacher-to-student succession. Let’s consider Samuel's relationship with his spiritual teacher, Eli:

The boy Samuel ministered before the LORD under Eli. (1 Samuel 3:1)

This is very clear, and the next verses illustrate how Samuel loved and respected his teacher, Eli. It also illustrates that Eli instructed Samuel to establish his own personal relationship with God after Samuel was hearing God speak to him:

So Eli told Samuel, "Go and lie down, and if He calls you, say, 'Speak, LORD, for Your servant is listening.'" So Samuel went and lay down in his place. (1 Samuel 3:9)

Once Samuel re-established his loving relationship with God, he became God's representative. This is confirmed by Samuel’s teachings later in his life:

The people all said to Samuel, "Pray to the LORD your God for your servants so that we will not die, for we have added to all our other sins the evil of asking for a king."
"Do not be afraid," Samuel replied. "You have done all this evil; yet do not turn away from the LORD, but serve the LORD with all your heart. Do not turn away after useless idols. They can do you no good, nor can they rescue you, because they are useless. For the sake of His great Name the LORD will not reject His people, because the LORD was pleased to make you His own. As for me, far be it from me that I should sin against the LORD by failing to pray for you. And I will teach you the way that is good and right. But be sure to fear [honor] the LORD and serve Him faithfully with all your heart; consider what great things He has done for you." (I Samuel 12:19-24)

So we can see here that Samuel was guided by Eli, and then became empowered to also take on the role of spiritual teacher to these people. And both Samuel and Eli taught the very same things that Moses, Joshua, Abraham, Jacob, Job, John the Baptist and Jesus taught: To love, honor, and serve God. In other words, Samuel was presenting God's message to his people. He was, therefore, representing God, and thus was their savior, and "Messiah."

Now let’s investigate David’s relationship with Samuel:

Samuel did what the LORD said. When he arrived at Bethlehem, the elders of the town trembled when they met him. They asked, "Do you come in peace?"
Samuel replied, "Yes, in peace; I have come to sacrifice to the LORD. Consecrate yourselves and come to the sacrifice with me." Then he consecrated Jesse and his sons and invited them to the sacrifice.
When they arrived, Samuel saw Eliab and thought, "Surely the LORD's anointed stands here before the LORD."
But the LORD said to Samuel, "Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The LORD does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart."
Then Jesse called Abinadab and had him pass in front of Samuel. But Samuel said, "The LORD has not chosen this one either." Jesse then had Shammah pass by, but Samuel said, "Nor has the LORD chosen this one." Jesse had seven of his sons pass before Samuel, but Samuel said to him, "The LORD has not chosen these." So he asked Jesse, "Are these all the sons you have?"
"There is still the youngest," Jesse answered, "but he is tending the sheep."
Samuel said, "Send for him; we will not sit down until he arrives."
So he sent and had him brought in. He was ruddy, with a fine appearance and handsome features.
Then the LORD said, "Rise and anoint him; he is the one."
So Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed him in the presence of his brothers, and from that day on the Spirit of the LORD came upon David in power. Samuel then went to Ramah. (1 Samuel 16:4-13)

We can see here that David became the student and servant of Samuel, and Samuel anointed him (same as baptism, or initiation). While Samuel may have physically selected David, it was God Who ultimately made the selection. In essence, Samuel became David's spiritual teacher. David thus worshiped his spiritual teacher Samuel as God's representative and his personal savior ("Messiah").

In the same way, David also became empowered by God to represent Him. And we see later that Solomon became David’s confidential student. In this case, because of the familial relationship, David sent his priests to anoint Solomon:

So Zadok the priest, Nathan the prophet, Benaiah son of Jehoiada, the Kerethites and the Pelethites went down and put Solomon on King David's mule and escorted him to Gihon. Zadok the priest took the horn of oil from the sacred tent and anointed Solomon. (1 Kings 1:38-39)

While this also made Solomon king, we cannot ignore that the anointing was made by priests, and this made the anointment of Solomon a spiritual initiation. Remember anointing (same as baptizing) according to God's own instructions in Exodus 40:15 (above). These anointings continue that tradition as instructed by God.

We also see that David was Solomon's teacher, and instructed Solomon in spiritual affairs:

When the time drew near for David to die, he gave a charge to Solomon his son. "I am about to go the way of all the earth," he said. "So be strong, show yourself a man, and observe what the LORD your God requires: Walk in his ways, and keep his decrees and commands, his laws and requirements..." (1 Kings 2:1-3)

So here we see a lineage of God's loving servants and representatives, each of whom were the saviors of their students. Each was selected by God to pass on His message to those generations, and each was empowered by God to teach and save those who heard from them and became their students. In other words, they each assumed the role of "Messiah" to those they taught.

Was Jesus part of this 'Melchizedek order'?

This tradition was continued by Jesus, and he also baptized (anointed) disciples who then passed on those teachings to the next generation. This is the process.

With this exchange with the Pharisees, Jesus is indicating the error in their interpretation regarding a single coming Messiah in the future. Ironically, now sectarian institutions and their teachers who claim to be following Jesus also misinterpret Jesus' statement - claiming that Jesus is the only Messiah.

The reality is that the real Messiah - or Savior - is the Supreme Being. God's representative allows the Supreme Being to speak through them. This is confirmed by Jesus:

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

Jesus also instructs his disciples to let the Supreme Being speak through them:

"But when they arrest you, do not worry about what to say or how to say it. At that time you will be given what to say, for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you." (Matthew 10:19-20)

"Just say whatever is given you at the time, for it is not you speaking, but the Holy Spirit." (Mark 3:11)

Thus we find that Jesus is teaching his disciples the mechanics of being God's representative as they allow God to speak through them.

Is the Bible a history of Messiahs?

Yes. There are other historical events and lessons in the Bible, some of which have been expanded into symbolic discussions.

But running through the Bible is a lineage of teachers that all acted as God's representatives.

Here is a rough list of teachers found in the texts of the Bible, many of which would be considered as maintaining the role of Messiah:

• Abel
• Seth
• Enosh
• Mahalalel
• Jared
• Enoch
• Methuselah
• Lamech
• Noah
• Shem (Melchizedek)
• Ham
• Japheth
• Arphaxad
• Selah
• Elam
• Asshur
• Cush
• Gomer
• Meshech
• Elishah
• Nimrod
• Aram
• Terah
• Abraham
• Lot
• Isaac
• Esau
• Jacob
• Joseph
• Benjamin
• Judah
• Levi
• Reuben
• Simeon
• Gad
• Naphtali
• Dan
• Asher
• Issachar
• Zebulun
• Ishmael
• Ephram
• Manasseh
• Moses
• Joshua
• Eli
• Samson
• Samuel
• Saul
• David
• Solomon
• Elijah
• Elisha
• Hoshea
• Daniel
• Esther
• Ezra
• Obadiah
• Joel
• Jonah
• Amos
• Hosea
• Isaiah
• Micah
• Nahum
• Zephaniah
• Jeremiah
• Habakkuk
• Daniel
• Ezekiel
• Haggai
• Zechariah
• Malachi
• [Jeconiah
• Shealtiel
• Zerubbabel,
• Abihud
• Eliakim
• Azor,
• Zadok
• Akim
• Elihud,
• Eleazar
• Matthan
• Joda
• Rhesa
• Neri
• Addi
• Cosam
• Amos
• Levi
• Joseph]*
• Zachariah
• John the Baptist
• Jesus
• Jesus' disciples (at least 72)
• Disciples of Jesus' disciples, et al.

