“For John came neither eating nor drinking ...” (Matthew 11:18-19)

“For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’ The son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and “sinners.”’ But wisdom is proved right by her actions.” (Matthew 11:18-19)

What does 'neither eating nor drinking' mean?

Here Jesus is discussing the perceptions that some of those surrounding him have towards himself and John the Baptist.

Jesus is describing John as austere: “For John came neither eating nor drinking."

The word "came" is translated from the Greek word ἔρχομαι (erchomai), meaning "to appear, make one's appearance, come before the public" according to the lexicon, as well as "be established" and "become known."

While "came" is not wrong, a better translation of Jesus' statement would be "appeared" or at least "came forth."

After all, Jesus is describing the appearance of both he and John. They appeared before humanity in that they were sent by the Supreme Being to teach.

Furthermore, "eating" is somewhat confusing as translated from the Greek word ἐσθίω (esthiō), because certainly, John ate. He did not fast his entire life - his body would have died.

Rather, the word ἐσθίω (esthiō), when used metaphorically, means "to devour," "to consume" according to the lexicon. Jesus was thus speaking not of eating food per se, but of overeating - which relates to the manner of consumption.

In other words, Jesus was describing the fact that John was extremely austere with regard to his consumption. It is not as though he didn't drink water - his body would have died of thirst.

In other words, the phrase, ἐσθίων μήτε πίνων - being translated to "eating and drinking" was a phrase indicating an extent of consumption - or the converse, austerity.

Was Jesus not austere?

Notice Jesus does not describe himself as austere, as he says, "The son of man came [appeared] eating and drinking".

This is a statement of humility. Certainly, Jesus was austere. He didn't accumulate wealth or property. He walked barefoot mostly and traveled from town to town preaching love of God.

Jesus is simply admitting that he wasn't as austere as John was. Part of this relates to Jesus' humility, as he did not speak highly of himself - outside of his relationship with the Supreme Being and his service.

Certainly, Jesus was not a "glutton and a drunkard" as some have interpreted this statement to mean. Rather, Jesus was indicating that this is what people accused him of, just as they accused John of being a "demon" - even though he was austere and dedicated to his service to the Supreme Being.

The issue here is that Jesus did sit down and eat at the table with those who were eating meals and drinking wine. This doesn't mean that Jesus was drinking wine - nor does it mean he was overeating.

It simply means that Jesus was being accused of these things. Because they wanted to find fault in Jesus. They assumed that if Jesus sat at the table with "sinners" - those who were overeating and drinking wine - then Jesus too must be doing these things.

Of course, they were wrong. Jesus did not abandon John's principles of austerity. He merely "came forth" and exposed himself to those who were overeating and drinking in order to communicate the need for us to resume our lost loving relationship with the Supreme Being.

Why were they criticizing Jesus?

Jesus is clearly stating that the people around him simply want to sit in judgment and criticize them. Why?

Because Jesus and John were serving the Supreme Being. Their lives were focused on pleasing the Supreme Being instead of pleasing themselves. Jesus communicated this directly:

"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 indicates Jesus' objective. Most of us in the physical world are focused upon ourselves: We want to please ourselves. So we do whatever pleases us.

This is why we are here in the physical world, wearing these temporary physical bodies. Because we reject our position as the Supreme Being's loving servants. Because love requires freedom, we are given the freedom to love Him or not.

And since our nature is to love and please someone, when we rejected the Supreme Being the focus of our love turned towards ourselves. This is called self-centeredness.

And this is what got us tossed out of the spiritual realm. This is because the spiritual realm is populated by those who are full of love for the Supreme Being and others. They are not self-centered.

Imagine if you were a sheep farmer and you had a big flock of sheep. What if a wolf then joined the flock of sheep. What would you do? Would you allow the wolf to remain in the flock of sheep? No, because the wolf would simply eat your sheep.

The wolf is not compatible with the sheep flock. Thus you will most certainly chase the wolf away from the sheep flock.

In the same way, the Supreme Being had to toss us out of the spiritual realm once we became self-centered.

How is wisdom 'proved right by her actions'?

Jesus is referring to the wisdom inherent in the methods of God's messengers, who are focused on delivering God's message to people. Some of their methods may vary, depending upon the time and circumstance, and upon the situation and opportunity that is presented to them.

This is "wisdom" because it is focused upon the purpose and objective of God and thus God's representatives. It is "wisdom" because it sees beyond the optics and focuses on doing what pleases God and is best for humanity.

The Supreme Being created the physical world and these physical bodies to send those who became self-centered. We were given temporary physical bodies to allow us to escape from our spiritual identity and our relationship with the Supreme Being.

We could compare this to going to the movies. In order to escape reality, people go to the movies. We buy a ticket and be given a special seat in a dark room. The room has a large screen and a great sound system. These are all set up to allow us to get lost in the movie. The darkness in the room allows us to forget the people around us - and reality in general - while we begin to identify with the characters in the movie.

In the same way, these physical bodies were intended to cover up our spiritual nature. These physical bodies and the senses are designed to see the world around us as though it is all real and permanent - just as the movie in a theater looks real. What our senses actually see is simply light reflecting off of molecules, just as the picture in a theater is just light reflecting off of a movie screen.

What we think we are seeing as shapes and forms around us are simply molecules that are coming and going - stacking up in certain ways than breaking apart. There is no permanency in the physical world. The permanence is simply an illusion, just as the movie is an illusion of real life.

This is what the Supreme Being set up for us in order for us to play out our self-centeredness. Here we get to pretend that we are the greatest. Here we get to pretend that we are the hero and the object of everyone's attention.

But for those who have a desire to escape the illusion of this world, God sends His messengers to bring us home to Him. They are communicating the wisdom that God brings into this world.

Note also that because Jesus is describing them together, Jesus is putting John the Baptist and himself in the same category: as messengers of the Supreme Being. This is communicated with the word "wisdom" - "But wisdom is proved right by her actions.”

The lesson Jesus is trying to impart is that regardless of how the messenger of God acts, self-centered people will judge and try to find things to criticize them with. This is because by judging and criticizing God's messenger, they do not have to face the "wisdom" of their teachings. They can continue to ignore the Supreme Being and consider themselves the most important person in their lives.

Do people really care?

Part of this illusion is that we think others care about us. In reality, this physical world is made up of self-centered people and its citizens typically only care about others if they will further their own self-centered goals somehow. Even the so-called love here is conditional love. We love others on the condition they love us back or are nice to us - or on the condition that their body belongs to the family of my body.

And when it comes to someone sent to teach us about reality - what do we do? We judge them. We criticize them.

As though we are in a position to judge. We are sitting here in these physical bodies looking around us at molecules floating around - in the illusion that this world is permanent and we are these physical bodies - and we think we know it all. We think that we can pass judgment upon God's messengers even though we don't even know our own identity.

In other words, those who want to ignore and reject the Supreme Being are quick to find fault in those trying to serve the Supreme Being. Is this surprising? Certainly not.

What is a 'Son of Man'?

Jesus refers to himself as "the son of man." Isn't every male human a son of a man?

Remember the Greek word translated to “son” is υἱός (huios). While υἱός can be translated to "son" in the context of a physical relationship of father and son, the more appropriate translation here, as taken from the Greek lexicon, is "used to describe one who depends on another or is his follower." In other words, a devoted follower, or loving servant. Furthermore, τοῦ ἀνθρώπου means either "of man," "of mankind" or "of humanity." Thus the Greek phrase υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου would mean that Jesus is referring to himself as the servant of humanity.

This is a humble self-description, consistent with the act of washing his disciples' feet (John 13:5).

Even in the secular world some government workers describe themselves as civil servants and so on. It is not the same, but it serves to show how this term is being used.

As for the term, "servant of humanity," Daniel was also so described, and David also humbly applied this term to himself as he prayed to God:

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

The loving servant of the Supreme Being who is empowered to preach on God's behalf becomes the servant of humanity because he is delivering God’s message. If heard clearly, this message serves to re-introduce us to our original relationship with the Supreme Being. This is what ultimately saves us. And this is the ultimate service to humanity.

The Supreme being did what any loving friend or father would do should someone reject them: He graciously provided a place where we could feel we are away from Him - on our own. Even though we are intimately connected with the Supreme Being and cannot be happy without Him, He gave us a temporary façade of independence (these physical bodies and this illusory world) so that we could act out our self-centered desires.

The Supreme Being has not given up on us, however. He continually tries to call us back home. This is why He continually sends His messengers. Also, the physical world is programmed to serve us up various lessons about love, compassion and loneliness. These serve to teach us that ultimately we cannot be happy without our loving relationship with the Supreme Being.

This is a matter of identity: We were created by the Supreme Being to exchange love with Him. Therefore, although we have the freedom to choose to exchange love with God (freedom is necessary for love), we are miserable without that relationship. This fact is confirmed by the many lonely and miserable people living in this world - even those fabulously rich and famous.

