"My food is to do the will of Him who sent me ..." (John 4:34)

"My food," said Jesus, "is to do the will of Him who sent me and to finish His work." (John 4:34) 

Who is the 'Him' Jesus is referring to?

Jesus is undoubtedly referring to the Supreme Being here. This is who Jesus loves, and this is who Jesus is  serving.

This statement clearly identifies that Jesus is living for God. He is acting on behalf of God. He wants to please God.

Curiously, the sectarian translators and institutions that published the NIV and most of the other versions do not capitalize the words "Him" and "His" in this statement (the capitals were added in the NIV translated verse above). Why not?

We find this issue throughout the New Testament, as translators have repeatedly missed capitalizing references to God in Jesus' teachings.

This is because these translators - like the Pharisees Jesus was speaking to - know nothing about - what Jesus is referring to here.

Why is this the 'food' they 'know nothing about'?

Before Jesus says this he said:

"I have food to eat that you know nothing about." (John 4:32)

Now that we know what he was describing, we can correlate that Jesus is saying they do not know about this "food" because they weren't interested in doing the will of the Supreme Being.

This key statement by Jesus defines his central mission and his prime directive. It also clearly defines who Jesus is, spoken by Jesus himself.

With this statement, Jesus clearly defines himself as God's servant and representative. "My food is to do the will of Him who sent me" means that Jesus identified himself as God's servant and God's messenger.

The Pharisees and the priests of the institutional temple system of Jesus' time knew "nothing about" this because they were more interested in their own self interests. They were interested in their positions within the temple system. They were interested in being honored and respected by parishoners.

Why is this considered 'food' by Jesus?

If someone does someone else's will, then they are subjugating their will to that other person's will. Why would doing God's will be like food to Jesus?

The primary purpose of food is to provide the body with its basic nutritional needs. In order to keep the body going, we must have food.

The spirit-person does not need this sort of physical food because the composition of the spirit-person is spiritual. 

But the spirit-person needs another form of food for sustenance. This is the food of love.  

Each of us needs love. Because we are each a spirit-person, we need love. This is why we chase love throughout our lives. We want others to love us. And we want to give love to others. This is why families are so important to so most of us. Because families are a source of the exchange of love.

Jesus is speaking of the exchange of a higher form of love: Spiritual love. He is speaking of exchanging love with God. This is spiritual food.

That's what doing God's will is. It is an act of love. It is an exchange of love.

This is why Jesus compared doing God's will to his food. Because he becomes fulfilled by exchanging love with God.

This was Jesus' primary objectvie: To please God, whom he loved.

The concept of pleasing God bothers many of us. Why? Because we don't want to please someone else. We don't want to do someone else's will. We want to be the king of our lives. We want to do what we want. We want to please ourselves.

This also goes for those who use Jesus to get what we want. To pray to Jesus to get wealthy or to help our football team win is not tasting the spiritual food that Jesus is speaking of.

Was Jesus God's servant?

This is essentially what Jesus is admitting to here. To do someone else's will means to serve them. Jesus saw himself as God's servant.

He is teaching by example to be God's servant. Furthermore, Jesus is teaching that God sent him. This makes Jesus God's messenger and representative.

If someone says that someone has sent them, then they are representing the person who sent them. They become the sender's messenger. This means that Jesus is God's representative and messenger.

The fact that Jesus is mentioning food also means that Jesus is thriving from His service to God. This is his pleasure. This is what Jesus enjoys. Jesus is not focused on his own pleasure. He wants to please the Supreme Being. Jesus confirmed this simply in another statement:

"... for I seek not to please myself but Him who sent me." (John 5:30)

This is not such a foreign notion to most of us. Most of us have experienced at some point "falling in love" with another person. While "falling in love" is but a tiny glimpse of love for God, from it we find that there is a kind of pleasure in loving and caring for someone else besides myself. Why?

Are we meant to serve God?

By nature, we are all lovers and caregivers. We are by nature not masters. We are caregivers. We were created by the Supreme Being to love and serve Him, and love and serve each other.

But because the Supreme Being wants an exchange of true love, he also gave us the freedom to love Him or not. Without the freedom not to love God, how could we truly love Him?

This is the reason we are here in this temporary physical world: We are the ones that chose not to love Him. We are the ones that rejected our loving relationship with the Supreme Being. And because we wanted to be independent of Him - He kindly gave us a dimension where we could pretend He doesn't exist. A place where we could focus on ourselves and pretend to the bosses and masters, even though we aren't.

One might compare this to parents who give a child their own room so the child could get away from the parents sometimes. The child can close the door and play alone without the parents. But this doesn't mean the child is independent of the parents. It also doesn't mean that the child is now the boss of the house. It just means the parents gave the child the freedom to exercise some independence.

Doesn't this mean that Jesus is not God?

If someone does someone else's will, there are obviously two individuals involved, each with their own will. One who does another's will is subjecting themselves to the other out of choice. In this case, out of love.

The interpretation that Jesus is God was born from those organizations that sought to gain authority by virtue of exclusivity. This is a product of politics, not service to God.

To claim that the loving servant of God is God is to forget God. This is offensive to both 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.” (Matthew 7:21)

"My Father is always at His work to this very day, and I, too, am working." (John 5:17)

The man went away and told the Jewish leaders that it was Jesus who had made him well. So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jewish leaders began to persecute him. In his defense Jesus said to them, "My Father is always at His work to this very day, and I too am working."

What does 'His work' mean?

This is Jesus’ response to those who were questioning and criticizing Jesus for working on the Sabbath. Notice here that Jesus is clarifying that he is not God. There are two entities here: There is "My Father", and there is "I" (Jesus).

Jesus is differentiating himself from God by saying that God is always working, and so is he.

Jesus is clarifying not that he is God, but that he has a relationship with God. He is not the Supreme Being. Jesus is God's loving servant, as also illustrated here.

This is illustrated with the word "too." While God is "always at His work", Jesus is also ("too") doing God's Work - indicated by the Greek word κἀγώ (kagō), which means "likewise" or "also" according to the lexicon.

What does Jesus mean by, 'I too am working'?

When a person does someone else's will and works on their behalf, they have become their servant. If they freely do this work out of love, then they are that person's loving servant. This was Jesus' relationship with God.

Furthermore, when a loving servant does the work of their master, there becomes a oneness of purpose between the two. The master's will is non-different from the loving servant's will. This is the oneness (of purpose and will) that Jesus has described elsewhere: Not that God and Jesus are one and the same person.

If Jesus is God, then who is Jesus referring to when he says "My Father"? Is he making up a name and pretending there is another person when really he is the Supreme Being himself? This is a ridiculous supposition.

In reality, those who accept Jesus as the Supreme Being simply do not know the Supreme Being. Sadly they have forgotten God because they don't want to do someone else's will. They want to keep doing their own will and have Jesus' sacrifice prevent them from suffering any consequences.

Sadly, they are missing the one true relationship that Jesus was trying to show us by example and through his teachings: To love and serve our Best Friend and Protector, God. By substituting Jesus for the Supreme Being, we are ignoring the One Person that Jesus dedicated his life to.

By substituting Jesus for the Supreme Being we are also missing the relationship that will completely fulfill us.

What is the point of Jesus' teachings?

Simple observation of the activities of many sectarian institutions that claim to follow Jesus reveals that many have missed the point of Jesus' teachings.