(*Listed as part of the lineage/mentorship of Jesus in Luke and Matthew, though their respective roles as teachers aren't confirmed.)

We find in Luke that Jesus had at least 72 disciples, whom he sent out to villages throughout Judea to teach on his behalf. This confirms that Jesus had more than 12 disciples. We can also include Mary and Martha as followers of Jesus.

Jesus' disciples also made their own disciples. For example, Matthias was a disciple of John. Thus we find that despite the false institutional hierarchy of the Roman Catholic church, the teachings of Jesus did continue through a succession of teachers.

Jesus' role in this succession is clear. Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, who was the student of the priest Zechariah, in disciplic line with the students and teachers such as Malachi, Isaiah and others that followed David. David followed Samuel, Samuel followed Eli, and this succession of teachers went back to Moses, Abraham, Melchizedek, and Noah.

What we find running through the texts of the Bible is a history and lineage of many of God's representatives ("Messiahs"), which included Jesus - who each taught substantially the same teaching, which will essentially save us:

"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. 22:36-38)

"But you are not to be called 'Rabbi' ..." (Matthew 23:8-10)

"But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and He is in heaven. Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah." (Matthew 23:8-10)

Why does Jesus not want his followers to be called 'Rabbi' or 'instructor'?

Jesus was called "Rabbi" by many. Why wouldn't he want his followers to also be called Rabbi should they go out and teach others?

And because "Rabbi" means, literally, "teacher" this also means that Jesus doesn't want them to call themselves "teacher."

Indeed, Jesus' followers were also sent out to teach, and they were also instructed to baptize others.

Jesus is making a symbolic point. He isn't literally teaching they cannot be called teacher or instructor. Certainly they will be, and we know this historically. Rather, Jesus is trying to impress on them that they are not the source of those teachings. That God is the ultimate teacher.

Jesus wants everyone to understand that the Supreme Being is the only real teacher. A person who becomes God's messenger is not being a teacher - they are passing on the teachings coming from the Supreme Being.

Jesus is also instructing his followers to rely upon the Supreme Being, rather than those posing as spiritual teachers. He is requesting his followers do not pose themselves as teacher because God is the only real teacher. This is because God teaches us from within and without.

And because Jesus is obviously referencing the Supreme Being in this statement, we can also know that he considers the Supreme Being to be the only real Messiah.

This creates somewhat of a problem, which those interpretations do not solve: Why is Jesus referred to as "Teacher" and "Christ" elsewhere in the scriptures?

Who is 'the Messiah' according to Jesus?

Who is Jesus referring to as the ultimate "Messiah," "Instructor," "Father" and "Rabbi"? Himself?

Jesus is instructing his followers not to be called, or refer to anyone other than the Supreme Being as any of these positions: "Rabbi," "Father," "Teacher," or "Messiah." We know Jesus is referring to the Supreme Being here because he says, "for you have one Father, and He is in heaven." This is an obvious reference to God.

This is reflected when he says the same thing about "Messiah" - "for you have one Instructor, the Messiah." Jesus is stating that all of these positions are ultimately assumed to be God's.

The Supreme Being is the only real spiritual Teacher, and those who represent God are speaking on His behalf. Jesus stated this clearly regarding himself:

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

Does Christ also mean Messiah?

Biblical translations are split - some translate the Greek word Χριστός (Kristos) to "Christ" and some translate it to "Messiah." Either is right.

Χριστός has been used in other statements by Jesus, but always in the third person. Χριστός may also be translated to "Anointed One." This is a synonym of the Hebrew word מָשִׁיחַ (mashiyach) which is used throughout the Old Testament and Hebrew texts, and translated to either "Anointed One" or "Messiah." Consider some of the uses of this word in the Old Testament:

Then the anointed priest shall take some of the bull's blood and carry it into the Tent of Meeting. (Lev. 4:5)

When they arrived, Samuel saw Eliab and thought, "Surely the LORD's anointed stands here before the LORD." (Samuel 16:6)

These are the last words of David: "The oracle of David son of Jesse, the oracle of the man exalted by the Most High, the man anointed by the God of Jacob, Israel's singer of songs: (Samuel 23:1)

"Do not touch My anointed ones; do My prophets no harm." (1 Chron 16:22)

"O LORD God, do not reject Your anointed one. Remember the great love promised to David your servant." (2 Chron 6:42)

The LORD is the strength of his people, a fortress of salvation for His anointed one. (Psalm 28:8)

"This is what the LORD says to His anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I take hold of to subdue nations before him and to strip kings of their armor..." (Isaiah 45:1)

All of these (in bold) are referred to using the word מָשִׁיחַ (mashiyach), meaning Messiah or Anointed One. David and others referred to David as Anointed one or Messiah (2 Chronicles 6:42 and Psalm 28:8), and Cyrus was considered God's Anointed one or Messiah (Isaiah 45:1), as was Eliab, by Samuel (Samuel 16:6). Furthermore, God directly refers to prophets and priests as being Anointed one or Messiah (Lev. 4:5 and 1 Chronicles 16:22). Again, each of these statements uses the same word, מָשִׁיחַ (mashiyach), which means Anointed one or Messiah.

Looking at these verses without understanding creates an apparent fundamental scriptural conflict with referring to Jesus as the only "Messiah" ("Anointed One," etc.). In fact, there seem to be conflicting uses of the word "Messiah" in general. Why is this? The solution lies within Jesus' statement.

Is Jesus the only Messiah?

Many have interpreted Jesus' statement to mean that Jesus is referring exclusively to himself when he says they have only one "Teacher," or "Messiah." But there are serious problems with this interpretation. First, Jesus is referring to Χριστός in the third person. If he were referring to himself, he would simply say: "I am the Christ." Why doesn't he simply say that?

Instead, he refers to Χριστός in the third person, not only here, but in many other statements, as we've discussed. Was Jesus prone to speaking about himself indirectly all the time? This would be equivalent to someone named Bob walking into the conference room at work, and saying "you should respect Bob." Who would do such a thing? We would immediately think Bob was a little nutty. Rather, if Bob were wanting us to respect him, he would simply say, "I am Bob and I need your respect." (We'd still think he was a little nutty though).