Do we have to return to God?

Just because the Supreme Being is calling us back doesn’t mean we have to go back. We can still choose to reject Him and continue our mission to make ourselves happy through self-centered behavior. For those of us who are content to strive for our own happiness, we will always find ways to criticize and reject the humble servants and messengers of the Supreme Being.

This rejection also comes in the form of misidentifying Jesus. Many claim that Jesus is the Supreme Being and by doing this they ignore the Supreme Being. While certainly, Jesus is God's representative, he also came to teach us to love the Supreme Being. This is made clear by his statement:

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

Note carefully the phrase, "only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." By ignoring Jesus’ most basic teachings to love and serve his Father, we are rejecting him, and rejecting the Supreme Being.

This would be likened to the ambassador of a government going to a foreign government to relay a message, and not only does the foreign government ignore the message, but they refuse to accept the existence of the country of the ambassador. They think the ambassador is there on his own. They do not accept the ambassador's role as the representative of his government. By ignoring the message and rejecting the ambassador's role, they have offended both the ambassador and the leader of his government.

And what was Jesus' central message - conveyed as God's representative? As also taught by Moses, Joshua, and all of God's messengers:

“‘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)

“Haven’t you read what David did ...” (Matthew 12:3-8)

“Haven’t you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread--which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. Or haven’t you read in the Law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple desecrate the day and yet are innocent? I tell you that One greater than the temple is here. If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent. For the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath.” (Matthew 12:3-8)

Why is Jesus talking about David and his 'companions'?

This statement by Jesus is in response to the criticism by the Pharisees who saw Jesus and his disciples walking through a grain field on the Sabbath - a day known for fasting. Some of the disciples were hungry and picked some heads of grain and ate.

Jesus compares this situation to when David and his companions ate consecrated bread from the temple and this went against institutional temple law at the time.

Jesus also points out here that the scriptures say that when temple priests ate bread on the Sabbath, they were not guilty of breaking the law.

Jesus is comparing himself and his disciples to David and his companions - and the temple priests who also broke the law of the Sabbath. What do they have in common?

What they have in common is that they were loving servants of God, involved in using their lives to teach others about the Supreme Being.

This is why Jesus says here:

"I tell you that One greater than the temple is here." 

Is Jesus calling himself 'greater than the temple'?

Many sectarian teachers have interpreted this statement to mean that Jesus is calling himself "One greater than the temple." But would Jesus really make this kind of statement about himself? Is this the same Jesus who said:

"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)

"For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.” (Matthew 12:50)

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

Notice the use of "the One" in the last quote - and its use ("One greater") here. Since there must be another sender besides Jesus if someone else sent him, Jesus is not referring to himself as "the One."

Jesus is obviously not considering himself "One greater than the temple." This is an attribute that can only be made to "the One" who sent Jesus - the Father - the Supreme Being.

And this is the common bond between the comparison between himself, David, and the priests with regard to following institutional temple law. Jesus is saying that he is serving the Supreme Being. And the Supreme Being is thus present in those works.

As such, that service on behalf of the Supreme Being would qualify as trumping the ritualistic institutional temple laws.

Why? Because the Supreme Being is the Owner and Controller of everything. Therefore, He is not subject to any laws - all laws come from Him - therefore He is not subject to them.

This is the meaning of Jesus' statement: "I tell you that One greater than the temple is here."

What does 'lord of the Sabbath' mean?

And what about "the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath"? What does this mean?

Since he was speaking of the activities of David, he could not be saying he is the only 'lord of the sabbath'.

It would also be odd for Jesus to be speaking about himself in the third person, right after discussing David and the priests. Isn't he comparing his activity with theirs? Why would he then eliminate them from being "sons of man"? And if he did, why would he say it in the third person?

How many people do this when they speak? If a person named Tom were to feel hungry, would he say “Tom is hungry”? No. He would say “I am hungry.” Likewise, if Jesus were to be speaking specifically of himself here he would have used "I", "me" or "my." This would be common sense, and very clear. Also, note that Matthew does not indicate that Jesus himself was eating out of the field - Jesus was defending his disciples' activity.

What does Jesus mean by 'mercy not sacrifice'?

The quote that Jesus brings to this statement is from Hosea 6:6, when God spoke through Hosea and said:

"For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings."

This statement from Matthew 9:13 would also capture the essence and meaning of Jesus’ statements prior to this last sentence. Jesus is explaining, for example, with the Hosea quote, that what the Supreme Being wants from us is our loving service, not necessarily following rituals: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’

The use of "mercy" here in Hosea and by Jesus refers to service that pleases God and helps others realize their relationship with the Supreme Being. This means being compassionate upon others. If a person has heard the Truth about the Supreme Being, and he is merciful to others, that person will pass the Truth on to them. This is mercy, and this is captured by the title, "Son of Man"  which is better translated to "Servant of Humanity."

The Supreme Being loves us and cherishes us, and knows that we will only be happy when we take part in such a loving relationship. Thus He wants us to acknowledge Him with love and devotion in practical ways. Just following a bunch of rituals for the sake of being accepted by our peers or by a sectarian organization doesn’t accomplish this. 

The Supreme Being wants us to independently develop our own personal relationship with Him, and freely choose to live our lives with love in our hearts.

“The one who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man ..." (Matthew 13:37-40)

“The one who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man. The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one, and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the harvesters are angels. As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear. (Matthew 13:37-40)

Who are the 'sons of the kingdom'?

Jesus makes this statement after the disciples asked him to explain the parable he told the crowd about the weeds in the field. Here Jesus confirms the relationships described previously.

Remember that we've shown that in this context, the Greek word υἱός (huios) is not best translated to "son", but, as taken from the Greek lexicon, "one who depends on another or is his follower." Thus “devoted follower” or even "loving servant" would be the most appropriate translation within this context. So when we see the translation "son of God" in the Bible, this is more appropriately translated to "loving servant of God" or "devoted follower of God."

This also fits with that puzzling translation, "Son of Man." How could someone be simultaneously the "son of God" and the "Son of Man," and what the heck is a 'Son of Man' anyway? Rather (using the correct translation of υἱὸς (huios) as "loving servant") we can properly translate Jesus' self-ascription as the “servant of humanity,” because he was devoted to the welfare of humanity, as well as being a loving servant of God.

This only makes sense. Jesus is God’s loving servant and representative. He is teaching humankind the Truth about God and life. As his mission is the welfare of humanity, he is thus humbly ascribing himself to be the servant of humanity.

This also explains why Jesus is using "Son of Man" [servant of humanity] in the third person. Who speaks like this? Does a person named John say, "the one who planted the field was John" when they planted it? No. They will simply say, "I planted the field."

Thus we can see that Jesus is referring to "Son of Man" [servant of humanity] as a role, rather than exclusively himself. Yes, he is saying - as confirmed elsewhere - that indeed, he is occupying this role. But he is also recognizing - as he often quoted Moses, David, and other prophets - that others have also occupied this role.

Jesus is planting the “seeds” of love for God and loving service to the Supreme Being. Here the translation says “the good seed stands for the sons [loving servants] of the kingdom.” This confirms the proper translation of “loving servants” rather than “sons.” How could anyone be a son of a kingdom? We are talking about those who are servants of God. A servant of God is one who loves and cares for God and all of God’s children. They are therefore being a “servant of the kingdom.”

Loving service to God and His children is the essence of the kingdom of God. The word translated to "kingdom" here is βασιλεία (basileia), which does not mean a physical kingdom. As described in the lexicon, it refers to "royal power, kingship, dominion, rule; not to be confused with an actual kingdom but rather the right or authority to rule over a kingdom." Thus Jesus is speaking of God's authority or dominion and the consciousness that respects that authority and dominion.

Who is the 'evil one'?

The phrase “evil one,” is translated from πονηρός (ponēros), which means full of labors, annoyances, hardships" and "bad, of a bad nature or condition." Thus Jesus is not referring to a separate person. He is describing a particular consciousness. What is that consciousness?

It is the consciousness of rejecting our relationship with the Supreme Being. It is the consciousness of self-centeredness, resulting in greed, lust, and consequential hardships.

What is the 'end of the age'?

Sectarian interpretations would have us believe Jesus is describing someday in the future where Jesus will return and separate those who follow his teachings and throw the rest into a fiery hell.

Actually, the concept of the "end of the age" that Jesus is referring to is the moment of death. For each of us, this is the end of the time we have spent within the physical body - the end of the age. Our bodies age, and then there is the end of the aging - death.

When our body dies, the living being (or soul) leaves the body. This is why the body decomposes. After we leave this body we will continue on our educational journey as a soul. The "end of the age" of this lifetime is the time of death.