If we are amazed that many priests in the church could possibly be so empty and deranged as to molest young children, we must know that these evils are fruits of a bad tree: That is the tree that has forgotten God.

In their pomp and ceremony regarding Jesus' blood and the focus upon having their sins forgiven, this empty philosophy has missed the very teachings that would have made them whole: A loving service relationship with the Supreme Being, our Best Friend and Protector.

This is called a higher taste. Once a person tastes love for the Supreme Being, they have tasted something that overcomes materialism and self-centeredness. Jesus illustrated this higher taste when he said:

“My food,” said Jesus, “is to do the will of Him who sent me and to finish His work." (John 4:34)

"Moreover, the Father judges no one ..." (John 5:22-23)

"Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him." (John 5:22-23)

Is the 'Son' the 'judge' here?

This is a mistranslation.* This translation incorrectly indicates that the Supreme Being does not judge anyone, and the "son" - assumably Jesus - is the exclusive judge. This contradicts many statements all over the scriptures that God is our ultimate judge.

Jesus is explaining how the Supreme Being empowers His loving servant and representative. This is confirmed by the translation below.*

Did Jesus take over God's position?

Is Jesus God? No. This is misinterpreted from a mistranslation.

Let's clarify and correct the translation.*

The words "judges" and "judgment" have been mistranslated. The Greek word translated to "judge" is κρίνω (krinō), which has the following definition according to the Greek lexicon:

1) to separate, put asunder, to pick out, select, choose

2) to approve, esteem, to prefer

3) to be of opinion, deem, think, to be of opinion

4) to determine, resolve, decree

5) to judge

Notice that "to judge" is the fifth use of the word κρίσις (krisis). In other words, there are four more common meanings of this word. The first is to select or choose, while the second and third are to approve, esteem or deem.

Likewise, "judgment" is being translated from the Greek, κρίσις (krisis) which is similarly translated to separating or selecting, and less commonly to judgment. In other words, the most common (and applicable here) meaning of κρίσις (krisis) and κρίσις (krisis) would be to select or choose.

Why is 'select' a better translation?

Certainly, the Supreme Being will let His messenger select or choose those whom he wants to take in as his students and disciples, and ultimately bring back home to the spiritual world. This does not mean that the Supreme Being gives up the position of judge. God is still the ultimate judge.

The key to the true meaning of Jesus' statement also lies with the translation and use of the word "son".

Quite simply, "son" is a mistranslation that began with the Latin translation by professional translators working for the Roman emperor Constantine and his political council of assembled "bishops." The interpretation was also developed during the politically-oriented Nicene Council, which developed the Nicene Creed for the purposes of controlling Europe and the religion of Christianity.

The idea was that if Jesus could be made into the exclusive means to reach God and be saved, then they could control the people. Therefore, the Nicene Creed and Latin translation of the Bible - both of which were forced upon the people via the Roman Catholic Church that dominated Christianity for over 1,000 years - to interpret that Jesus is God's exclusive "son," extending that exclusivity to mean that Jesus is also God.

Is Jesus God incarnated?

This is their doctrine, but it is contradicted by scripture. Such a doctrine created an exclusivity that made it so that no one could reach God unless they joined the official church sanctioned by the Roman empire.

In fact, those who did not subscribe to these official religious interpretations approved by the Roman empire were typically imprisoned and/or burned at the stake. And Constantine, supposedly a convert, murdered his wife, his brother, and many others around him. He was a blood-thirsty and power-hungry ruler that would utilize any means to remain in power: Bending the scriptures to fit his agenda? No big thing.

Furthermore, Jesus is referring to a role rather than exclusively himself. This is why he referred to "son" in the third person. There are other "sons of God" according to the Bible.

The word "son" in this verse has been translated from the Greek word υἱός (huios). While this might indicate a relationship of offspring. The lexicon clearly states that the translation of this word to "son" is applicable "in a restricted sense, the male offspring (one born by a father and of a mother)." And since Jesus is not speaking of one born by a father and mother here, "son" is a mistranslation.

Rather, the more accurate translation, taken from the Greek lexicon, is "one who depends on another or is his follower." This is the more appropriate translation in the context of one's relationship with God.

This would mean the more accurate translation would be "devoted follower" or "loving servant."

To prove this as the correct translation, let's review other uses of the Greek word υἱός (huios) in Jesus' statements in the Bible:

"But the subjects [υἱός (huios)] of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” (Matthew 8:12)

"The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the people [υἱός (huios)] of the kingdom." (Matt. 13:38)

“Say to Daughter [υἱός (huios)] Zion, ‘See, your king comes to you, gentle and riding on a donkey, and on a colt, the foal of a donkey.’ ” (Matt. 21:5)

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

“How can the guests [υἱός (huios)] of the bridegroom fast while he is with them? They cannot, so long as they have him with them." (Mark 2:19)

"Truly I tell you, people [υἱός (huios)] can be forgiven all their sins and every slander they utter" (Mark 3:28)

"But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children [υἱός (huios)] of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked." (Luke 6:35)

"Now if I drive out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your followers [υἱός (huios)] drive them out? So then, they will be your judges." (Luke 11:19)

“The people [υἱός (huios)] of this age marry and are given in marriage. But those who are considered worthy of taking part in the age to come and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God's children, since they are children [υἱός (huios)] of the resurrection." (Luke 20:34-36)

Does υἱός have different possible translations?

Yes. Let's summarize the different words that have been translated from the Greek word υἱός (huios) from Jesus' statements above:

• subjects of the kingdom
• people of the kingdom
• daughter of Zion
• child of hell
• guests (actually better translated to servants) of the bridegroom
• people
• children of the Most High
• followers
• children of this age

What is the commonality among these phrases? The subject - υἱός (huios) - is a subject or follower of the next thing - the kingdom, Zion, this age, the Most High, etc.

Thus what we have here is a meaning to this word υἱός (huios) that relates to being a follower or a devoted servant or a subject of someone or something.

Jesus is calling himself a devoted servant of God - or a follower of God - a loving servant of God.

This fact is also confirmed by the phrase, "children of the Most High" in Luke 6:35.

Thus we find that υἱός (huios) is being used to describe someone who is a devoted follower or subject to the context of that particular statement. When the context is hell, the υἱός (huios) is a follower or subject of hell. When the context is "the kingdom" the υἱός (huios) is a follower or subject of the kingdom. 

But when the context is the Supreme Being - as it is in Jesus' statement in John 5:22 (e.g. "the Father"), we know that υἱός (huios) is referring to someone who is the follower or subject of the Supreme Being: A devotee or loving servant of God - who when preaching, would be God's representative.

Thus we can more appropriately translate "son of God" in the Bible to "Representative of God."

Also notice that Jesus is referring to υἱός (or huios) in the third person. Jesus does not say, "The Father gave me the exclusive ability...." Rather, he is talking about υἱός (huios) in the third person.

For example, if a person was a captain of a ship, those who were on the ship might call him captain. But this doesn't mean the captain is the only captain to ever exist. Such a captain might say "a captain's duty is to steer the ship." This is a general statement that would define the role of captain - for every captain.

In the same way, Jesus is utilizing the third person as he speaks of the relationship between God and His representative (rather than "son") because "representative" is a role, rather than an exclusive position for Jesus alone. 

At the same time, Jesus is also recognizing that this role is special - just as a captain's role might be - in that it has specific authority, as granted by the Supreme Being.