This also brings upon us another problem: This is found in the next statement by Jesus, where he follows this statement with:

"The greatest among you will be your servant. For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted." (Matt. 23:11-12)

So would Jesus say this after he just exalted himself? Is he telling his followers that he is the only teacher and their only savior? Is Jesus claiming, in other words, to be the greatest, while at the same time saying that they should be humble? This also makes no sense.

Furthermore, it makes no sense that Jesus would be referring to "your Father in heaven" in the third person as being the only Master and Father (which is obviously not Jesus, since Jesus was standing in front of them), and then suddenly switch to talking about himself in the next sentence?

The only appropriate solution is that Jesus is referring to God not only as their only Master and their only Father but also as their only Teacher and the only Χριστός (Christ, Messiah, Anointed One, Savior).

Since Jesus refers to Master, Father, Teacher and Χριστός in the same third-person context, we can only assume that Jesus is referring to God as the Christ or Messiah.

Or is God the ultimate Messiah?

Consider, for example, these statements by Jesus:

"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)

"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)

Could these be the words of God? If so, who is "the Father who sent me" and "Him who sent me" then?

Certainly, Jesus is referring to someone else here - the Supreme Being.

The only logical conclusion to draw from all these statements is that Jesus is referring to a person who is separate from him - the Supreme Being, the true Χριστός (Christ, Messiah, Savior or Anointed One).

So why did so many refer to Jesus as the Christ and Messiah? Are they all wrong?

And what about the references to God's other "Anointed ones," such as David, Eli, His priests and prophets?

There is a simple answer. Those who are serving God and empowered to represent Him, are also considered "Messiah" because God is working through them. Jesus explains how this works when he instructs his disciples to allow God to speak through them:

"At that time you will be given what to say, for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you." (Matt. 10:19-20)

This is no different than sending any sort of messenger. If a president of a country sent his ambassador to another country to give the other country's government a message, the message would be received as coming from the president, not the ambassador. The ambassador is an emissary - a medium for his president.

In the same way, if God empowers one of His loving servants to represent Him, that person - as God's representative - this person has the power to save others because the Supreme Being is working through them. Thus they are not by themselves saving anyone - the Supreme Being is doing this through them.

And while a person may teach others about God, the Supreme Being is the only true Teacher, because all spiritual knowledge comes from Him. So those who are empowered by the Supreme Being to teach on His behalf also become real Spiritual Teachers - knowing, of course, that God is the only real Teacher, and they are simply acting as God's messengers. God is the real Messiah, and can empower and work through those who love and serve Him.

This also provides the key to Jesus' identity. While Jesus was often referred to correctly as "the Christ" - because he was God's representative - Jesus never referred to himself as such. He saw himself as a humble servant of the Supreme Being, and thus referred that title (Christ or Kristos) to the Supreme Being, whom he loved and served.

“O Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you ..." (Matthew 23:37-38)

“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the Prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing. Look, your house is left to you desolate. (Matthew 23:37-38)

What does Jesus' analogy mean?

This statement and analogy by Jesus may seem a little complex, but it is actually very simple if we understand the relationship between Jesus, God and the people of Jerusalem.

The word "Prophets" in this verse is taken from the Greek word προφήτης. While this word has been used in the Greek society to describe "an interpreter of oracles or of other hidden things," the use of the word by Jesus (and from Aramaic) is better translated as (according to the Greek lexicon) "one who, moved by the Spirit of God and hence His organ or spokesman, solemnly declares to men what he has received by inspiration, especially concerning future events, and in particular such as relate to the cause and kingdom of God and to human salvation."

In other words, the "Prophets," which include Abraham, Jacob, Isaac, Moses, Joshua, Eli, Samuel, David, Solomon, Job, Jeremiah, Noah, John the Baptist, and others, were God's messengers. They spoke on behalf of God. They were surrendered to God and were in love with God. They worked on God's behalf as His humble servants. This included Jesus and some of his disciples.

Here is a list of Prophets who were killed. And here is a list of Jesus' disciples and followers who were murdered.

The Greek word προφήτης, translated to "Prophets" here, also means "Messiah."

What does 'your house is left to you desolate' mean?

Why does Jesus state this? Why is Jerusalem's "house" "desolate"?

"House" here is representing their hearts. Their hearts are desolate because those who had heard (and were even teaching) the words of these Prophets had abandoned their meaning. What is left is emptiness.

Despite their positions as appointed teachers of the institutional temples, they were not interested in loving or serving God. Jesus thus describes their institution and their teachings as being desolate - empty.

This is the state of anyone who abandons our innate relationship with the Supreme Being: Empty. Desolate.

Were the Prophets also Messiahs?

According to the Mosaic tradition, the Prophets were also considered Messiahs. But we also find that many in the Temple were and still are awaiting another Prophet - whom they also call the Messiah - just as the Prophets before were.

How could this be? Isn't Jesus the only Messiah? Actually, the word "Messiah" and "prophet" are synonyms according to the Greek lexicon. And in the Old Testament, the Hebrew word מָשִׁיחַ (mashiyach) also can be translated to "Messiah," as well as "anointed one." Throughout the books of the Old Testament, it describes the "anointed" as God's priests and representatives. For example:

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

David also referred to himself a number of times as having been anointed. He also reflected upon God's statement about himself being anointed by God:

"I have found David my servant; with my sacred oil I have anointed him." (Psalm 89:20)

Because "Messiah," "anointed one" and "Prophets" can be connected as synonyms in the scriptures, we can conclude that each of God's loving servants and representatives such as David, Samuel, Eli, Moses, Abraham, Joshua, Noah, Job, Jonah, Ezekiel, Zachariah, John the Baptist, Jesus and some of Jesus' disciples and others, were all representatives of God - "those sent to you" as Jesus says above - and thus each one can be considered a "Messiah."

This history has largely been whitewashed through misinterpretation and mistranslation of the scriptures. This began with the Latin Bible put together by Eusebius that was commissioned by the Roman Emperor Constantine in the early part of the Fourth Century. This followed the Roman Emperor-assembled Council of Nicaea of 325 AD which dictated the Nicene Creed that has largely been assumed by the various sects that followed including the Roman Catholic Church.

Among the various tenets of the Nicene Creed spells out the doctrine that Jesus is the only Messiah.

Yet the scriptures clearly utilize two words translated to "Messiah" (מָשִׁיחַ in Hebrew and προφήτης in Greek). Within their context, both were used to describe God's representatives such as Moses, David and so on.

None of their uses in the scripture indicate or single out one particular person as the only Messiah ever. Often they will be used in the singular, but this is referring to "Messiah" or "prophet" as a role.

For example, we could use the word "captain" to address a single person who was the captain of a ship (e.g., "Yes sir, captain."). But we could also use the word "captain" to describe the role of captain (e.g., "A captain's duty is to steer the ship"). We could also use the word captain to refer to many people who occupied the position (e.g., "Every captain in the fleet showed great valor.")