Each of us is on our own personal journey. The goal is to grow spiritually. This physical lifetime is meant to teach us lessons and help us to learn to love. Should we learn these lessons and learn to love we will progress. Otherwise, we will return to continue our learning experiences.

Where will they 'throw them'?

The concept of the 'fiery furnace' is metaphorical. Jesus is not referring literally to a furnace. It is not as if there is a big furnace somewhere where people are thrown into.

Actually, we will each leave these physical bodies at the time of death. But it is where we go and what happens to us that can be analogous to the concept of a fiery furnace.

Jesus is speaking about consequences. This physical world is designed for each of us to learn from our past through consequences. If we harm others, we must experience what we caused to others. This helps us learn.

If we do not suffer consequences during this lifetime, we will have to take on another body and suffer those consequences in another body.

This is why, for example, some babies are born into situations of suffering. A soul may be born into the body of a human or another type of body. Each body is subjected to a particular range of environmental exposure - good and bad - depending upon that soul's past activities.

These kinds of exposures can inflict the kind of painful response that Jesus is referring to. Jesus is referring to consequences - suffering as a result of harming others.

The "fiery furnace" that Jesus is referring to is the fear, violence, and bloodshed that could exist for any of us in a future lifetime of consequence.

The human form of life is a life of consciousness, and a bridge back to our relationship with God should we use it correctly.

At the point of death, the spirit-person rises out of the body (as confirmed scientifically by thousands of clinical death experiences). Where we go next is determined by our consciousness and our activities. We make the choice.

Have the early teachings of Jesus been corrupted?

There is a significant amount of evidence that Jesus taught the transmigration of the soul (living being) from the body. This is the meaning of resurrection. To resurrect means to rise up from the physical body. The spirit-self will rise from the body at the time of death. Where it does is determined by the consciousness and activities of that spirit-person.

There is undeniable evidence that this was also taught among the early Christian and Jewish philosophies. We find distinct writings of Origen Adamantius (185-254), an early Christian scholar and devoted theologian. Origen was favored and honored by early Christian bishops and even though he was murdered by the Romans in 250 AD, today he is recognized as one of the earliest fathers of the Christian Church.

Origin's many writings and translations of the ancient Hebrew texts and the texts of the new testament clearly expounded an accepted understanding that we are each a soul (spirit) who is evolving and transmigrating through multiple lifetimes of physical bodies. As we evolve, he taught, we either ascend towards a return to God or descend away from Him into the bodies of beasts and lower forms of life.

As the soul perfects its relationship with God, Origen wrote, the soul would return home to God. His writings illustrated that not only did he believe in the “pre-existence of souls” but gauging by his acceptance among early Christian society, many other Christian scholars of that time agreed with this teaching. Where did it come from if not the teachings of Jesus?

Origen also compiled the famous Hexapla, which was a translation of six versions of the Old Testament, compared side by side in order to elucidate the core meanings from these various versions. It is thought that the LXX and Septuagint evolved from the passage of one of Origen’s columns, which still makes up the backbone of many Old Testament translations used by the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Origen’s perspectives were pervasively embraced within the early Church and throughout Alexandria during the third century, and even were reflected in many of St. Augustine's writings.

Did the Roman Emperor shut it down?

This all changed in the fourth century, however. The Roman Emperor Constantine organized the First Council of Nicaea with Bishop Eusebius. This politically oriented council is also referred to as the Synod of Nicene of 325 AD.

This and the Second Council of Ephesus in 449 put together by the Roman Emperor Theodosius II, led to the creation of the Roman Catholic Church.

These and other councils were organized by the Roman government to develop a political culture among the bishops and priests from churches throughout Europe and the Middle East. These councils were formed with political intention - to organize the Christian world under Rome.

They were designed to define the teachings of Jesus so the populace could be controlled. The councils voted on and established doctrines and interpretations of the Bible and the teachings of Jesus. They defined who Jesus was and what his role was. As if Jesus' teachings could be defined through political negotiation.

The Romans also made the final approval on which "books" of the Bible were acceptable. They oversaw the creation of the "Bible" as we know it today. There were, evidenced by scrolls found in the desert centuries later, many other descriptions of Jesus' life and teachings. Yet under the management of the Romans, only certain manuscripts were accepted and others were destroyed and otherwise removed from the record.

The Roman Emperor Constantine appointed Eusebius to organize this process and select a team of translators, who edited the translations of the 'authorized' books of the Bible. They deleted some verses and manipulated others to achieve a final text known as the Vaticanus, laying the foundation for what we now know as the Bible.

This is why the life and teachings of Jesus often seem very curious, with many gaps and a narrow period of his life. The rest was excluded for political purposes.

Still, we can find that many of Jesus' statements still reflect at least part of his total teachings, even if they are a bit obscured by the translations. In other words, God made sure that enough of Jesus' real teachings were preserved, enabling those with the vision to understand their meaning.

While the politically-driven councils of sectarian institutions would like us to believe otherwise, the "harvest" Jesus refers to comes at the time of death - the end of our "age."

Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear."

Jesus is saying that at the time of death, the sum of our consciousness will carry us to our next destination. Those who have lived lives focused upon God return to Him and His personal spiritual kingdom. This is the dimension of love and loving service, where there is no fear, and only love. This is our home. This is where we belong.

“Who do people say the Son of Man is?” (Matthew 16:13)

How did Jesus' disciples answer this question?

Jesus asked this question of his disciples. This was their answer:

"Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets." (Matthew 16:14)

Jesus' question has two components. The first is naturally that Jesus had a concern regarding how the people perceived him. Why does this matter?

We can see by his disciples' answer that during these times, there was a lot of speculation regarding who a person is outside of their name and visible role. We see from this and his disciples' answer that the general population believed in the transmigration of the soul - or reincarnation.

Why else would they believe that Jesus was these other people? Those past prophets - even John the Baptist - had passed away. So how could Jesus be them?

The only way Jesus could be these personalities was if their spirit-self transmigrated into Jesus' body. There is no other way. Their physical bodies had certainly decomposed within a tomb somewhere. But their spirit-person - the soul as some describe it - left that body.

Jesus also taught the transmigration of the soul or spirit-self. Consider this question his disciples asked him:

“Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” (John 9:2)

Certainly, since the man could have caused the blindness of his current body by sinning in a previous lifetime, there is a common acceptance of the transmigration of the spirit-person. That is, unless the spirit-person perfects their relationship with the Supreme Being and goes home to Him after the death of the body.

This is why Jesus was teaching. He was trying to bring those around him - and all of us - back home to the spiritual realm. He wants us to not return to this hellish material world and take on another physical body. He wants us to heed his instructions and come to know, love and serve the Supreme Being.

And he doesn't want his followers to confuse him with the Supreme Being:

"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 7:21)

In other words, we could call Jesus "lord" yet miss the entire point of his teachings: To love and serve God. (Doing someone's will means caring for them and serving them.)

The second component of Jesus' question lies within his self-identification as “the Son of Man.” What is the meaning of this self-identification? And why is Jesus referring to himself in the third person? Why doesn't he say "Who do people say I am"?

Because Jesus is speaking of a role - a role that he is currently occupying.

What is a “Son of Man” anyway?

While a man can certainly have a son, does it make sense that Jesus is describing himself as a son of a man? That is hardly a distinguishing role, because every male human is a son of a man.

The word "son" is translated from the Greek word υἱός (huios). This can indicate a relationship of father/son only in the context of a physical family, confirmed by the lexicon: "in a restricted sense, the male offspring (one born by a father and of a mother)."

The lexicon also explains that the word also means: "one who depends on another or is his follower." This means, in context, a "devoted follower" or "loving servant."

With regard to the word "man" in "Son of Man", the Greek word ἄνθρωπος (anthrōpos) can certainly refer to man, but it can also refer to “mankind,” or "humanity."

Using this, and understanding that Jesus was working for the welfare of humanity, we find that the correct translation of υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου (τοῦ means "of"), would be:

"Servant of humanity"

This meaning is consistent with the use of υἱός (huios) as "servant" in other verses. For example, here is a New King James Version translation of a verse from Acts:

"To you first, God, having raised up His servant Jesus, sent Him to bless you, in turning every one of you away from his iniquities." (Acts 3:26 NKJV)

whereas the old King James Version says:

"Unto you first God, having raised up His son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities." (Acts 3:26 KJV)

This also means, from other verses, that Jesus is more appropriately described as the "loving servant of God" rather than the "son of God."