Does God empower His representative?

Jesus is telling his students that the Supreme Being empowers His loving servant to represent Him. Again this might be comparable to a captain of a military ship, who is empowered by his government's military to command that ship.

We can see how God empowers and delegates with Jesus' statement as well. Consider delegation in the workplace. Let's say a business owner promoted an employee to become a manager, and then gave the manager general instructions on how to run the business. The manager will execute those instructions, but in a way that he or she feels is most appropriate for the situation, right?

So let's say the manager decides to fire someone. They didn't do a good job, and the manager saw them goofing off. Does the owner of the business go behind the manager's back and rehire the person after the manager fired them? Would that be a good business practice? No. It would completely undermine the authority of the manager. It would show that the owner did not trust the manager. The owner did not support the manager's judgment.

On the other hand, a good owner would support the manager. Once they delegated the management position, they would only intervene if either the manager requested it. Otherwise, they would trust the judgment (here selection and choices, not ultimate judgment) of the manager.

In the same way, God sends His loving servants as messengers to bring us home. God has had many messengers. Moses, Abraham, Jacob, Job, Jonah, David, Solomon, John the Baptist, and even many of Jesus' disciples were God's messengers. 

God empowers His messenger. He gives them certain authorities with regard to spreading His message. When God's messengers spread His message, they are supported by God.

Certainly, God doesn't need anyone to help Him communicate to us. God communicates directly to each of us through the Holy Spirit.

But God also wants to understand love for God from the perspective of someone who already loves Him. This is the purpose of His sending Jesus and other messengers.

God is also allowing those who care about Him to do some practical service for Him by spreading the teachings of love for God.

Why does not honoring the "Son" not honor God?

Remember that the "Son" is referring to a role. God's representative - or messenger. This is someone who is representing the Supreme Being much as an ambassador is representing their country.

Using this analogy, if another country were to disparage an ambassador, they would effectively be disparaging the country - because the ambassador is representing that country and its government.

In the same way, if someone does not honor God's representative they will be insulting the Supreme Being, because of the close relationship between God and His representative.

God is pleased when His messengers work to help bring other children of God home to Him. They work to please the Supreme Being. 

Because God loves each of us and wants us to come home to Him, those who help Him in that effort are empowered by Him.

Indeed, there is also a close relationship between God and His messenger. This is a loving relationship whereby each of them wants to honor the other.

This is typical of any loving relationship. Consider a husband and wife who love each other. The wife is always looking for the husband to be honored, and will always speak highly of him (assuming she truly loves him). The same for the husband. The loving husband will always want to honor the wife.

In the same way, God's loving servants are always honoring God and speaking of God's glories. So naturally, God wants to honor His loving servants. 

While Jesus spoke generally of himself as a messenger ("son") of God, we know Jesus is an exalted loving servant of God, who is to be honored as God's representative. 

Jesus' position as God's representative renders the greatest honor to Jesus. 

To claim Jesus is God is to dishonor Jesus. Jesus loves God. And Jesus wanted us to become lovers of God. This wasn't an underhanded attempt by Jesus to get us to love him. Jesus wanted us to love someone else - God.

Therefore, to claim that Jesus is God is to ignore the Supreme Being - the very Person that Jesus wants us to love.

By praising God, we can honor Jesus. We can exalt him and follow his teachings because His teachings were about how to love and serve the Supreme Being.

To follow Jesus means to work to please God. This is why Jesus said:

“Who is my mother and who are my brothers?” Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.” (Matthew 12:48-50)

 

*Here is the translation of these verses from the Lost Gospels of Jesus:

"Furthermore, neither does the Creator select anyone, but He has entrusted selection to the Representative, so that all may honor God’s Representative just as they honor the Creator. He who does not honor God’s Representative does not honor the Creator who sent him." (John 5:22-23)

“... I seek not to please myself but Him who sent me.” (John 5:30)

“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)

What does Jesus mean by 'my judgment is just'?

In the statement above, Jesus is giving credit for what has been translated to "judgment" to God. As mentioned before, this translation* to "judge" and "judgment" is a mistranslation. The Greek words being translated to "judge" and "judgment" here are κρίνω and κρίσις. Using the Greek lexicon:

κρίνω means to 1) to separate, put asunder, to pick out, select, choose

κρίσις means to 1) a separating, sundering, separation

Jesus is not referring to God giving him the ability to judge others, as God already knows us and is thus the only true judge. Jesus is talking about God giving him the ability to select those to whom he teaches and gives his knowledge to. This ability to select those to whom to teach was granted by God to Jesus because of their loving relationship.

 

Because Jesus was God's servant and representative, God trusted Jesus to select those to whom he wanted to teach the confidential knowledge. This is why Jesus selected certain disciples and students, who were able to convene with him privately while he explained some of his parables and so on. 

Who is the 'Him who sent me'?

With this statement, Jesus is clearly indicating that someone sent him. Jesus says, "Him who sent me." Who is "Him"?

Jesus is referring to the Supreme Being. This is confirmed by many other statements by Jesus, deferring to God.

Jesus is clearly indicating that he is God's messenger. This comes from the Greek word, πέμπω (pempō), which means, "to bid a thing to be carried to one." Jesus is referring to his carrying messages from God to us. Jesus is clarifying that he is God's messenger - illustrated in the phrase, "Him who sent me”.

Did God need to send Jesus?

Does the Supreme Being need anyone else to do things? No. God is self-sufficient. God can do anything He wants without anyone's help.

Jesus, on the other hand, is illustrating clearly that he is dependent upon God. A person who submits that they rely upon God is someone who has given their life to the Supreme Being.

Furthermore, because Jesus seeks not to please himself, but rather seeks to please God ("I seek not to please myself but Him who sent me"), Jesus is describing himself as God's loving servant.

A slave is forced to work for the pleasure of his master, but a loving servant chooses out of free will to please the one he loves. Jesus' entire life and teachings were geared toward pleasing God. This is because Jesus loves the Supreme Being.

A loving relationship requires two distinct individuals. God is a distinct individual. Jesus is distinct from God. This is why Jesus says, "By myself I can do nothing." There are two distinct individuals, and one person (Jesus) is dependent upon and loves another Person (the Supreme Being).

Each of us has the free will to choose to love the Supreme Being or not. This, however, does not mean that we are in control. We have choice, but not control. 

Those who feel that they are self-sufficient and in control are deceiving themselves. They too, are subject to the control of the physical world. If we decide not to submit to God's will, then we are simply submitting ourselves to the control of the physical world.

Do we have control over this world?

None of us can rule the physical world. Even those who have achieved positions of great power, such as kings and presidents, cannot control the physical world. They cannot control the weather. They cannot control disease, suffering and so many other events that take place in the physical world.

They may think they are in control, and certainly, they might achieve minimal authority over certain affairs, but they are not in real control. That have to follow the rules of the physical world.

One of the central components of the physical world is time. No one, even those who have gained the power and authority over large populations, such as Alexander the Great or Constantine, could control time.

This is why all the great kings, presidents and other leaders are dead now. They had no control over time. They had no control over when their physical body would die. They might have delayed it a bit with medical care, but in the end, they had no control over time.

As for the rest of us, we also have to follow all the rules of the physical world, which include the rules of government, banking, social expectations, the workplace, disease, money, and of course, time. We are controlled by the forces of the physical world, whether seemingly put there by man or nature, we are dominated. We are controlled. If we are not one of God's servants, we are servants of the physical world.