Was this indoctrination or brainwashing?

An institutional stranglehold took hold of the life and teachings of Jesus, by the Romans in the Fourth Century and beyond. This led to the indoctrination of millions of people for centuries. The indoctrination began with the Nicene Creed developed during the First Council of Nicaea in 325, which was organized by the Roman government. Why?

The need for the Roman government to control all of Europe and the regions around the Mediterranean Sea and North Africa depended upon them gaining complete control over the religions of the region - the most prominent at the beginning of the Fourth Century being Christianity.

This realization came to the Roman Emperor Constantine. So even though the Romans had persecuted Christians for centuries, Constantine realized it was better for Rome to embrace Christianity. This gave Rome a means to continue to control the vast and growing Roman Empire.

This was a smart move politically. For centuries after the Roman Empire collapsed Rome continued to control governments and people throughout the former Empire. For this reason, this region following the collapse of the Roman Empire is now referred to as the Holy Roman Empire.

This effectively gave one single church - the Roman Catholic Church - control over the Christian religion - lasting more than 1,000 years.

The Nicene Creed not only claimed Jesus as the only Messiah. It also relegated all the other Messiahs previous to Jesus to the position of "Prophets" - with their central purpose supposedly being to have foretold of Jesus' coming.

Constantine also ordered that scribes be employed to translate a select group of scrolls into the first Latin Bible. The original scrolls were mostly in Greek and Hebrew, and they were confiscated and translated to Latin. Once produced, the new Latin Bibles could only be read by priests. Common people were forbidden to have in their possession any scripture or text.

Furthermore, this Latin translation was translated to mirror the Nicene Creed. It became the official Canon of the Bible for over a thousand years.

This politically corrupted interpretation of Jesus' teachings allowed the Roman Catholic Church to control the people. Anyone who interpreted the scriptures differently or taught anything different was burned at the stake, put in prison, and otherwise were tortured and silenced.

Did this strategy work?

The Roman government, and then the Roman government's proxy, the Roman Catholic Church, dominated Europe and its governments, for well over ten centuries - until the 1500s, when Henry VIII separated from the Roman Catholic Church - because their teachings and politics were strangling his ability to rule England - and created the Church of England.

By this period - when the Bible was finally translated into English - the first in 1380 by John Wycliffe, persecuted for this along with colleagues - the Nicene Creed interpretation was so cemented into the Christian teachings that it could not be removed. So the early English versions of the Bible were also consistent with the Nicene Creed - and every translation that followed has accepted the Creed as the underlying foundation.

Yes, even the Church of England and the movement of Martin Luther and others that created the few alternatives to Roman Catholic domination over Christianity still kept to the tenets of the Nicene Creed. After over a thousand years of control over the interpretations of the Christian scriptures, every other possible interpretation was thoroughly squelched by the powerful Roman Catholic Church.

Therefore, the interpretation that Jesus was the only Messiah was firmly cemented into Christian thinking. Any other interpretation would be - and still is by practically every ecclesiastical Christian institution - considered blasphemy.

Yet if one simply reads the scriptures and examines the Greek and Hebrew they are taken from, it is quite simple to discover that the Old and New Testaments describe the "Prophets" as all being "Messiahs." Yes, Jesus did accept that he was Messiah. But he used this term in third-person, indicating it to be a role rather than one person throughout history - a role related to representing the Supreme Being:

"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?" Peter answered, "God's Messiah." Jesus strictly warned them not to tell this to anyone. (Luke 9:20-21)

"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)

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

These statements clearly indicate that the role of Messiah related to Jesus being God's representative. Jesus was sent by God - and his teachings were given to him by God.

Does "Messiah" also mean savior?

The Prophets could clearly save their students and followers because they were introducing them to God and giving them God's teachings. They were showing them how to resume their loving relationship with God. This is what saves people. This teaching is also the common thread amongst all of God's representatives (Messiahs). Consider, for example, the most important commandment according to Moses:

"Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength." (Deuteronomy 6:4)

Now consider Jesus' 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.” (Matt. 22:37-38)>

Consider Joshua's (Moses' student) instruction to his followers after Moses' passing:

"But be very careful to keep the commandment and the law that Moses the servant of the LORD gave you: to love the LORD your God, to walk in all his ways, to obey his commands, to hold fast to him and to serve him with all your heart and all your soul." (Joshua 22:5)

Consider Hosea's instruction:

"But you must return to your God; maintain love and justice, and wait for your God always." (Hosea 12:6)

Consider Joel's instruction:

"Return to the LORD your God, for He is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and abounding in love, and He relents from sending calamity." (Joel 2:13)

Consider David's statement:

"My salvation and my honor depend on God; He is my mighty rock, my refuge." (Psalm 62:7)

And David's teaching to Solomon:

"And you, my son Solomon, acknowledge the God of your father, and serve Him with wholehearted devotion and with a willing mind, for the LORD searches every heart and understands every motive behind the thoughts." (1Chron. 28:9)

Consider the instruction of the Teacher in Ecclesiastes:`

"Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: Revere [mistranslated to "fear"] God and keep His commandments, for this is the whole [duty] of man." (Eccl 12:13)

And Samuel:

"If you revere [mistranslated to "fear"] the LORD and serve and obey Him and do not rebel against His commands, and if both you and the king who reigns over you follow the LORD your God - good!" (1Samuel 12:14)

And Job:

"How great is God - beyond our understanding!" (Job 36:26)

And Proverbs:

"So that your trust may be in the LORD, I teach you today, even you." (Proverbs 22:18-20)

These and so many other verses among the Prophets confirm a consistent communication from all of the Prophets - all consistent with Jesus' teachings: To give our lives to the Supreme Being, come to love Him and take shelter of Him.

"Watch out that no one deceives you. For many will come in my name ..." (Matthew 24:4-13)

"Watch out that no one deceives you. For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the messiah,' and will deceive many. You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. All these are the beginning of birth pains. Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me. At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved." (Matthew 24:4-13)

What is Jesus talking about?

The context of Jesus' statement is critical. This statement comes in response to an exchange between Jesus and his disciples. Here is the exchange that resulted in this statement:

Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. "Do you see all these things?" he asked. "Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down."
As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. "Tell us," they said, "when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?" (Matthew 24:1-3)

The question asked by Jesus' disciples and Jesus' response has been mistranslated and misinterpreted over the past 17 centuries by many within institutions claiming to represent Jesus.

This mistranslation threatens the end of the world. But this is not what Jesus is talking about. The question being asked related to Jesus' statement about the temple buildings being destroyed. And just as predicted, the temple was destroyed within 30 years of Jesus' saying this.

Now Jesus' statement relates to what will happen at the disciples' time of death: As their spiritual guide, Jesus would escort them back to the spiritual world where they would be reunited in their relationship with God.