Consider this text from Genesis:

When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. (Genesis 6:1-3)

So here we have many "sons of God" as well as "daughters of men." Who are the "sons of God" here? Did God give birth to a limited number of "sons"? Certainly, God is not impotent. The translation has simply been misconstrued. These were "servants of God." Consider this statement which uses the same Hebrew word (in bold) mistranslated in some other verses to "son":

All these now join their brothers the nobles, and bind themselves with a curse and an oath to follow the Law of God given through Moses the servant of God and to obey carefully all the commands, regulations and decrees of the LORD our Lord.
(Nehemiah 10:28-30)

Rather, as servants of God we commend ourselves in every way: in great endurance; in troubles, hardships and distresses. (2 Corinthians 6:3-5)

Is Jesus a servant of humanity?

While Jesus is serving the Supreme Being, Jesus is also describing his role as “servant of humanity.” This is consistent with Jesus' mission to save people and bring us home to the Supreme Being.

Jesus was not the only servant of God to also be addressed as "Son of Man" [servant of humanity] when it came to their purpose of teaching people about God. This is confirmed when Ezekiel states:

Like the appearance of a rainbow in the clouds on a rainy day, so was the radiance around Him. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD. When I saw it, I fell facedown, and I heard the voice of one speaking.
He said to me, "Son of Man, stand up on your feet and I will speak to you." As He spoke, the Spirit came into me and raised me to my feet, and I heard him speaking to me. He said: "Son of Man, I am sending you to the Israelites, to a rebellious nation that has rebelled against me; they and their fathers have been in revolt against me to this very day. The people to whom I am sending you are obstinate and stubborn. Say to them, 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says.' And whether they listen or fail to listen—for they are a rebellious house—they will know that a prophet has been among them. And you, Son of Man, do not be afraid of them or their words. Do not be afraid, though briers and thorns are all around you and you live among scorpions. Do not be afraid of what they say or terrified by them, though they are a rebellious house. You must speak My words to them, whether they listen or fail to listen, for they are rebellious. But you, Son of Man, listen to what I say to you. Do not rebel like that rebellious house; open your mouth and eat what I give you." (Ezekiel 1:28-2:7)

If Jesus is the only “Son of Man” then why is Ezekiel being addressed this way by God? It is because this is a role - not an individual. One who serves all of humanity, just as Jesus did and God was asking Ezekiel to do.

Let's consider an analogy. Let's say that someone is locked up in jail. The judge sends a message via a courier to the jailhouse to release the prisoner. As the courier enters the jailhouse, the prisoner recognizes the courier. He remembers seeing the courier in the jailhouse, carrying the messages from the judge. The courier is greeted with great respect and appreciation by the prisoner because what the courier delivered, released the prisoner.

In the same way, God's messenger dutifully delivers the message from the Supreme Being that He wants us back. As the messenger does this, he sees himself as not only God's messenger: He sees himself as the servant of those he is delivering the message to.

Jesus confirms this position:

"Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant (Matthew 20:26)

“The Son of Man is going to be delivered into the hands of men...” (Matthew 17:22-23)

“The Son of Man is going to be delivered into the hands of men. They will kill him, and on the third day he will be raised to life.” (Matthew 17:22-23)

Why did Jesus tell them he would be 'delivered into the hands of men'?

When Jesus returned to Galilee, he described the sacrifice he would be making in the coming days.

Jesus didn't have to tell his disciples what was going to happen to him. Why did he then? Because Jesus wanted them to be prepared to lose him.

Following being told, his disciples were grief-stricken:

And the disciples were filled with grief. (Matt. 17:23)

Jesus wanted them to be sure that not only did he know the sacrifice he would face. The word "delivered" is translated from the Greek word παραδίδωμι (paradidōmi) which means, according to the lexicon, "to give into the hands of another" or "to give over into (one's) power or use."

And "men" is translated from the Greek word ἄνθρωπος (anthrōpos), which can mean "men" or "mankind" or "humanity."

Jesus is distinguishing between being given to mankind or men from being given to the Supreme Being. In the latter, one will be protected and sheltered. But in the former, Jesus knew he faced the wrath of men. Why? Because he understood that he threatened the power and authority of the high priests among the temple institution. This is because Jesus was God's representative.

What does he mean by 'kill him' and 'raised to life'?

He also wanted them to understand that the real Jesus - the spiritual person within - will rise after the death of the physical body.

Jesus describes the ascension as “life.” Why life? Actually, the original Greek does not mention "life." It simply ends with raised - or raised up - from the Greek word ἐγείρω (egeirō) which means "to arouse, cause to rise" according to the lexicon.

Thus we can understand from this that Jesus is not speaking of death here. The word "kill" is translated from ἀποκτείνω (apokteinō) which refers to mortal death - the death of the physical body.

So what will rise then - from the physical body? We know that Jesus is saying that the physical body will be killed, so what will rise must not be the physical body. This is confirmed later when Mary and others do not recognize Jesus when he rises. They do not recognize him because the physical body did not rise - the spiritual person within - Jesus himself - rose.

We can see elsewhere that Jesus made a distinction between the physical body and the spiritual person within - also referred to as the "soul":

"Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul." (Matthew 10:28)

We can see how Jesus is discriminating between the physical body and the spiritual person within. The spiritual person (spirit-person) is eternal while the biological body is temporary. The point Jesus is making is that we are not the physical body. 

The physical body typically has a lifespan of 50-100 years, after which the spirit-person leaves the body. Then the body decomposes.

Did Jesus really 'rise' in three days?

If we go by the timeline of the four Gospels, Jesus didn't reappear to his followers after three days. He appeared to them after two days.

If Jesus was crucified on Friday afternoon, and he reappeared to his followers on Sunday morning, that would be two days following the crucifixion. 

The 'third day' would be Monday.

This makes the timeline questionable unless we count the day of the crucifixion as day one. In other words, if Jesus is suggesting that on day three he will reappear, that would work with the timeline, as we assume day one is the beginning of the timeline.

Whether the timeline is accurate, the central proposition is that Jesus is suggesting that he will reappear to his followers two days after being crucified. How did he do that?

Jesus appeared much as an angel might appear in this world. Jesus' body died and his spirit-person was able to reappear through an apparition of sorts. Why?

Jesus was visiting his followers in a last-ditch effort to convince them to devote themselves to God so they could return home to the Supreme Being - and bring others with them. Consider this statement, made by Jesus, while in an angel-like body days after the death of his body:

"Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." (Mark 16:15)

How do we know that Jesus had left his body and appeared before his followers in an angel-like body? Consider this statement from Mark:

Afterward Jesus appeared in a different form to two of them while they were walking in the country. (Mark 16:12)

Thus we can know that Jesus left his physical body behind. Otherwise, they would have recognized him. He appeared once more before his followers, pleading with them to continue his teachings. He wanted them to take on the responsibility of teaching humanity about God. He wanted them to bring home others, as he had.

That is why Jesus referred to himself as the "Servant of Humanity" (a more appropriate translation of υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου than "Son of Man").

Did Jesus die for our sins?

Many teach that Jesus died for our sins. Is that really true?

When Jesus returned to Galilee, he described the sacrifice he would be making in the coming days. The account of Jesus' trial from the four Gospels indicates that Jesus was persecuted because of his teachings. Both Pilate and the Chief Priest were questioning Jesus about his teachings: Did he say this or that.

During this questioning, Jesus would not retract his teachings. He stood by them.

This means that Jesus' sacrifice was about him making a stand regarding his teachings about the Supreme Being.

Just consider a person who was to teach something and the government or another dominant institution were to condemn the teaching and threaten the teacher with death if the teacher doesn't stop teaching those things?

Most teachers would stop teaching those things because they didn't want to die.

Not Jesus. Jesus wasn't afraid. He was willing to be killed in order to continue teaching. He was ready to die for his teachings.

This is also indicated when Jesus appeared before his disciples after his persecution. He did not tell them that they had been saved by his crucifixion. Neither did he tell them to teach such a philosophy to others.

Rather, Jesus asked his disciples to take on disciples as he had, and pass his teachings on to others.

If we accept that Jesus' teachings can save us from our sinful nature, then we can accept that Jesus died for our sins.

Truly, Jesus' teachings can save us. In particular, we can identify his 'greatest' teaching:

“ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” (Matt. 22:37-40)

“I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things ...” (Matthew 19:28-29)

“I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life.” (Matthew 19:28-29)

Jesus' statement follows Peter’s statement:

“We have left everything to follow you! What then will there be for us?” (Matt. 19:27)

How does this compare with Luke and Mark?

Before we dig into the meaning of Jesus' response, let's compare Jesus' response to Peter's question from the Book of Luke and Mark:

"Truly I tell you, no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age: homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields—along with persecutions—and in the age to come eternal life." (Mark 10:29-30)

And from the Book of Luke:

"Truly I tell you, no one who has left home or wife or brothers or sisters or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God will fail to receive many times as much in this age, and in the age to come eternal life." (Luke 18:29-30)

We find that Jesus' reply is virtually the same in all three except that Matthew's version has the additional discussion of the "twelve." Did he really say this part?

What is the 'renewal of all things'?