This doesn't mean that we don't have the freedom to choose our path. We do have this freedom. It is also called 'free will.'

Each of us has free will to choose our direction in life. We may not be able to control the outcome, but we can still make choices. Once we make our choices, the world follows suit in such a way as to provide a path but also to teach us.

That is the nature of this world. Yes, it does respond to our choices. We may not be able to control it, but we can help tame this world by making the right choices.

Do we have free will?

Love requires free will. If we didn't have the freedom to love God or not, then there would be no such thing as love for God. It would be slavery to God.

Where we put our love is the most important choice we make. Should we put our love on God, He will reciprocate. If we don't, He will make Himself invisible to us.

Should we make the choice to love God, God will guide us towards achieving this goal. We may not achieve it suddenly, but the guidance will be there for us to continue to choose.

Jesus showed us how to do this with both his teachings and his life. While he spoke with authority as God's representative, he never claimed that authority: Jesus always gave that authority to God, and he was constantly seeking to please God. This is why Jesus is saying (above) that "I seek not to please myself but Him who sent me.”

What Jesus is saying is that pleasing God gave Jesus more pleasure than pleasing himself. This is called love.

This is the very essence and nature of love. When we truly love someone, we receive our pleasure by pleasing the person we love. Jesus showed that by his life.

And ironically, those who live for their own selfish pleasure are constantly miserable. In other words, we gain no real pleasure by seeking our own pleasure.

We also cannot simply go about our pleasure-loving ways, and then go to church on Sundays and expect that we can just wipe all the consequences of our selfish ways on to Jesus so that we can go back and keep doing them. In order to receive Jesus' saving grace, we must decide to change. While complete change is a gradual process - and comes only with God's help - we can decide we want to change at any time.

Yes, we can decide at any time that we want to live for God rather than living for ourselves. This is what Jesus came to teach us, and also what his ultimate sacrifice (of giving his life in the service of God) was intended to teach us.

Thus, rather than trying to fictionalize that Jesus is God, we must see and portray Jesus accurately. Jesus clarifies with this statement that he is God's confidential loving servant. We must worship Jesus in this way, and decide for ourselves, whether we, too, want to heed Jesus' primary instruction:

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

*Here is the translation of this verse according to the Lost Gospels of Jesus:

"By myself I can do nothing; As I hear, I make choices, and my choices are just because I do not seek to please myself but to please Him who sent me." (John 5:30)

"... testify that the Father has sent me.” (John 5:35-36)

"Not that I accept human testimony; but I mention it that you may be saved. John was a lamp that burned and gave light, and you chose for a time to enjoy his light. "I have testimony weightier than that of John. For the works that the Father has given me to finish—the very works that I am doing—testify that the Father has sent me." (John 5:35-36)

Why was John a lamp?

Jesus is speaking metaphorically. When Jesus says, "John was a lamp that burned and gave light," he is communicating that John taught others with spiritual teachings. The 'light' refers to spiritual knowledge, which is enlightening. When a person has spiritual knowledge, they are enlightened. Metaphorically, this lights their path.

A lamp gives out light just as a spiritual teacher gives out spiritual knowledge. Because such knowledge provides the wisdom to navigate life, we can compare this to light that provides a way to navigate a path in the darkness.

Jesus follows with "and you chose for a time to enjoy his light." This indicates that people were enlightened by John's teachings, and Jesus is now carrying that same torch in his teachings.

What about the human testimony?

So why does Jesus say: "Not that I accept human testimony; but I mention it that you may be saved" when he is speaking of John? When Jesus says he doesn't accept human testimony, he is meaning that he only accepts the word of God. As indicated in the verse before (John 5:32), Jesus accepts only God's testimony.

But in this case, Jesus speaks of John because Jesus is teaching the same message that John taught. John was credible because he changed people.

And because Jesus says "the Father has sent me" he is inferring that not only did God send Jesus, but He also sent John and the Prophets before John.

Why are John's teachings important?

In the second sentence, "I have testimony weightier than that of John," Jesus states this after saying that John's teachings provided wisdom and truth:

"John was a lamp that burned and gave light, and you chose for a time to enjoy his light."

Jesus was not saying that John did not save those whom he taught to and baptized. For we can balance this with other statements by Jesus:

"Truly I tell you, among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist" (Matt. 11:11)

and

"For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him." (Matt. 21:32)

The phrase "to show you the way of righteousness" clearly means that Jesus accepted that John was saving those who followed his teachings. Indeed, as Jesus himself followed John's teachings - evidenced by his baptism by John (a ceremony representing becoming a disciple).

Did Jesus teach what John taught?

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

After John was imprisoned, Jesus began his mission with the same principle teachings:

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

Then Jesus also instructed his own disciples to teach the same:

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

Why is Jesus' testimony 'weightier'?

So why is Jesus saying that his "testimony" is "weightier" than John's? Is he saying that his teachings are better than John's?

No. The word "weightier" is being translated from the Greek word μέγας (megas), which can certainly be applied as "weightier" or "heavier" - as the lexicon indicates: "of the external form or sensible appearance of things (or of persons) - mass and weight: great"

However, Jesus is not speaking of physical stature here. He was not saying that he weighed more than John. Or that his words weighed more than John's words. The word μέγας (megas) can also mean, as indicated by the lexicon: "used of intensity and its degrees: with great effort, of the affections and emotions of the mind, of natural events powerfully affecting the senses: violent, mighty, strong" and "things esteemed highly for their importance: of great moment, of great weight, importance."

We must understand the context of Jesus' statement. Jesus is not saying that he is greater than John or his teachings are more important. Why would he accept baptism from John if he thought he was better than John?

Rather, Jesus is teaching among those who had been students of John's - and had been hearing from John, or had heard about John. Now Jesus is explaining that Jesus' teachings - at that moment - were coming from the Supreme Being, and because they were coming from God, they should be given their immediate attention. This is confirmed by his statement just before this:

"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 illustrates that Jesus is referring to the fact that his teachings - coming from God - have more importance at that time and place. They were more important at that time and circumstance - they were appropriate for that current situation and audience, just as a live narration about a current event has more importance at that time than a historical reference about a past event. This is even more critical when we are speaking of spiritual teachings.

Let's use an example:

Let's say that a child is in the fourth grade. Their third-grade teacher taught the child to add numbers together by putting them side by side with an equal sign at the end so they could read left to right and add them together. Then the fourth-grade teacher begins teaching them to add larger numbers (say 1031+2672) by putting them on top of each other so that the tens digits can be carried. The child then raises his hand and says "our third-grade teacher taught us to add differently."

Was the third-grade teacher wrong? No. The teacher was teaching them based on their age and level of math. The fourth-grade teacher may say something like, "that method is okay, but this method is a better way to do heavier calculations." In this way, the third-grade teacher is simply giving the kids more advanced teachings. Not that either teacher was teaching a better method.

How do Jesus' teachings get taken out of context?

Over the centuries, many of Jesus' statements have been taken out of context. How does this happen?

In some cases, Jesus' teachings were specifically tuned to the particular situation and particular audience. They were also designed for a particular time and circumstance. When the time and circumstances become different, the original context can be lost. And when the audience hearing or reading those teachings is substantially different - from a different society and speaking a different language, the underlying meaning of Jesus' statements can be misunderstood.