This is indicated by the Greek. The word "coming" is translated from παρουσία (parousia). 'Coming' is a stretch for this word. παρουσία actually means 'presence.' It can also mean 'advent' or 'arrival,' but these are its secondary meanings. The primary is presence.

Jesus was promising his upcoming presence to his disciples. He promised that he would be with them at their scariest moment, the time of death. Jesus asked that his disciples pass on his teachings to others, and this will be followed by him escorting them back to heaven "at the end".

What does 'end of the age' mean?

This term, the "end of the age" is derived from the Greek phrase συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος. συντέλεια means 'completion, consummation, end.' It is often used to denote death - the end of the life of the temporary physical body. αἰῶνος or its root αἰών can mean 'forever, an unbroken age, perpetuity of time, eternity, worlds, universe' or a 'period of time' according to the lexicon. In other words, at the end of their lifetimes: when their bodies died.

Consider an earlier statement Jesus made to them:

"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." (Matthew 16:19)

By the time these texts were translated into Latin and combined into the Bible in the Fourth Century, the events Jesus predicted in these verses had already taken place.

The interpretation that Jesus is discussing the 'end of the world' and his 'second coming' in Matthew 24 evolved from a conspiracy by the Roman government. Their mission was first, to scare the citizens of the growing Christian world into their control.

Secondly, the Romans wanted to erase their persecution of the Israelites, which erupted into the Jewish-Roman wars that lasted between 66 AD and 135 AD. During these wars, the Israelites and the Christians were overwhelmingly slaughtered by the Romans.

Yes, the Israelites did manage to fight off the Romans during some of these wars. But the result was the sacking and complete destruction of Jerusalem. And hundreds of thousands if not millions of Israelites and early Christians were killed. And most of the survivors were scattered among other regions.

This was followed by the Romans developing a strategy to control religious thought throughout the region in the coming centuries.

What was Jesus predicting?

Jesus is talking with his disciples about their days to come. He is also discussing where they will stand if they hold on to their loving relationship with God, despite the hellish nature of the coming years of bloodshed and hatred. He tells them that they will return to the spiritual world:

"Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved."

Jesus is talking about a personal end: the end of their respective physical lives. Not the end of some kind era thousands of years into the future.

The question the disciples urgently asked indicates their fear of not only Jesus' prediction that the temples will fall, but also for their very lives. They wanted to know their own fate when the temples collapse.

This was brought up when Jesus spoke about the temporary nature of the physical world and even the temple buildings. They were concerned because they wanted to be sure that the place Jesus promised for them in heaven was going to be there for them at the end of their lives.

The "end of the age" is not the end of some kind of global era thousands of years after these disciples had passed away. The "end of the age" was simply the end of their physical lifetimes.

How could "stands firm to the end" mean thousands of years into the future for these disciples? That is sure a long time to stay "standing."  How could his disciples have remained "standing" for thousands of years?

Rather, the "to the end" means the end of their lifetimes within their respective physical bodies. Others might "turn away from the faith and betray and hate each other," during their lifetimes. But those who "stand firm" by continuing to follow Jesus' instructions would be following Jesus back to the spiritual world.

Such persons would be joyfully passing on Jesus' teachings through the end of their physical lifetimes. As such, they would be reuniting with Jesus (παρουσία) and resuming their loving service relationship with the Supreme Being. This is what Jesus refers to as being "saved."

Did the "end of the world" ever come?

Is it possible that Jesus could have been talking about the end of the world or the end of the universe to his close disciples? This has also been called the doomsday prediction.

Let's consider this prediction logically. It is now over 2,000 years after Jesus' statement, and the world - despite the hundreds of predictions by ecclesiastical preachers in the meantime - still has not come to an end. And so many have predicted it. Just consider a shortlist of end-of-the-world predictions and the date the world was supposed to have ended:

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)

All of these have followed the Roman Catholic interpretation that Jesus and his disciples are discussing the coming of the end of the world. Would they now have to admit that Jesus was wrong about the end of the world coming? No, because their predictions continue. They just keep moving the date forward.

Just consider Jesus' further response and discussion. Was Jesus talking to his disciples about a time more than 2,000 years into the future when he says, "Watch out that no one deceives you."

Then Jesus tells them there will be wars, famines, and earthquakes. Then he says, "Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me."

Were Jesus' teachings suppressed by the Romans?

For nearly 300 years, the Roman government banned the practice of Christianity. They outlawed the teachings and suppressed the distribution of scripture. They also murdered most of Jesus' close disciples in addition to their persecution of Jesus.

But then something changed. Suddenly, in the early Fourth Century, the Roman government legalized Christianity. Historians suggest it was because early Christianity spread so quickly that the Roman government could not control it. So they legalized it and took control over it.

The Roman government effectively brought Christianity under its control by creating a state-run institution, the Roman Catholic Church. This was the only approved institution, and all other Christian institutions were forced to become satellites of the Roman Catholic Church.

With this effective takeover of Christianity came a general strategy to co-opt many of Jesus' teachings - especially elements that put the Romans in a negative light. This effort was broadened as Constantine convened the Council of Nicaea and contracted with Eusebius to produce a compilation of scriptures that the Roman government could underwrite. This became the Latin Bible, the only legal form of scripture in the Roman Empire, then the Holy Roman Empire (or Christian Empire, effectively governed by Roman Catholic Popes) for the next 1,000 years.

The problem is that this mission meant Eusebius had to screen the dozens of Gospels concerning Jesus, and choose those that could be supported by the Roman government. This resulted in dozens of scriptures about Jesus being burnt. Some are lost forever. A few have been found buried in the desert in the last century. And the only "official" gospels left are the Book of John and three books (Matthew, Mark and Luke) that appear to historians to be loose narratives surrounding the teachings of Jesus recorded in the Gospel of Thomas (which was also burnt by the Romans).

Part of the Roman strategy in this process was to downplay the role of the Romans in the persecution of Jesus. The other element was to minimize the extent of the holocaust-like slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Israelites during the Jewish-Roman wars.

The downplay was effected by making Pontius Pilate seem like an innocent bystander during Jesus' trial. And masking the Roman army's slaughter of the Jewish people was effected by making Jesus' prediction of the coming Roman massacre seems like he was predicting some kind of 'end of the world' scenario.

This strategy consisted of managing the translation and interpretation of scriptures relating to Jesus, along with dominating early Christian teachers. Through the auspices of a central Roman Catholic church, the Romans were able to control the narrative.

They effectively established a doctrine and formed a virtual religious government. This was accomplished by commandeering a group of respected priests from around Europe and the Middle East into what was called the Council of Nicaea - which evolved to become the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic church.

This is now known as the Vatican.