The word "renewal" is translated from the Greek word παλιγγενεσία (paliggenesia), which means according to the lexicon, "new birth, reproduction, renewal, recreation, regeneration."

But does the original Greek say anything about "all things"? No. It simply says, literally renewal or as translated in the King James Version and others, "in the regeneration."

So what is "the new birth" or "renewal" or "regeneration"?

Jesus is referring to the death of the body and the rise of the spirit-person from the body - and the potential return of the spirit to the spiritual realm after the death of the physical body.

When the physical body dies, the spirit-person who is within the body leaves that body. The destination of this spirit-person - each of us - will depend upon our activities in this physical lifetime, combined with our consciousness at the time of death. If we've lived our lives in a self-centered way focused upon pleasing our senses, we will not be returning to the spiritual realm.

Those who focus their lives upon rebuilding their relationship with the Supreme Being - described as living "for the sake of the kingdom of God" and "for me and the gospel" in Mark and Luke - will return to the spiritual realm. This is clear from all three statements, particularly the use of eternal life - translated from ζωὴν αἰώνιον.

What does 'when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne' mean?

This is where Matthew diverts from Luke and Mark. The Greek word translated to "throne" is θρόνος (thronos) means, according to the lexicon, "a chair of state having a footstool" and "to judges i.e. tribunal or bench" and "to elders."

In other words, Jesus is not speaking of a throne as if he is God - sitting on "the big throne." This is also made obvious by the fact that Jesus also described that his disciples would also be sitting on thrones. Would they all be acting as God then? Don't be ridiculous.

Jesus is describing the resumption of his role or position in the spiritual world. Not some materialistic golden throne or something.

Furthermore, the Greek word translated to "glorious" is δόξα (doxa). The primary meaning according to the lexicon is "majesty - a thing belonging to God."

So the "seat" that Jesus is referring to is "majestic" because it belongs to the Supreme Being - in other words, Jesus is describing his role and position as it relates to the Supreme Being.

Jesus also states this elsewhere, as he said:

“But I say to all of you: From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.” (Matthew 26:64)

In this statement, "coming" is mistranslated from the Greek word ἔρχομαι (erchomai), which also means, "to appear, make one's appearance." In other words, it should say "appearing on the clouds of heaven."

Anyway, the phrase, "at the right hand" is translated from the Greek word δεξιός (dexios) - which is related to the word δόξα (doxa) - and refers to the "right hand" just as being someone's "right-hand man" means to be that person's assistant or servant.

So Jesus is speaking of the fact that his "seat" in the spiritual realm relates to his loving service relationship with the Supreme Being.

What does 'Son of Man' mean?

The phrase, "Son of Man" is a poor translation of the Greek phrase, υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου.

The Greek word that has been translated to “son” is υἱός (huios). As indicated by the lexicon, this can only mean "son" in a "limited" manner, of one born of mother and father. In this context, it is more appropriately defined in the Greek lexicon, as "one who depends on another or is his follower."

Thus, the correct translation of υἱός would be "servant," as in one who works for the welfare of another.

"Man" is being translated from the Greek word, ἀνθρώπου, which can mean "man" but can also mean "mankind" or "humanity." Certainly, the correct context of Jesus' describing himself was not to state that he was a son of a man.

Thus, within the context of the self-reference of υἱὸς τοῦ [of] ἀνθρώπου, the more appropriate translation would be "servant of humanity."

This is consistent with the same word υἱός, when applied to God would mean "servant of God."

Thus, when Jesus refers to himself as the "Son of Man" this is a humble reference. He is describing himself as the servant of all humanity. We can also see this humble self-identification when David refers to himself as a "Son of Man" [servant of humanity]

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

What about the 'twelve thrones'?

Does Jesus mean this literally? Is this what people do when they return to the spiritual realm - they sit in judgment of others - even if those others were their elders?

The twelve tribes of Israel represent the sons of Jacob - also renamed Israel - who were each sent out by Jacob to teach to others. In the order of their age, these sons were Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, Asher, Issachar, Zebulun, Joseph, and Benjamin. However, Benjamin's tribe eventually merged into the tribe of Judah and while no tribe was named after Joseph, his two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim each headed up a tribe.

Basically, each of the twelve went out to teach, and eventually, each tribe went on to settle a different part of what would later be referred to as the nations of Israel and Judah - until the Assyrians decimated most (ten) of the Northern tribes, causing evacuees to resettle into the South in Judah - more specifically Jerusalem. These ten northern tribes have been referred to as the lost tribes of Israel.

It was after this that multiple versions of the Oral teachings passed down by the teachers of some of these tribes were merged together to form the Five Books of Moses. That is why there are sometimes two or even three versions of the same story in some of the Old Testament texts (for example, the story of the burning bush).

Many teachers among the sectarian institutions make a big show of the symbolism of the "twelve." Why only twelve? What about Jesus' other followers - some as if not more dedicated than some of the twelve?

This statement makes no sense because Jesus had many other disciples and followers ("you who have followed me") outside of the twelve. In the Book of Luke, Jesus sent out 72 disciples to teach on his behalf. So we know he had at least 72 disciples.

So did Jesus really mean that only twelve of his disciples would get a seat there and these twelve would really sit in judgment of the twelve tribes of Israel? What about the others who have followed Jesus?

We must also question the translation of the Greek word κρίνω (krinō) to the English word "judging." According to the Greek lexicon, we find this definition of the Greek word κρίνω (krinō) means "to separate, put asunder, to pick out, select, choose" and "to approve, esteem, to prefer."

Yes, "judging" is a possible translation, but this is listed as a much less prevalent use of the Greek work as evidenced by the lexicon. It is, in fact, the least prevalent use.

And if we tie back to Jesus' statement about his own majestic seat - δόξα (doxa) - we find that Jesus is speaking of the disciples being glorified or esteemed in their spiritual lives - rather than sitting in judgment of someone else. We can see this metaphor with this correction in translation from the Lost Gospels of Jesus:

“Truly I tell you, that you who have followed me, in the restoration of life after death when the Servant of Humanity shall be sitting in the divine seat of His splendor, you also will sit in twelve divine seats, presiding over the twelve tribes of Israel. And everyone who has given up houses, or brothers, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands on account of me shall receive a hundredfold, and will inherit eternal life."

In other words, to "preside" is far different than sitting in judgment. To "preside" maintains the allegorical phrasing of Jesus' metaphorical statement about the thrones. To "preside" relates to being in a position of authority or moderation.

The reasoning relates to the reality that this discussion about the spiritual realm is beyond the vision of the physical world. Therefore Jesus has to use metaphors and allegory.

What does he mean about leaving 'houses or brothers'?

This part of Jesus' statement is consistent with the versions in Luke and Mark. It is also meaningful with respect to Peter's query.

Jesus is stating clearly that there is justice within the world.

There is justice because the Supreme Being has designed and organized the physical world. We might think that there is a lot of chaos, but this is only our perception. This concept of chaos is created by our mental perception, resulting from our inability to perceive the spiritual realm with the physical senses.

This is because the physical world and these physical bodies were designed to prevent us from seeing the spiritual realm.

And it is our activities that create chaos within the world. We are the cause of the suffering we see around us.

The physical world is set up as a rehabilitation center of sorts. The physical world is designed as a place of consequence. This means the things we do here - and our very decisions - all have consequences. This is set up to teach us.

Child psychologists recommend consequence training for children because this is the best way to learn. It is the best way because by experiencing the consequences of what we do - we have a better chance of learning something completely.

But living for the Supreme Being - as Jesus is describing those who are following him - produces another type of consequence - a spiritual consequence. This is linked to our relationship with the Supreme Being.

We might compare this to being a student in a classroom. The teacher will set up the class and the lesson plan in such a way that is designed to teach the children certain things. A person who tries hard to learn from the teacher certainly will learn.

But if a student also develops a personal relationship with the teacher, that relationship will take the student outside the realm of the lessons of the classroom.

In the same way, by redeveloping our loving service relationship with the Supreme Being by working to please His representative, we gradually create a place for ourselves within the realm of the Supreme Being - the spiritual realm.

What does 'inherit eternal life' mean?

The Greek phrase, ζωὴν αἰώνιον κληρονομήσει is being translated to "inherit eternal life." What does this mean?

The Greek word κληρονομέω (klēronomeō) is translated to "inherit." This means "to receive what is being assigned, to receive by lot" according to the lexicon.

The Greek word αἰώνιος (aiōnios) is being translated to "eternal." This means "without a beginning and end - which has always been and always will be."

The Greek word ζωή (zōē) is translated to "life." This means "every living soul" or "the absolute fullness of life."

Jesus is describing a state of consciousness - a spiritual consciousness that exists deep in the soul. This consciousness of love for God.