We could compare this again with the third and fourth-grade teachers. The fourth-grade teacher was teaching a method that was specific to the readiness of the child. There was nothing wrong with the previous method for the third grade, but the children were now ready for adding larger numbers. So the method the fourth-grade teacher uses becomes substantially different. This could easily be misinterpreted, instead of simply being a different methodology.

Again we must understand that Jesus is not speaking of himself as being the central issue. In fact, he was not speaking of himself at all. He was speaking of his service to God:

"For the very work that the Father has given me to finish, and which I am doing, testifies that the Father has sent me.”

Jesus is clearly identifying himself as God's messenger. A person who is sent by another is the messenger of the sender. Furthermore, Jesus is clarifying that he is working for God: "the very work that the Father has given me to finish..." So not only is Jesus God's messenger, but Jesus is God's servant.

Was Jesus' service to God forced?

He was not forced by God to testify on behalf of God or do God's work. There is a big difference between being a slave and a loving servant. A loving servant serves his master out of volition: out of love. This means that Jesus is the loving servant of God.

This also means that Jesus enjoyed a personal relationship with God. If one person "sends" another, and the other works hard to do the work of the sender out of choice, there must be a relationship between the sender and his servant the messenger. Furthermore, if the messenger is undergoing great hardship to do the work of the sender, this illustrates a relationship of love must exist between the two.

This also explains the "oneness" that exists between Jesus and God, as Jesus alluded to in other statements. God and Jesus are "one" because Jesus loves the Supreme Being and Jesus does the will of God: He works for the Supreme Being. This creates a oneness of love and a oneness of purpose.

This could be compared to a loving husband and wife. Because of their loving relationship, the wife's and husband's activities, even if done separately, are considered collectively. They act as a unit. When the wife buys something, the household has bought it - they own it collectively. Such a "oneness" is also represented by the fact that the husband can usually sign for the wife and vice versa. They have a theoretical "oneness" of will and purpose - which is founded (hopefully) upon love.

Because the institutional translators and scribes employed under Constantine and his appointed bishops - and the many sectarian institutions that followed - all assumed the Nicene Creed (if they didn't they would have been an illegal group and would have been persecuted) - the real "oneness" of love that exists between Jesus and God has been lost in translation.* They decided to claim that Jesus is God because:

1) They did not know who the Supreme Being is;
2) They did not have a relationship with the Supreme Being;
2) They wanted to create exclusivity within religiosity in order to ban all other forms of religion in Rome. This, in fact, created a monopoly on religion to further the political interests of the Roman empire.

Did the Prophets love God?

Even a passing review of the Old Testament indicates that the Prophets enjoyed a loving relationship with God. They were also servants of God, and this is why Jesus often quoted the prophets before him, such as Moses, David, Samuel and others.

And many since Jesus have also been loving servants of God, despite the misinterpretation of the Bible as designed by Constantine and his politically-appointed bishops organized under the Councils of Nicea.

To confuse Jesus - God's confidential loving servant - with the Supreme Being produces two unfortunate byproducts:

1) By accepting Jesus as God, we ignore the real Supreme Being. We are forgetting the very Person who sent Jesus and the One who Jesus loves and wants us to love.

2) This, in turn, offends Jesus because Jesus came to teach us to love the Supreme Being.

This is precisely 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)

Now isn't it curious that Jesus, who drove out demons and performed miracles, would reject a person who also healed and performed miracles in Jesus' name?

Rather, he is clarifying that even the greatest charity works will not replace the central teaching of Jesus to love and serve God: "but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."

This clarifies that Jesus wants us to love and serve the same Supreme Being Jesus was serving. In fact, this was his central message, as stated by Moses before him:

“‘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)

*Here is the translation of Jesus' statement according to the Lost Gospels of Jesus:

"John was the lamp that shined and gave light, and you rejoiced for a time in his light. Yet the testimony is more critical than that of John. For the work that the Creator has given me to finish — the very work I am doing — indicates the Creator has sent me." (John 5:35-36)

"For I have come down from heaven not to do my will ..." (John 6:38-40)

"For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of Him who sent me. And this is the will of Him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the son and believes in Him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day." (John 6:38-40)

Is Jesus saying that he is God?

Many have misinterpreted this statement to mean that Jesus is saying that he is God. (See below for a clearer translation.*) 

The Jewish Pharisees listening to Jesus also thought this. They began to grumble and question:

"Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, 'I came down from heaven'?" (John 6:41)

In other words, how could someone who was born among men claim to suddenly have the authority of the Supreme Being?

The primary fact not understood is that Jesus was not his physical body. His physical body was a temporary vehicle for Jesus' spirit-person.

The physical is occupied by a person of another plane of existence - of spirit - making the occupant of each physical body a spirit-person. In the case of Jesus, his physical body was occupied by a superior spirit-person - a loving servant and representative of God, whom God dispatched to teach on His behalf.

Jesus states this clearly here when he says:

"For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of Him who sent me."

Is this not clear enough? If a person says they are not doing their own will but someone else's will, does that make them the other person? Certainly not. There are still two individuals present. One is choosing to work on behalf of the other.

Furthermore, Jesus clearly speaks of two entities here: "me" and "Him who sent me." How could Jesus be the sender and the messenger at the same time?

Jesus did not become the Supreme Being and the Supreme Being did not become Jesus, just as an ambassador of a country's president does not become the president when he goes to another country. God has empowered Jesus as His representative, and Jesus furthered the will of the Supreme Being by acting on behalf of God.

Why isn't Jesus doing his own will?

Jesus is speaking of choosing to work on behalf of someone else. This is called service. And when that service is performed with love and the desire to please the one being served, that is called being a loving servant.

In the case of Jesus, he is speaking of doing the will of the Supreme Being. Doing God's will, in other words.

Jesus was God's loving servant. This is confirmed by another statement:

"I seek not to please myself but Him who sent me." (John 5:30)

What did Jesus mean by 'son'?

In this context, "loving servant," is a more appropriate translation of the Greek word υἱός (huios). The lexicon clearly states that the translation of this word to "son" only "in a restricted sense, the male offspring (one born by a father and of a mother)." Otherwise, it indicates the word means "one who depends on another or is his follower."

As described elsewhere, the most appropriate translation of the Greek word υἱός is devoted follower or loving servant, not "son," because son only applies to an offspring of a physical family according to the lexicon.

Just consider a few of Jesus' statements that utilize this word υἱός (huios) - using NKJV:

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

“But those who are considered worthy of taking part in the age to come and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God's children, since they are children of the resurrection." (Luke 20:35-36)

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

These uses of the word υἱός (huios) illustrate the alternative use of the word outside of the relationship of physical bodies - parents and their children. This means that references Jesus makes in his spiritual relationship with the Supreme Being (translated to "son of God") and to humanity ("son of man") are akin to his statement in Luke 20:35-36, wherein it is clear a more appropriate translation would be devoted follower or loving servant.

Thus we would have:

"Son of God" is thus better translated to: "Devoted follower of God" or "Loving servant of God." In the case of Jesus, depending upon the context, it would be better translated to "Representative of God." Such a case for this translation is also made in Thayer's lexicon. 

And "Son of man" is better translated to: "Servant of humanity" or "Servant of the people."