The Nicene Council, orchestrated by Constantine, executed his strategies by establishing a doctrine that defined Jesus and God. A doctrine still being promoted today. The essential principles of this doctrine as added on by the Council of 381 were:

- That Jesus was God ("the only begotten Son")

- That Jesus (God) came down to earth and became a man via the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary

- That Jesus (God) suffered on the cross and then rose on the third day

- Then he rose to heaven to sit at the right hand of the Father

- That Jesus is the judge of the "quick and the dead."

- That the Trinity (God, Jesus, Holy Ghost) are to be worshiped together, as supported by the prophets.

- And finally, that the Roman Catholic church is the only true church and provides the only true baptism.

As to the final point, here is the text translated from Latin:

"In one holy catholic and apostolic Church; we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen."

It is odd that practically every Christian sect to this day supports the Nicene Creed, yet the Creed itself does not support any other sect except the Roman Catholic Church.

It also means that all other teachers of ancient Israel, up through Jesus' teacher John the Baptist - including Moses, Abraham, David, Samuel and many others, were relegated to the position of predicting Jesus' coming - and denigrated to merely predicting the future - specifically the arrival of Jesus.

If that is so, then why did no one mention Jesus by name? None of the Prophets said, "Jesus Christ is the only son begotten son of God."

Not one Prophet said this.

This consequences of the Nicene Creed included:

If people did not attend Roman Catholic mass, give alms, and support the Roman Catholic church they were condemned to hell - and persecuted through imprisonment or burning at the stake.

Why was this doctrine needed outside of Jesus' teachings?

Jesus spent years walking and preaching throughout Judea. He spoke to thousands of people over a period of several years. Why did they need to make a doctrine?

They needed a doctrine because they had departed from Jesus' teachings. They were creating their own teachings.

After creating this doctrine and assembling their version of events, the Roman government then proceeded to burn and thereby eliminate all other Christian scriptural texts. They burned down libraries and private collections throughout the region.

It was only when a buried library of scriptures was discovered in Middle East caves during the 20th century (Nag Hammadi library) did we discover some of the other scriptures that the Roman Catholics eliminated from circulation in order to exert their interpretation of Jesus and his teachings.

The translations into Latin were strictly supervised by Constantine and the council to adhere to the political objectives of the Roman government. It was not as if the scribes were devoted students of Jesus. They were paid literary scribes. In other words, they were beholden to the objectives of the Roman Catholic church. They were not free to translate as they saw fit.

This also allowed the Romans to erase the notion that Jesus was predicting the slaughter of the Israelites in the coming Jewish-Roman wars.

"Pray that your flight will not take place in winter ..." (Matthew 24:15-20)

"So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation', spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Let no one on the roof of his house go down to take anything out of the house. Let no one in the field go back to get his cloak. How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath." (Matthew 24:15-20)

What is 'your flight' that Jesus is talking about?

Jesus is continuing his private (Matthew 24:3) discussion with his disciples.

While some sectarian institutions have interpreted and translated this text to imply that Jesus is discussing the "end of the world" - which still hasn't taken place some thousands of years later - a clear translation illustrates this is not what Jesus was discussing.

Notice the last sentence:

"Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath."

Who is the "you" of the "your flight" - translated from the Greek word φυγή (phygē)? Again, we can see from Matt. 24:3 that Jesus was speaking "privately" with his disciples. We can also see from Matt. 24:14 that Jesus was instructing his disciples to teach throughout the land. Indeed, Jesus is pointing this discussion towards his disciples and the environment that would surround them in the years to come.

And what happened in the years to come to his disciples? For several decades, the most gruesome extermination of the Israeli and Judean and Christian peoples took place at the hands of the Romans.

This period, called the Jewish-Roman wars, lasted over 60 years. During this period, the Romans burned down practically every Judean village in the entire region. They tortured and killed hundreds of thousands if not millions of Israelites during that period. They brought down the entire civilization of Israel and its surrounding regions.

Is Jesus predicting a holocaust?

While the German extermination of Jews was certainly a holocaust - the German extermination of Jews occurred in less than a decade. The Jewish-Roman wars period took place for more than half a century. Just consider the suffering and devastation upon the Jewish people during that period.

This ferocious Roman empire continued its brutal dominance over the Jewish and Christian societies for many centuries afterward. They also carefully covered up their holocaust by virtually destroying all historical and scriptural texts of the period, except for a few selected texts they nicely fit into a book now called the Bible - which they made sure their scribes translated and interpreted during the fourth century to conveniently remove their slaughter of the Jews and early Christians of that era.

And it is quite clear from this text that "your flight" refers to the flight of Jesus' disciples when they have to flee the burning of villages and the torture and killings by the Romans in the coming years.

Is this during the winter or on the Sabbath?

As for winter, Jesus' disciples would be in the cold and without shelter. In the wintertime, Jerusalem and the surrounding mountains can get to freezing temperatures during the winter. And it does snow there on occasion.

As for the Sabbath, the Romans were exterminating Jews and Christians during the Jewish-Roman wars - and those who honored the Sabbath - which Jesus' disciples did - were obvious giveaways to the blood-thirsty Romans.

Jesus' statement saying "then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains" is obviously an instruction to his disciples that if they and their families and students are in Judea at the time of the coming holocaust, they should flee into the mountains.

And this is precisely what happened. Archaeologists have found the remains of Jewish and early Christian hideouts in the mountains surrounding Judea. Archaeological digs have ascertained that many of these small villages were also subjected to invasion by the Romans in the years after their fleeing the villages. This included the fate of the Essenes - who left behind proof that the Romans burned all but a few of the scriptural texts in the form of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

It was a true catastrophe at the hands of the world's largest army - an army many historians estimate was the strongest and most brutal army in the history of the world.

The translation of the Greek word ἀναγινώσκω (anaginōskō) to "reader" is not only inaccurate - it is suspect. According to the Greek lexicon, this word is best translated to "to distinguish between, to recognize, to know accurately, to acknowledge."

It would be entirely out of context to attempt to translate to reader, because Jesus spoke these words several decades before they were even recorded into writing.

Did Jesus really say 'let the reader understand'?

It is obvious the word "reader" was added in later by translators.

Furthermore, the word following ἀναγινώσκω is νοέω (noeō), which means "to perceive with the mind, to understand, to have understanding" according to the lexicon. So the most appropriate translation of phrase after mentioning Daniel is:

"Understand this accurately," or "understand this clearly."

This is a common statement for a person who is explaining something important. Jesus wanted his disciples to be clear on what he was warning them about in the coming years.

Is Jesus referencing Daniel?

Jesus first quotes a phrase that the Book of Daniel referenced in his visions about the coming days of a Babylon catastrophe, over six centuries before Jesus' discussion with his disciples. Daniel used the phrase "an abomination that causes desolation" in his prediction about a coming disaster that would overwhelm that country in the near future.

Jesus is simply referencing Daniel's prediction of that catastrophe as he makes a similar prediction about another coming catastrophe.