Therefore, this "eternal life" is not necessarily a location or place - such as assumed as being heaven or the spiritual realm. Yet it is also the spiritual realm because those with this consciousness are automatically in the spiritual realm - regardless of where they may be located at any particular time.

Eternal life contrasts with the temporary nature of the consciousness of the physical world. Here we dwell in physical bodies for several decades and then leave them behind. Where there is "eternal life" there is no death. There is no suffering. Everything is blissful. Everyone is loving and giving. This is because the consciousness of those living eternal life is not self-centered. It is God-centered.

And since God is full of love and mercy, being God-centered is also a consciousness of love.

Furthermore, in the consciousness of eternal life, there is no quest to sit on thrones.

Is the spiritual realm a place where people just sit around all day on their thrones and judge people? How could this be the same place that Jesus described:

“I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 18:3)

Rather, the eternal life of the spirit-person is one of loving service to the Supreme Being. Jesus confirms this elsewhere:

"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)

“We are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be betrayed ...” (Matthew 20:18-19)

“We are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and the teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death and will turn him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified. On the third day he will be raised to life!” (Matthew 20:18-19)

Did Jesus really say 'betrayed'?

The Greek word being translated to "betrayed" is παραδίδωμι (paradidōmi). This word primarily means, according to the lexicon, "to give into the hands of another." This could also mean, "to deliver up one to custody, to be judged, condemned, punished, scourged, tormented, put to death."

Neither of these definitions indicate betrayal. They indicate being arrested or turned over to be arrested. But betrayal is another thing altogether.

In other words, Jesus' real statement says something different, something like:

“We are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be arrested ...”

or perhaps:

“We are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be persecuted...”

This is important because Jesus was not forced under arrest. He knew in advance of going to Jerusalem that he would be arrested, as this statement indicates.

Why did he go to Jerusalem then, if he knew he'd be arrested, and then persecuted?

And why did he instruct Judas to go ahead and inform the high priest of his whereabouts?

So Jesus told him, “What you are about to do, do quickly.” (John 13:27)

Then Jesus waited to be arrested, he greeted the guards positively and chastized Peter when he tried to fight off the guards who arrested him.

These points - including the fact that Jesus could have simply not gone to Jerusalem, or he could have not waited on Mount Olive to be arrested, or he could have run off into the woods when he knew they were coming to arrest him - all indicate that Jesus was not betrayed so much as he was prepared to meet with his fate at the hands of the high priest.

Given that, Jesus also knew Judas would arrange to receive a ransom in return for arranging for Jesus' arrest. This was the betrayal of Judas. Jesus did instruct Judas to do what he was going to do. But he didn't instruct him to receive a ransom. That was an act of betrayal, and Jesus knew he would do this.

Jesus is the loving representative of God. In such a relationship, God can make certain facts about the future available to His loving servant. This is because it pertains to Jesus’ service to the Supreme Being:

"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)

Why is Jesus speaking of himself in the third person?

Why doesn't he say, "We are going up to Jerusalem and I will be betrayed ...?"

And what is a Son of Man? Isn't every male born in the physical world a son of a man - and therefore "Son of Man"?

The Greek phrase translated to “Son of Man” is υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου. The Greek word τοῦ means "of". The Greek word υἱός (huios) might indicate a relationship of offspring in another context, but in this context, we have to draw from the secondary meaning of υἱός (huios). This is, as taken from the Greek lexicon, "used to describe one who depends on another or is his follower."

In this context, this relates to working for the welfare of another, or service. Furthermore, the Greek word ἀνθρώπου (anthrōpos) means "generically, to include all human individuals" according to Thayer's lexicon. This would mean that Jesus is putting himself at the service (or "following") of humankind, or better, humanity.

In other words, instead of "Son of Man," υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου should be translated more accurately to "Servant of humanity."

Furthermore, Jesus is referring to "Servant of humanity" in the third person because "Servant of humanity" is a role. This might be compared to the use of the word "General" in the military. Yes, there are specific people who hold this rank, but the rank is a role, not one particular person.

As such, there have been multiple people who have been called this role. David referred to himself as the "Son of Man" [servant of humanity]:

"O Lord, what is man that you care for him, the Son of Man that You think of him?" (Psalm 144:3)

David is obviously using this reference to himself from a position of humility. David is considering himself a lowly servant of humanity, and why should God consider him?

We also find that the Supreme Being addressed Ezekiel as "Son of Man" at least 60 times in the Book of Ezekiel, such as:

“Son of Man [servant of humanity], I have made you a watchman for the people of Israel; so hear the word I speak and give them warning from Me." (Ezekiel 3:17)

In the same way, Jesus addressed himself humbly, as the servant of humanity. Yes, he was truly God's loving servant, but he was serving humankind as he taught God's message and tried to save people.

The reality is, all of the activities of Jesus were intended to please God and serve humanity. Even though Jesus knew he would be betrayed, mocked, and tortured, he still kept traveling to Jerusalem. He could have easily stayed away and kept his body safe. But he continued out of his love for God and his desire to please God (see also "thy will be done" in the Lord's prayer).

Did Jesus' murder cleanse our sins?

Some teachings suggest that Jesus' murder was so our sins would be forgiven. They claim that Jesus suffered on the cross so that we would be cleansed of the responsibility of our selfish actions ("sins"). That all we need to do is ceremoniously drink Jesus' "blood" and we don't have to worry about the consequences of our selfish activities, even if those activities include maiming or even murdering people.

Certainly, Jesus’ sacrifice has the ability to relieve our sins. But only to the extent that we have a change of heart. Only to the extent that we realize that Jesus' sacrifice exhibited Jesus' loving relationship with God and his commitment to pleasing Him.

In other words, Jesus made the ultimate sacrifice in his service to God. This is why, before his arrest, Jesus 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)

Jesus' suffering was about his relationship with the Supreme Being. This is the message of this event. It is not about our sins.

This has the ability to purify our consciousness - and thus can relieve us from self-centeredness.

How does this work? Let’s say that a man was put in jail for stealing. The man is sitting in jail because of what he did. But in many places, including the U.S., a man can be pardoned by a president or governor.

Such a pardon does not come easily. The jailed man can't just imagine he is pardoned. There is a process that includes the Governor's careful review of the situation. It also must come with some confidence that if the man is let out of jail he won't just go out and commit the crime again.

In a bonafide pardon, the person being pardoned should show evidence of being rehabilitated. If the man simply gets out of jail and commits the same crime, the Governor will be at least partly responsible. Therefore, pardons are typically not taken lightly.

What about the consequences of our activities?

The physical world was designed as a place of consequences. Self-centered acts that harm others will have consequences. These consequences range, and depend upon the harmful activity and whether it was done with an awareness of the harm it would do.

In other words, a conscious act that harms the body of someone else creates consequential harm against our body in the future.

Such consequences are not punitive. It is not that God is up there wanting to see us suffer.

Rather, this physical world is designed as a place of consequence in order to teach us. Consequences help teach us to love others. They help teach us to care about others and empathize with others.

Consequences are like walking a mile in someone else's shoes. They allow us to understand how it feels to be treated the way we treated someone else in the past. This allows us to grow.

This is also why there is so much suffering in the world. Many ask, "if God exists, why is there so much suffering?". There is so much suffering because we commit activities that cause the suffering of others, and suffer the consequences as a result.

Our bodies are bound to suffer the same fate we have inflicted upon others. This may take place during our current physical body, or it may take place in the next physical body (which is why some children are born into tough situations).

The bottom line is that the world is conditional: Where we go is dependent upon what we do. How we treat others. It is not as if we can harm people all week and then go to some ceremony and drink some wine and stare at a cross and be relieved of the consequences, only to go back and keep doing those things.

To use the sacrifice of Jesus in such a way offends Jesus and God. This is why Jesus said:

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

Jesus calls them "evildoers" even though they were calling his name and even healing and teaching in Jesus' name.

Jesus' suffering can be purifying if we see the extent of Jesus' love for God and his commitment to God within this activity.

But this will not have much value if the person simply returns to their self-centered consciousness. Jesus' sacrifice was intended to show us that our relationship with the Supreme Being is more valuable than the life of the physical body.

Who or what will 'rise'?

Jesus' sacrifice and his appearance before his disciples after the death of his physical body was also meant to illustrate that we are not these physical bodies. We are the spirit-person within the physical body and we leave it at the time of death.

This is why Jesus uses the word "raised" here - translated from the Greek word ἐγείρω (egeirō) - meaning to "arouse" and "cause to rise."

What is rising? It is the life force - the living being who rises from the body at the time of death. This is what Jesus is referring to. (The Greek does not indicate the words "to live" in this verse - only "raised.")