This makes more sense, doesn't it? A person who is led by God is certainly following God. And a person who is following God is certainly serving God. Furthermore, a person who is following God by saving humanity would therefore be serving humanity.

Jesus confirmed his position as servant in other verses, such as:

“For even the Son of Man [Servant of humanity] did not come to be served, but to serve" (Mark 10:45)

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

Thus by Jesus' own admission and teachings, he stated clearly that he was in the position of servant - God's loving servant and the loving servant of humanity.

Jesus is describing the empowerment that God’s representative and loving servant receives from God. The loving servant and representative of God has been empowered by God to be able to save someone from the depths of the hell of the physical world by passing God's message on to the student.

What does the 'last day' mean?

This also is the meaning of "raise them up on the last day." Many ecclesiastical sectarian teachers would like us to believe that Jesus is speaking of some supposed day in the future where Jesus will return to earth and bring all his flock - who have been waiting after having been dead for how long? - back to heaven with him. This is actually an absurd and comical interpretation of this statement by Jesus.

"The last day" that Jesus is speaking of is the day when each person's body dies. The day the body dies is the last day of our physical life in this body. It is not some kind of mysterious "second coming" that so many sectarian teachers have predicted over and over (incorrectly) as Armageddon – its Greek word (only used once in the Bible) referring to a hilly region (“harrar”) of Megiddon – a region located in Northern Israel.

What about the "Rapture"?

Then there is this speculative concept called the “rapture” – a theory developed by John Nelson Darby in the early part of the Nineteenth century and proselytized by Cyrus I. Scofield, who wrote it into his “Scofield Reference Bible.”

The concept of the “rapture” is never mentioned in the texts of the Bible – at all. It is a speculative theory made up by sectarian teachers interested in attracting followers.

The “rapture’ theory nonsensically states that we will all wait in our graves until some moment when Jesus “comes” and frees all the believers from their graves, whereupon they float up to the clouds to meet up with their families and then float up above that to meet up with Jesus.

Perhaps these "rapturists" never dug up an old gravesite. If they had, they would have realized that within a few years, the body decomposes and turns into soil. The bugs and microbes eat it up and discharge the waste into the soil. The body will be completely gone within a few decades following death – depending upon how it is buried.

The reality is, the day each of our bodies dies we will have to leave them. This is our own personal "Armageddon." This is the day when everything we thought we owned is torn away from us. This is the day that our family is torn away. This is the day when our reputation is torn away from us. This is the day that all our plans and all our accumulated wealth are all torn away from us.

Yes, this day brings upheaval and great calamity and great wailing, as the scriptures discuss. But this is a personal event that each of us faces individually when we are forcefully pulled away from our physical bodies. Because each of us dies alone, regardless of how many family members we are surrounded by at the time.

On this day of the death of our physical body not only do we leave our body, but our lives will be judged, and our next destination will be determined. This is also called "Judgement Day." The day that we leave our bodies is our own personal "Judgement Day."

God's messenger Jesus was empowered by God with the ability to guide us towards achieving our loving relationship with God. God is ultimately in charge, but He empowers His messenger to help those who want to return to Him after their "last day."

The fact that Jesus is doing God's also explains the "oneness" that exists between God and His messenger Jesus. They have become "one" in purpose, and "one" in love. But they remain two individuals: God remains God, and God's representative is His loving servant.

But they have the same purpose because Jesus is God's representative - and thus doing the will of the Supreme Being.

*Here is the translation of these verses according to the Lost Gospels of Jesus:

“For I have descended from the spiritual realm not to please myself but to please Him who sent me. And what pleases Him who sent me is that I shall lose none of those He has entrusted to me, but raise them up at the time of death. For what pleases my LORD is that everyone who perceives the Representative and trusts in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the time of death.” (John 6:38-40)

"The spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing ..." (John 6:61-65)

"Does this offend you? What if you see the son of man ascend to where he was before! The spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe. This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him." (John 6:61-65)

Does this define Jesus' use of 'flesh' and 'blood'?

Here Jesus confirms that in his last statement (John 6:53-59) he was not speaking of eating physical bread or consuming his physical flesh or blood - here or during the last supper.

Those in the crowd who were confused by that analogy and deserted Jesus as disciples did so because they could not understand the most basic of Jesus’ teachings: That we are each spiritual individuals temporarily occupying a physical body. This is why Jesus said:

"The spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life." (John 6:62-64)

This confusion between matter and spirit is the reason some institutions and their teachers have misinterpreted and confused so many statements of Jesus. They also misconstrue the understanding of the resurrection (of both Jesus and others), the "last day," and "judgment day."

They mistakenly interpret "last day" to be the end of the world. They also state that during this end-of-the-world scenario, everyone who has ever died in the past will be judged.

This interpretation, of course, creates the problem of where are all the people who have died throughout time? To this problem, some institutions have created the speculative notion that everyone who dies before the "last day" must wait around in some kind of "purgatory" state until the end of the world.

Is there a purgatory?

Is purgatory mentioned in the Bible? No. This proposition was created by Church teachers to fill the gaps in their interpretations of Jesus' life and teachings.

Such a proposition would mean that billions upon billions of souls - every human who has lived on the planet - are crowded into this imaginary place, just waiting for Jesus to return to the earth.

And just where is this place?

If it is on earth why haven't we seen it or otherwise heard from all these souls awaiting Jesus' return?

And if it isn't on the earth, then why would they all need to wait for Jesus to return to the earth?

What are the 'last day' and 'Judgment day'?

Some interpretations regarding the "last day" and "judgment day" are based upon the false notion that we are these physical bodies. As a result of this basic misunderstanding, those interpretations have confused many of Jesus’ teachings almost in their entirety.

The understanding of our identity is the most basic and fundamental understanding we need to have in spiritual life. If spiritual life were a college degree, understanding our identity would be called “Reality 101.”

We are not these physical bodies. Our physical bodies are like automobiles. Just as we step into a car and drive it for a while, then stop the car and get out, the spiritual individual – each of us – enters a temporary physical body and drives it around for a while, and then leaves it at the time of death.

The personality of the body – the person making the decisions – is the spiritual individual. This spiritual individual dwells on a plane of the eternal. Each of us is eternal. When the temporary physical body dies, the spiritual individual leaves it and moves on.

At the end of the lifetime of this body, if the spiritual individual - the spirit-person - has not prepared himself to return to his relationship with the Supreme Being, the spirit-person will continue to dwell on the platform of the physical world within another temporary physical body.

Jesus is describing the method the spiritual individual can use to return to God’s spiritual kingdom. This requires the spirit-person to accept as a guide - the devoted loving servant and representative of God.

Should that spirit-person take God's representative's teachings into his heart and follow them with humility and devotion, God's representative will effectively deliver the spirit-person back to God by virtue of helping them develop their own relationship with God. This is the pathway for returning to the Supreme Being, and Jesus is discussing this pathway in his teachings.

Is Jesus God's only messenger?

This does not mean, as many have construed, that Jesus was the only representative of God who has ever offered a pathway back to God. Otherwise, are we saying that all those billions of people born into physical bodies before Jesus had no path back to God?

Furthermore, if Jesus is God's only representative after Jesus left the planet, then why have there been so many of Jesus' disciples, popes, priests, and reverends over the centuries since Jesus left the planet that has been teaching among the various churches and synagogues? Are they not claiming to represent God? Have they not been trying to teach us about God?