Daniel also predicts a coming "anointed one" (an anointed priest or representative of God according to Old Testament definition) amidst that catastrophe. Here is the text discussing Daniel's vision given to Daniel by the angel Gabriel:

"Seventy 'sevens' are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy. Know and understand this: From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the anointed one [or "messiah"], the ruler, comes, there will be seven 'sevens,' and sixty-two 'sevens.' It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble. He will confirm a covenant with many for one 'seven.' In the middle of the 'seven' he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on a wing [of the temple] he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him." (Daniel 9:24-27)

The meaning of "seven" or "sevens" has been studied closely by Biblical scholars and found to mean seven days, or a week. This means that Gabriel was predicting events that would occur within the next 10 years (70x7 days divided by 365 = 9.4 years), two months (7x7 days) and nine years (62x7 divided by 365), respectively. There is no indication that Gabriel is speaking of some messiah to come centuries later - or even thousands of years into the future in some "end of the world" scenario.

Rather, Gabriel was speaking to Daniel about events that would unfold in the coming decade for he and his people.

This is confirmed by the next verse in Daniel:

In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia, a revelation was given to Daniel (who was called Belteshazzar). Its message was true and it concerned a great war. The understanding of the message came to him in a vision. (Daniel 10:1)

As for the prediction of a coming messiah we can see from many Old Testament verses that "messiah" (מָשִׁיחַ) is also translated to "anointed ones", which were God's priests, or chosen representatives:

[God said to Moses] "Anoint Aaron and his sons and consecrate them so they may serve Me as priests." (Exodus 30:30)

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

When they arrived, Samuel saw Eliab and thought, "Surely the LORD's anointed stands here before the LORD." (1 Samuel 16:6)

These and numerous other verses all use the Hebrew word מָשִׁיחַ which is translated to the "anointed", "anointed one" or "messiah" meaning one of God's priests - one of His representatives. And there is a solid case for understanding the מָשִׁיחַ (messiah) Daniel was referring to was actually Jeremiah.

What does 'an abomination that causes desolation' mean?

So why did Jesus conjure Daniel's expression "an abomination that causes desolation" as he described the coming years of Jewish-Roman wars and the effects they would have on his disciples? Jesus wanted to emphasize how bad it would get. As he spoke about the "holy place" (likely referring to the location of the temple of Jerusalem), he made reference to this quote to communicate that the destruction of the temple by the Romans would be the sign that they need to flee.

Using a well-known quote to communicate emphasis is very common. For example, many government leaders have quoted some of Churchill's famous statements as he talked about winning over the Germans in World War II. They might be referring to a current or future war - but they will still use one of Churchill's great quotes as they apply it to their current situation.

In the same way, Jesus was using a quote from the Book of Daniel - actually from the angel Gabriel - to emphasize the impact of the disaster to come for his disciples. Jesus wanted to make sure his disciples were ready for those years.

What is the purpose of this? Was Jesus cryptically speaking to society more than 2,000 years later? Certainly not. He was simply preparing his disciples because he wanted them to continue teaching what he taught them to others. He wanted them to spread his message. This meant weathering through the coming period of war.

And what was this message that Jesus wanted his disciples to pass on to others?

"'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)

"... for all who draw the sword will die by the sword... " (Matthew 26:52-54)

With that, one of Jesus' companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear. "Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?" (Matthew 26:52-54)

Is this the origin of the phrase, 'die by the sword'?

Many credit Jesus with the origin of the popular phrase, "those who live by the sword will die by the sword."

First, this is not a good translation of what Jesus stated above.

Second, this phrase was used prior to Jesus' arrival. It was part of a popular book and drama written by the Greek Aeschylus in the Fifth Century BCE. The statement translates (Fagles) to:

"By the sword you did your work and by the sword you die."

This means that Jesus either had knowledge of this famous Oresteia trilogy of literature and utilized part of it for this situation or he otherwise stated it on his own. 

Why didn't Jesus want his disciples to fight off the guards?

From Jesus' statement, we can see clearly that he was responding to one of his followers who attacked one of the guards who came to arrest Jesus.

Who did this? It was Simon Peter. This is confirmed in the Book of John, where it states:

Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it and struck the high priest's servant, cutting off his right ear. (John 18:10)

It is curious that in Matthew, Peter is described as "one of Jesus' companions." The Greek phrase, εἷς τῶν μετὰ means, literally, 'those who were with'. The next word is Ἰησοῦς (Iēsous), so we know that the text is referencing someone who was "with Jesus" at the time of his arrest. So who was with Jesus?

Then Jesus went with his disciples to a place called Gethsemane, and he said to them, "Sit here while I go over there and pray." (Matthew 26:36)

We know from this statement that his disciples were with Jesus at the time of his arrest. Therefore, we know two things about his disciples:

1) At least one of them - Simon Peter - was carrying a sword.
2) His disciples were prepared to defend their teacher against attack.

We also know from this statement that Jesus wanted no part of any bloodshed between his disciples and the guards. There was certainly blood spilled, as cutting off someone's ear would certainly spill some major blood. But we see that this displeased Jesus, evidenced by his statement.

So Jesus chastised one of his disciples who pulled his sword and attacked a servant of the high priest. Why? Didn't Jesus appreciate that his follower is trying to protect him?

Peter does not realize that Jesus was allowing himself to be arrested. And that he had helped arranged it with one of his disciples. Peter believed that he was doing his duty to protect Jesus.

Both were doing their duty. Peter was doing his duty by trying to protect Jesus. And Jesus was doing his duty by accepting the arrest. Both were ultimately choosing to serve the Supreme Being.

Why didn't Jesus evade arrest?

Jesus states here that if he wanted, he could call on God and God would protect him:

 Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?

What does this mean? It means that if Jesus didn't want to be arrested, he could ask God to protect him from arrest, and God would protect him.

The term, "put at my disposal" communicates that Jesus could easily disband the guards and prevent being arrested. But Jesus could have also escaped into the wilderness in advance of being arrested. Why didn't he try to escape arrest?

This same question is answered as we discussed that Jesus instructed Judas to arrange for his arrest.

Jesus invited being arrested because he saw it as inevitable, and he wanted to have the most impact. He knew the High Priest wanted Jesus out of the way. They had been planning this for some time.

Jesus wanted this to come to a head around the Passover because this is when so many Temple followers would be in Jerusalem. He wanted to get the message to them that his teachings were important.

Yes, Jesus was trying to bring attention to his teachings. He was standing up for his teachings. He wanted the people to understand that these teachings were important.

His teachings were so important that he was ready to die for them.

How does this 'fulfill' the scriptures?

The word "fulfilled" can have multiple meanings, depending upon the context. It is being translated from the Greek word, πληρόω (plēroō). This word can mean to "make full," but also to "execute," "carry out" or "accomplish" according to the lexicon.

Within the context of Jesus' statement, he is indicating that his actions would "accomplish" the teachings of those Prophets before him. What does that mean?