And it is clear from the scriptures Jesus' physical body did not rise - rather, the spirit-person of Jesus rose out of the body that had been murdered. This is evidenced by the fact that Mary, Martha, and other close disciples of Jesus did not recognize him when he first appeared to them - on multiple occasions. If he had risen in his physical body, he would have been immediately recognized, especially by those who had been so close to him. Instead, we several verses indicating they didn't recognize him, such as this one regarding Mary:

... she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not realize that it was Jesus. (John 20:14)

Jesus confirmed this reality that he - nor we - are these physical bodies in his teachings:

"Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul." (Matt. 10:28)

Jesus devoted his life to teaching about the spiritual value of the living being within and the need for us to dedicate ourselves to the Supreme Being. This is because Jesus had a spiritual relationship with God - a relationship that existed beyond the physical dimension.

He loved God, and his sacrifice illustrated the extent of his love for God and his commitment to their relationship.

Jesus also instructed each of us to re-establish our loving relationship with the Supreme Being:

“ ‘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)

“You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them ...” (Matthew 20:25-28)

“You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave - just as the Son of man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” (Matthew 20:25-28)

What does this have to do with the mother of the Zebedees?

This statement by Jesus followed his discussion with the mother of the Zebedees - James and John - asked Jesus to take her sons into heaven. Jesus responded that they will follow him ("drink from my cup") but their entrance into heaven is up to God ("have been prepared by my Father"). 

That led to a reaction by Jesus' other apostles:

When the ten heard about this, they were indignant with the two brothers. Jesus called them together and said Jesus called them together and said ... (Matt. 20:24-25)

This means that Jesus' statements are specific to his disciples being "indignant" about Zebedees' mother asking Jesus to give preferential treatment to her sons.

What does Jesus mean by 'the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them'?

The word "Gentiles" is being translated from the Greek word ἔθνος (ethnos), which means, according to the lexicon, "a multitude (whether of men or of beasts) associated or living together - a company, troop, swarm;" and "a multitude of individuals of the same nature or genus - the human family - a tribe, nation, people group." 

More importantly, the lexicon also says this Greek word can mean, "foreign nations not worshipping the true God" and "pagans."

Jesus was referring to atheists. He was not speaking of the Gentiles as a particular race of people. Jesus was not referring to those who were by race not Jewish.

In other words, Jesus was not a racist.

Rather, Jesus is referring to those who do not accept the existence of the Supreme Being. Jesus is referring to those who reject the existence of God - atheists. This is what pagan means from a historical and practical perspective.

At the time, Judea was occupied by the Romans. And most Romans and many others from the Middle East at that time were not believers. They believed primarily in the pantheon - either the Greek pantheon or the Roman pantheon. In other words, they were polytheistic.

Jesus referred to such people not as a race but rather, according to their religious leanings. Therefore, the most appropriate word to translate ἔθνος in this context would be "atheists."

So what is the importance of atheists being ruled over? Jesus is referring to the Roman hierarchy and others that have ruled over Judea. We are speaking of people like Herod, who murdered John the Baptist, and Pontius Pilate, who ordered Jesus' persecution, and others.

Jesus is speaking of an atheistic governing body that was ruling over a primarily atheistic society. Jesus is contrasting this with the system prevailing in God's realm.

How is that system different?

In the Roman Empire and within many other hierarchical systems within the physical world, people are forced to accept the authority of the rulers of the society. And those who are in the ruling class struggle amongst each other for their positions of authority.

Thus, the hierarchy system of the physical world is based upon greed, violence, and self-centeredness, as those who seize power must battle with others who seek it in order to achieve their power.

This is not the structure of what Jesus was teaching. Jesus stated that "whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant ..." This is an entirely different system.

This is not the first time that Jesus has stressed the importance of spiritual humility.

In spiritual life, there is no struggle for authority. Everyone in the spiritual realm accepts the Supreme Being as the ultimate authority and ruler. And they seek the most humble position for themselves.

This is the system of love. When a person truly loves someone, they put themselves in an inferior position - seeking to please the one they love.

This is the position the citizens of the spiritual realm put themselves in relation to the Supreme Being. They want to please Him and thus they serve Him.

And because the Supreme Being loves each of His children, pleasing God also includes service to His children.

Why did Jesus talk about being a slave?

This is not precisely slavery as we consider it in the physical world. In the physical world, some people have forced others to become slaves. This is not what Jesus is referring to. The word "slave" here is being translated from the Greek word δοῦλος (doulos). When used metaphorically, the word means "one who gives himself up to another's will" according to the lexicon.

It is not as if the Supreme Being wants slaves. And those who love and serve Him aren't being forced to become His or other people's slaves.

What Jesus is referring to is voluntary service given out of love. The Supreme Being wants our love - and He gives us each the freedom to love Him and serve Him or not. Thus each of us has the freedom to choose to love and serve God and His children - or not.

But if we choose not to love and serve the Supreme Being and His children then we are left with emptiness, which produces self-centeredness. This eventually leads us to become a slave of the physical world as we seek our happiness away from the Supreme Being.

But one who seeks to please the Supreme Being will find humility as their foundation. This is because the spiritual realm is full of love and everyone seeks the position of loving servant. The phrase, "whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant" renders the concept of service as the measure of advancement, rather than having authority over others - as it is within the physical world.

Why did Jesus say that he 'did not come to be served, but to serve'?

This clarifies how Jesus sees himself. He is not seeing himself as God - as many will attribute to him. Rather, Jesus sees himself as a servant. A servant of the Supreme Being, and a servant of humanity.

This is precisely why "servant of humanity" is the more appropriate translation for the Greek phrase being translated to "Son of man" - υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου.

The Greek word that has been translated to “son” is υἱός. While this can indicate a relationship of offspring in the context of a physical family, in this context, as defined in the Greek lexicon, is "one who depends on another or is his follower."

And how would one properly describe someone who depends upon another and/or is his follower? We would call such a person a devoted follower or a loving servant. We know that Jesus is not speaking of becoming a follower of others. Rather, Jesus is speaking of service to others. And Jesus confirms this very meaning when he says he, "did not come to be served, but to serve."

Now if someone says they came to serve, are they not a servant?

Who did Jesus come to serve?

Jesus' teachings indicate that he is God's devoted loving servant: the loving servant (υἱός) of God (mistranslated as "son of God").

But Jesus is also referring to himself in this statement and elsewhere as, υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου.

The Greek word, ἀνθρώπου, can either mean "man" or more broadly "mankind," "humankind" or (in context here) "humanity," and τοῦ means "of."

In other words, the Greek phrase υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου (used in the statement above), is more appropriately translated to: "Servant of humanity."

Jesus clearly states that he and his followers are to be considered servants, not masters. Their position is to serve, and not be served.

What is a disciple?

The New Testament mentions the word "disciple" or "disciples" 297 times. Obviously, this is an important topic. What does it mean?

The Greek word being translated to "disciple" is μαθητής (mathētēs). According to the lexicon, the word means "a learner, pupil, disciple." It also means "adherents." That means in this context, a dedicated follower.

We must remember that Jesus is speaking to those who have taken the position of becoming Jesus’ disciples: They were his students, in other words. The word "disciple" is derived from the word "to discipline". 

This process of becoming the student and follower of the spiritual teacher had been handed down through the ages among the great teachers such as Moses, Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon, and so on (consider for example Eli and Samuel, or Moses and Joshua). Jesus also illustrated this process as well, when he became the disciple of John the Baptist by accepting baptism from John.

This ancient process of accepting an enlightened spiritual teacher, who has himself accepted a spiritual teacher, was heralded and exalted throughout the ancient world of Judaism. This is also the reason why many considered Jesus the υἱὸς (mistranslated as "son") or follower of David (such as in Matt. 20:30). Certainly, Jesus could not physically be David's son, as David had lived about (according to some scholars) a thousand years before Jesus.

Now Jesus is telling his students that in order for others to become eligible for entry into the spiritual realm, they must become loving servants of God. This also means becoming a student of God's messenger in order to come to know God.

This is also the path empowered by God. It is only God who can ultimately empower one of His servants to become His messenger. But first, they must be introduced to God. This is the true initiation process into the kingdom of God. It is about having a relationship.

This system has been all but forgotten among many institutions, which today select their teachers through elections by councils of people. Such political processes ignore the personal relationships that exist between the Supreme Being and His messengers.

What did Jesus mean when he said, 'to give his life as a ransom for many'?

This is one of the key phrases that some teachers cite to claim that Jesus died for everyone’s sins.

But if this were true, no one would face any consequences for their actions. We know this by simply looking around and looking at our own lives: Every self-centered activity produces a reaction.

The physical world is the world of consequences. "As you sow, so shall you reap" is the scriptural phrase used. We can see this cause and effect everywhere in the form of suffering as well as achievement. People are suffering in the world, not because of some cruel joke by God. There is suffering in the world because suffering is a consequence of previously causing the suffering of others - either in this life or the previous one.