Such a scenario (that Jesus was God's only representative) would be grossly unfair to those who lived before or after Jesus. Such a thesis would unfairly give those who were able to experience Jesus' life personally when he was here on the planet a greater opportunity for salvation.

Moses, Abraham, Jacob, Isaiah, David, John the Baptist and many other loving servants of the Supreme Being were also empowered by the Supreme Being. They also had the ability to deliver those around them - who were suffering within temporary physical bodies - back to their relationship with God - including those of Jesus’ disciples who followed in Jesus’ footsteps.

Yes, those disciples such as Peter and James were directly empowered by Jesus and God to represent God as they taught others to love and serve the Supreme Being.

Why else would Jesus have commanded his disciples and students to go out and teach? If Jesus was the only person who could deliver people, then his disciples, and those many prophets before him and after him including John the Baptist, would have been teaching in vain. Why would they teach if they couldn’t deliver anyone?

It is this very problem that has produced the confusion and even at times the outright editing of the Bible texts in an attempt to portray John the Baptist, David, Moses and so many other prophets (teachers) as having the sole purpose of merely foretelling Jesus' arrival.

This began when Paul created his own interpretation about Jesus even though he had never listened to Jesus' teachings. It is claimed that he had a vision of Jesus even though Paul does not admit this.

Paul created an interpretation that Jesus died for all our sins and all we have to do is accept that fact. This is something that Jesus never taught.

Why would Jesus even spend time teaching if all he had to do was die and everyone would be saved?

Paul argued against Peter and James as he tried to spread his new interpretation of Jesus' teachings. He argued that Jesus' teachings had to be modified in order to bring in the 'gentiles' (or 'pagans' which refers to atheists that did not accept the existence of the Supreme Being).

This 'Pauline theology' effectively strangled the true teachings of Jesus as Jesus' own disciples were trying to spread - the teachings of love of God.

But the Romans effectively rubberstamped the Pauline theology and that's why nearly half the New Testament is made up of Paul's letters and life. 

Jesus' own teachings were passing on the teachings of the Prophets such as Moses, Abraham, David and Isaiah. This is why Jesus constantly quoted those Prophets' teachings.

If Jesus was the only messenger then why did Jesus quote the teachings of the Prophets? Why was Jesus' "greatest commandment" (to love God) a quote from Moses in Deuteronomy 6:5?

Because Jesus wasn't the only messenger of God. He truly was God's messenger. And he was truly the greatest messenger of God. But he was not the only messenger.

The fallacy of this teaching is quite easy to see. How so? Consider the purposeless of these prophets, if all their work preaching to people was only to foretell of Jesus' coming centuries and even in some cases, thousands of years into the future. What good would that do to the people they were teaching to that Jesus would come a thousand years later and save all of humankind?

Does Jesus have to come again to save us?

Is the Supreme Being so limited that He cannot empower others besides Jesus to represent Him? Is God so limited that people can only be saved if Jesus returns? What about all those billions of people who lived and died after Jesus left the planet during the 20 centuries between his departure and today?

This misinterpretation of scripture is an offense against the Supreme Being, along with the many Prophets the Bible describes. All of them were sent by the Supreme Being to bring the people of their particular time and society back to their loving relationship with God. This is why Moses instructed:

"Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength." (Deut. 6:5)

Why would Moses try to teach those around him to develop their loving relationship with the Supreme Being if they were all supposed to wait around for thousands of years for Jesus to come? It absolutely makes no sense.

The reality is that Moses, like the other prophets, and Jesus too, were each dispatched by the Supreme Being to canvas those around them at their particular time and place in time, to return back home to their loving relationship with God. This is why Jesus repeated Moses' instruction:

" 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' (Matt. 22:37)

and followed that with:

"This is the first and greatest commandment." (Matt. 22:38)

The gross misinterpretations laid out above stem from those who seek to control God's message rather than pass it on. We can see that Jesus had no problem passing on the instructions of Moses without changing their meaning. But those institutions that have over the past 1,800 years been using Jesus' teachings for political purposes. So they have changed the meaning and intent of his teachings.

Is 'Son of God' a mistranslation?*

Jesus is not speaking of himself as the only person in history that could bring people back to God. In fact, this is why Jesus often spoke of the "Son of God" in the third person. He was speaking of these as roles, much as a person might refer to the role of a captain or a lieutenant.

Yes, "Son of God" is a mistranslation if we take it literally (physically). The word "son" is translated from the Greek word υἱός (huios). The translation to "son" according to the lexicon is "restricted" to offspring of a physical family. Rather, the word υἱός (huios) is also "used to describe one who depends on another or is his follower."

Since Jesus was not referring to a physical family relationship here - rather a spiritual relationship - the appropriate translation would be "devoted follower of God" or "loving servant of God."

Therefore, "son of man" is also a mistranslation. Such a phrase has absolutely no meaning. Every male on this planet is a son of a man. Therefore "son of man" is a meaningless description for a person of Jesus' stature. (Others, such as Job, David and Ezekiel were also referred to with the same syntax "son of man" in the texts of the Bible.)

The correct translation of the Greek phrase υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου given the lexicon as stated above, would be "servant of humanity." The Greek phrase τοῦ ἀνθρώπου can be translated to either "of man" or "of mankind" or "of humanity" or of the people

Therefore the Greek phrase υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου would mean that Jesus is referring to himself as the servant of humanity or the servant of the people. This, after all, is consistent with the other teachings of Jesus, namely the need for humility in spiritual life. Remember what Jesus said as he washed his disciples' feet:

“Anyone who wants to be first must be the very last, and the servant of all.” (Mark 9:35)

Yes, at times Jesus did refer specifically to himself within these roles - as loving servant of God and servant of humanity. But he is speaking to a particular audience, and telling this audience that he is the bona fide representative of God in their midst - as opposed to the institutional temple teachers of Jesus' day who were not truly representing the Supreme Being.

Is the Supreme Being impotent?

He doesn't employ one son or one savior. God has the ability to produce many many many children. Thus, God sends His messengers - his loving servants - to those lost spiritual individuals living in the physical world in every generation in an attempt to bring us back home.

And because each of God's messengers is representing God, their basic teachings must be essentially the same. They speak with one voice. This is why one can also speak of God's representative in the singular. Because it is the Supreme Being who is the ultimate Teacher.

The only way back home is to latch onto the teachings of God's messenger. This is the only way, because the only way to return to God is to re-establish our relationship with the Supreme Being, and God’s loving servants are involved in such a relationship, so they can teach us how to regain our relationship.

In the verse above, Jesus also speaks about ascending "to where he was before." Where is this? This is the spiritual realm. This indicates that Jesus descended from the spiritual realm to bring us home to God's world - the spiritual realm - where "the spirit gives life."

Returning to God and the spiritual realm is not a mechanical thing. It is not as if we can join a club or do some rituals or postures or recite some scriptures or stare at a cross and we automatically return to God. 

We must be invited into an intimate relationship with the Supreme Being by God when we are ready. This comes in the form of receiving guidance from one of His messengers - who has such an intimate relationship.

Then of course we have to then do the work necessary to change our hearts and consciousness from loving ourselves to loving God. It is an exclusive situation because it is all about loving relationships.