Let's say that a father says to his son as a boy, "be kind to others." When that boy grows up, if he shows kindness to others, he will be effectively accomplishing what his father instructed.

We could even apply "fulfilled" in that context - that the boy was fulfilling the instructions of his father by being kind to others.

But "accomplish" or "carry out" are fairer ways to describe this. In a similar use, by Jesus acting to please God, he was effectively carrying out the primary teachings of the scriptures - that is to love God with all our heart and soul (Deuteronomy 6:5) - spoken by Moses but taught also by Joshua, Eli, Samuel, David, Solomon, and others including John the Baptist.

Yes, by doing what he was doing, Jesus was carrying out or accomplishing this primary instruction of the scriptures.

Why has 'fulfilled' been misinterpreted?

Such an interpretation arose from the First Council of Nicaea of 325 AD organized by Roman Emperor Constantine leading to 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.

This interpretation attempted to conflate that the entire Bible was all about Jesus. It construed that practically every statement mentioning the persecution of God's messengers was predicting Jesus' persecution.

It was as if Jesus was the only messenger of God who was persecuted. That is completely untrue. Many Prophets and teachers in the teaching lineage of Jesus, including Elijah, Amos, Zechariah, Jeremiah, Uriah, and of course John the Baptist were persecuted for their teachings. We should also add that most of Jesus' close disciples were persecuted and murdered, including Peter, James, Matthew, Luke, Mark, John, Andrew, Matthias, Jude, Thomas, Barnabas, Phillip and others.

Such an interpretation would contradict centuries of dedication by so many messengers of God who have suffered due to their teachings. Jesus for one would be insulted with such an interpretation.

The result of this interpretation - construed in an attempt to paint the Roman Catholic Church as the only true religion - allowed the Roman government to dominate Europe and the Middle East.

This interpretation would also mean so many statements within David's Psalms, Ezekiel's revelations, Isaiah's writings, Moses' teachings, Job's communications with God, Solomon's visions and so many other deep teaching events of the Scriptures had no meaning other than to predict Jesus' persecution.

This interpretation is manipulative and contradicts the clear language of these Scriptures. Key verses have been lifted and taken out of the context of surrounding verses.

Such an interpretation is aimed at attracting followers. Why? Because it creates a doctrine that allows cleansing or purification without going through the hard work of having a change of heart. As if Jesus' crucifixion allowed everyone [who accepted it] to become automatically purified.

Does Jesus' crucifixion really remove our sins?

This doctrine - which Jesus never taught - states that all one has to do is "accept Jesus into my heart and accept that he died for my sins" and we are saved from the consequences of our actions that harm others.

If this were true, why do followers of this doctrine who have participated in rituals such as communion and confession still suffer the consequences of their actions? Why are those that participated in these rituals not "saved" from the consequences of their actions?

Yet we see every day that even those who claim to be "born again" will still suffer consequences from their activities - as does everyone in the physical world.

But does it work? Does accepting that Jesus died for my sins really remove the consequences of my actions? Does going to communion and then doing the "Hail Marys" really cleanse my sins?

We can see the answer practically as we see others who have done so. There are many criminals who have committed crimes and confessed their crimes, yet they end up being caught and arrested - and punished - for their crimes. If Jesus' crucifixion saved them, why do they still have to go to jail or otherwise pay for their crimes?

These examples defy this teaching about our sins being "cleansed" or otherwise "saved" once we make this pledge of allegiance to Jesus, or "take confession."

It basically points to the fact that the entire teaching is false. Their promises and rituals have no power. They have made false promises in order to gain followers, and have thus tricked followers into joining their institutions.

This is the same as preachers who promise that if we go to their revivals we will be cured of physical diseases and handicaps. So many of these evangelists have been exposed as cheaters for paying people to fake their "healings." This is besides the placebo effect, allowing others to believe they will be healed if they go to one of these revivals.

Con artists can be very persuasive and charismatic. But they also are tricky. For example, many will say that if someone doesn't get healed, or "saved" or cleansed of the responsibilities of their sins, they must not have "believed enough."

This is hucksterism disguised as religion. It is cheating. They profit from their followers. They become wealthy from fooling their followers. They are selling "becoming saved" or "born again" - not so different from selling snake oil.

Was Jesus saying his crucifixion was a prophecy?

Let's look again at Jesus' statement:

"But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?"

The word "Scriptures" is taken from the Greek word γραφή (graphē). This means, according to the lexicon, 1) a writing, thing written; 2) the Scripture, used to denote either the book itself, or its contents; 3) a certain portion or section of the Holy Scripture.

Jesus is not talking about fulfilling the entire Bible here. He is not saying that the entire Old Testament was all about him. Jesus is talking about its content.

He is talking about the message of the Scriptures being fulfilled.

And what is that message? This is the message taught by Abraham, Moses, Joshua, David and every other Prophet. And it is the central message of Jesus' teachings:

"'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)

How so? We can see from the lives and teachings of all the Prophets that they loved God with all their being. They gave their lives to God, and they made so many sacrifices for God.

Giving oneself to God out of love is the message and example of all of the Prophets, and thus the teaching of all the Scriptures. This is what is trying to be conveyed, both from the specifics of their teachings, and the context of their lives. 

Many of the Prophets were persecuted for their teachings and their commitment to the Supreme Person (such as John the Baptist). While not everyone was executed as Jesus was, we can see that they all committed their lives to the Supreme Being in one respect or another. This is the message that Jesus' life fulfills.

And all of these Prophets were each "messiahs," because their teachings and lives - individually and as a whole - have the ability to teach us this central message of the Scriptures. They all fulfill this message of the Scriptures to love and serve God with all our hearts and all of our being.

And certainly, Jesus' act also fulfills this message, because Jesus was committing himself to do God's will. Because Jesus loves God. This is the take-away message from Jesus' life and all of the Scriptures. This is how Jesus' act "fulfills" (carries out) the Scriptures.

Can Jesus' crucifixion save us?

Jesus' act of sacrifice truly has the ability to save us, if we understand what he was doing and take that into our lives.

How so? Jesus allowed himself to be persecuted because he was standing up for his teachings - the teachings of love of God. He considered those teachings more important than his life in this world.

Jesus was communicating to us that we can become happy if we commit our life to God. If we come to know Him, love Him, and please Him we can be fulfilled.

This can save us because it can change our consciousness. It can change our consciousness from self-centeredness to God-centeredness. Such a consciousness cleanses our hearts and saves us from doing other activities that harm others.

Being saved does not mean there are no consequences for our actions. Having consequences for our actions is part of the physical world. And we should invite this programming done by God because it helps us learn and grow.

Being saved means our heart becomes changed. This means our actions will change, and thus the consequences for those actions will be positive. 

And if our lives become spiritualized, then our consequences will also be spiritual. We will be directed home after the death of our physical body - where we can reunite with our best friend, the Supreme Being.