This consequence learning system was accepted by Jesus as he stated:

"Stop sinning or something worse may happen to you." (John 5:14)

This was spoken to a person Jesus had healed. He was clearly indicating that sinning (self-centered activities) produces consequences.

So how did Jesus "give his life as a ransom for many" then?

Notice Jesus does not say "all" here. He is not speaking of granting a free pass for everyone just because he suffered on the cross.

Rather, Jesus is speaking of his accepting the persecution and murder of his physical body in order to teach us the importance of loving and serving the Supreme Being. Such a lesson - if we choose to learn it - has the ability to truly save us and purify our consciousness.

Just consider the importance of something that someone is willing to give up their physical life for.

When our consciousness is purified by the understanding of the importance of love for God, we have the ability to transcend the physical world and its various consequences and return to the spiritual realm.

Jesus confirmed that his act was an act of loving service to the Supreme Being (and all of humanity) when he prayed just before his arrest:

“My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as You will.” (Matthew 26:39)

“What do you want me to do for you?” (Matthew 20:32)

Jesus said this to two blind men who sitting by the roadside as he was walking with a procession down the road:

As Jesus and his disciples were leaving Jericho, a large crowd followed him. Two blind men were sitting by the roadside, and when they heard that Jesus was going by, they shouted, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on us!" The crowd rebuked them and told them to be quiet, but they shouted all the louder, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on us!" Jesus stopped and called them. "What do you want me to do for you?" he asked. "Lord," they answered, "we want our sight." Jesus had compassion on them and touched their eyes. Immediately they received their sight and followed him. (Matthew 20:29-34)

Was Jesus really the son of David?

According to this translation, the blind men greeted Jesus as "Lord, Son of David." Really? What does that mean? David lived nearly a thousand years prior to Jesus.

The Greek phrase υἱὸς Δαυίδ is typically translated to "son of David" in most versions of the Bible. But could they or would they accurately address Jesus as the son of David? Was David, who was born about 900 years before Jesus was born, really Jesus' father? How could that be so?

Or do they mean that Jesus was a part of the family genealogy of David?

Two books of the New Testament (Luke and Matthew) illustrate two yet different genealogies that theoretically connect David to Joseph. However, Joseph was Jesus' adoptive father. So Jesus was not actually a genetic relative of David assuming these genealogies. This means that Jesus' body could not even be the great-, great- (et al.) grandson of David.

Furthermore, the modern texts of the New Testament indicate that Mary was a virgin. This means what is termed the immaculate conception - meaning that Jesus didn't have a physical father at all.

If these points are true - how could Jesus rationally be called the "son of David"? And how could Bible translators logically translate this phrase to "son of David"?

Could 'son of David' be a mistranslation?

The word "son" in this phrase has been translated from the Greek word υἱὸς. 

Yes, this Greek word υἱὸς can mean "son" when used in the context of a physical family. But it can also mean,  "one who follows or is dependent upon another," according to the Greek lexicon. 

This latter meaning, according to Thayer's lexicon, translates to being a follower or a pupil. Furthermore, Thayer also evidences the use of the word in the context of being a representative.

In other words, the more appropriate translation of υἱὸς Δαυίδ is that Jesus was a follower of David, a student of David, or a representative of David within the context being spoken of in this conversation.

Jesus was not the physical offspring of David. Rather, he was in line with the teachings of David and was a follower of David's teachings. We know this because Jesus often quoted David. Jesus even quoted David during his last moments on the cross.

What about the genealogy linking Jesus to David?

Let's review the details of what was said above regarding the genealogies of Jesus in Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38. 

In both Matthew 1:16 and Luke 3:23, we find that both genealogies are linking Jesus through Joseph.

Yet we also find both Gospels state that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus. This means Joseph was not Jesus' father.

We also find that both Gospels suggest otherwise that Joseph, who was much older than Mary, was not the father of the child:

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. (Matthew 1:18)

This would indicate that Joseph was not Jesus' father. Therefore, both genealogies are not portraying Jesus' ancestry.

We should also note that Matthew utilizes the terms υἱός, defined above; and γεννάω, a word that can mean "to begat or give birth" but also "imparting to them spiritual life" according to Thayer's lexicon.

This means that both of these supposed genealogies may have intended originally to describe the teaching lineage of Jesus - rather than Jesus' physical ancestry.

Regardless of the original intent, it is clear that for thousands of years, and among ancient Judaism, the teachings of love for God had been passed down personally from teacher to student. From devoted teacher to devoted student, the truth was passed on for centuries.

In some but not all instances, the student was also the physical son of the teacher, such as Jacob and Joseph. 

But then we find that Joshua was not Moses' son. Nor was David Samuel's son, or Saul's son. And Samuel was not Eli's son. And Lot was not Abraham's son. Nor was Melchizedek Abraham's father. Yet in all these and other instances the student was not the son of the teacher.

Genealogy has been highlighted among the translations of the Bible is rooted in the penchant among some institutional temples (which Jesus argued against) to establish the notion of there being a "chosen people." As though being born within a certain family gave one person greater rights to being devoted to God.

This notion is not only untrue historically as pointed out above. It also bears witness against the very nature of the teachings of the Prophets: That any one of us could devote our life at any time to the Supreme Being.

Indeed, each of us has the opportunity to worship God. The family our body is born into does not dictate that opportunity.

Servants instead of sons?

A follower, pupil or representative as noted above, would be an appropriate translation of the Greek word υἱὸς. These also yield another possible translation in the context of a devotional relationship. One of deference or service to another:

"The greatest among you will be your servant." (Matthew 23:11)

From Jesus' statement in Matthew 20:32, these are not the words of someone who feels in charge. Jesus did not greet the blind men as though he were their ruler or master. He spoke to them humbly, as he cared for that person's welfare: “What do you want me to do for you?”

This is a statement of someone who is in the service of another.

The concept that Jesus was a servant of God is supported by Jesus himself. In many instances, such a position was translated into the word "son" or "sons" when Jesus was referring to "servant."

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

and

"For they cannot die any more, because they are equal to angels and are sons [servants] of God, being sons [servants] of the resurrection." (Luke 20:36 RSV)

Jesus also uses the word υἱὸς to refer to "servant" or "follower" elsewhere:

"while the sons [servants] of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth." (Matt. 8:12 RSV)

and

"Can the sons [servants] of the bridechamber mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? but the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then will they fast." (Matt. 9:15 ASV)

In all of these statements, we find the Greek word υἱός being used by Jesus, and none of them refer to a physical offspring. They all refer to people devoted in some way, to either God and the resurrection, "the kingdom," or to the bridechamber (Matthew 9:15 has also thus been translated to "attendants of the bridegroom" (NASB)).

To this, we add other statements from the and there are multiple references to "sons of God" among the English Bible translations:

When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them the sons [servants] of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. (Genesis 6:2)

The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons [servants] of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown. (Genesis 6:4)

Now there was a day when the sons [servants] of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them. (Job 1:6)

Again there was a day when the sons [servants] of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD. (Job 2:1)

When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons [servants] of God shouted for joy? (Job 38:7)

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons [servants] of God." (Matt. 6:9)

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons [servants] of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)

For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons [servants] of God. (Romans 8:14)

For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons [servants] of God. (Romans 8:19)

These all point to "sons of God" being used to describe devoted servants of God.

Other statements in the Bible confirm this interpretation:

…the sons [servants] of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. (Genesis 6:2)

The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons [servants] of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown. (Genesis 6:4)

Could Jesus be considered the servant of David?

This, of course, is also consistent with the translation of υἱὸς in context as described above. In various verses, υἱὸς is used in connection with God (υἱός τοῦ θεοῦ), with David (υἱός τοῦ Δαυίδ) and with all of humanity (υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου). (τοῦ means "of"). So rather than Jesus being the son of everything:

• the son of David
• the son of God
• the son of man

Jesus actually saw himself (and others saw him) as their loving servant:

• the servant (or devoted follower) of David
• the servant (or devoted follower) of God
• the servant of humanity

In the context of Jesus, we must add that the term υἱός τοῦ θεοῦ may be better translated to "Representative of God." This was also pointed out in Thayer's lexicon, "the Jews called the Messiah o vios tov Oeov pre-eminently, as the supreme representative of God."

Jesus was not simply pretending to be a servant. He sincerely felt that he was a servant of others and God. He took the lowest position. Remember, for example, when Jesus washed his disciples' feet. Jesus was not assuming the position of boss or master. He saw himself as a loving servant of God and humanity. And this is why he said to the blind men: "What do you want me to do for you?"

This means that Jesus is not God. He is the loving servant and representative of God. Like any loving servant, Jesus has a oneness with God because he is doing God's will. This means they are one in will. Thus Jesus spoke words from God. He represented God and did God's will. This means that Jesus was His exalted representative and loving servant.