The Supreme Being wants us all to return to Him. But we have to make that decision first. Should we make the decision, God will direct us to one of His guides and give us the vision to understand their relationship with God. This is stated clearly by Jesus:

"no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him"

 

*Here is the translation of these statements according to the Lost Gospels of Jesus:

“Does this offend you? Then what if you see the Servant of Humanity ascend to where he was before? It is spirit that gives life; the physical body provides no benefit. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. Yet there are some of you who do not trust.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who did not believe, and who would turn him over to be persecuted. And he said, “For this reason I have taught you that no one can follow me unless they have been enabled by the Creator.” (John 6:61-65)

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

Where do Jesus' teachings come from?

This clear statement by Jesus contradicts the teachings of many sectarian institutions that claim Jesus is the Supreme Being.

Are these words, spoken by Jesus himself, not evidence enough that Jesus is God’s messenger and loving servant? Is this not clear enough that Jesus’ teachings are coming from the Supreme Being, but that Jesus is not the Supreme Being?

It is true that because Jesus is representing the Supreme Being, there is a oneness between them. This is certain. Jesus clearly states that God sent him.

For example, when an ambassador of a country represents a government, there is a oneness between the ambassador and his government.

This oneness, however, relates to the message the ambassador brings to other governments. This oneness is based upon the reality that an ambassador will convey to another government whatever his or her president wants to tell them.

But this does not mean the ambassador is the president. No one will confuse the ambassador with the president. Other governments will understand that the ambassador represents the president, but will still recognize there are two individuals.

In the same way, we must honor the relationship between Jesus and the Supreme Being. By calling Jesus the Supreme Being we are actually offending the Supreme Being by ignoring His existence. We would be offending Jesus as well because Jesus came to re-introduce us to the Supreme Being:

Then Jesus, still teaching in the temple courts, cried out, "Yes, you know me, and you know where I am from. I am not here on my own authority, but he who sent me is true. You do not know Him, but I know Him because I am from Him and he sent me." (John 7:28-29)

Again we see here that Jesus is stating that someone else has sent him, and the authority he has was given to him by someone else - the Supreme Being.

Why don't they know God?

In John 7:28-29 above, Jesus is also stating that they do not know the Supreme Being. This is why Jesus was sent to the physical world - to offer to re-introduce us to the Supreme Being.

Notice that Jesus is standing in front of them when they say this. If Jesus were God, how could he say this? Obviously, Jesus is not God.

More importantly, to ignore the very person Jesus came to re-introduce us to would be to offend both he and God.

This is why Jesus stated:

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

Thus we also see with this statement the basis for Jesus' teachings. We see that Jesus is stating that "only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven" will be returning to the spiritual realm. Why? Because this was the major element of Jesus' teachings.

He was teaching those who chose to listen about the Supreme Being and how we could return to Him. And he taught specifically that if we do the will of the Supreme Being - thus becoming His servants - then we can return to Him.

Does this mean we are slaves?

Being God's servants doesn't mean we become slaves of God. Certainly, the Supreme Being could make slaves of us anytime. He could force us to serve Him. But He doesn't. 

Rather, He gives us the choice to serve Him or not. Why?

Because love requires freedom of choice.

Each of us has the choice to love the Supreme Being or not. This is why Jesus' most important teaching was:

“ ‘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)

"If anyone chooses to do God's will, he will find out ..." (John 7-19)

"If anyone chooses to do God's will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own. He who speaks on his own does so to gain honor for himself, but he who works for the honor of the one who sent him is a man of truth; there is nothing false about him. Has not Moses given you the law? Yet not one of you keeps the law. Why are you trying to kill me?" (John 17-19)

Why don't they know who Jesus is?

The Pharisees and the high priests of the temple didn't realize that Jesus was God's messenger. Why not?

By Jesus' definition here, they do not know who Jesus is because they have not been choosing to do God's will. Nor do they know who the Supreme Being is, since they don't know who Jesus is.

They do not know Jesus because their focus has not been upon doing God's will. Their focus has been upon doing their own will. So the Supreme Being has not given them the vision to see who He is, or who Jesus is.

Jesus clarifies here how one can tell who is the representative of God:

"If anyone chooses to do God's will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own."

In other words, one must be willing to serve the Supreme Being in order to be able to see who is God's representative.

This also explains the seeming mystery of why there has been so much controversy regarding who Jesus is among many modern sectarian institutions. By Jesus' own definition here, it is because they have not been choosing to do God's will.

What is 'Moses’ law' that Jesus refers to?

It is most certainly the "first and greatest" commandment according to both Jesus and Moses (Deut. 6:5):

“ ‘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)

This is echoed by Moses' disciple and messenger of God, Joshua:

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

Because the Pharisees and temple officials surrounding Jesus were focused upon the petty rituals regulated by their institution, they had forgotten the primary instructions of Moses to love and cherish God. This was also what Jesus was teaching, and why they were trying to kill Jesus - because they didn't want to come to know and love the Supreme Being.

How applicable is this in today’s world? Perfectly. While so many modern sectarian teachers are focused upon the various rituals of their particular sect or denomination and their own salvation, they have forgotten Jesus’ central instruction on behalf of God: To love God with all our hearts, and do God’s will.

Only this will make us happy. Only this will fulfill us. Because this is our natural identity. We are spiritual, not these physical bodies.

And we were created to be the loving servant of the Supreme Being - as long as we make this choice to do so - because love requires the freedom of choice to love or not. This is why Jesus states, "If anyone chooses to do God's will...."

Why do so many claim that Jesus is God?

How could so many who claim to be followers of Jesus still claim that Jesus is the Supreme Being in the face of clear statements like this? In addition to other statements, such as:

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

Jesus is clearly stating that he isn't God. How could they misinterpret this clear statement?

Jesus defines it here: Those who don't want to do God's will also will not see Jesus for who he really is.

Because they have not and do not see who Jesus really is, they have tried to artificially prop him up by claiming that he is the Supreme Being. Because they do not see the glorious loving relationship between Jesus and the Supreme Being, they simply claim that Jesus is the Supreme Being.

Note that this is not the only clear statement Jesus makes that he is God's messenger, representative and loving servant. There are many others. And who, if Jesus was God, would Jesus have been praying to, as indicated elsewhere?

To attribute God to God's messenger is to ignore the Supreme Being Himself. This is offensive against both Jesus and God and is equivalent to idol worship. This is why Jesus also stated:

“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. 7:22)

Yet many ecclesiastical sectarian teachers today base their claim that Jesus is the Supreme Being upon one statement he made:

"I and the Father are one." (John 10:30)

However, they take this sentence out of context. Here is the full statement by Jesus:

"I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me, but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. I and the Father are one." (John 10:25-30)

This statement obviously refers to the Supreme Being as a separate individual from Jesus: "My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all..." In order for something to be given, there must be two individuals: a giver and a receiver. In order for one person to do the will of another, there must be two individuals.

So how can these two separate individuals be one then? Quite simply. Jesus explains this in his statement prior: "My teaching is not my own. It comes from Him Who sent me." They are one because Jesus is doing God's will. They are one in purpose. They are one in what is being taught. They are one in that Jesus is doing what God wants him to do.

Don't we see this every day?

When a wife goes to the bank to withdraw money, she is also withdrawing her husband's money too. When the wife signs an agreement, her husband is also bound to that agreement. This is because husband and wife are considered one in their execution of business matters. 

The wife has not become the husband. They are still two individuals. But they still have a oneness in business, and (hopefully) a oneness in purpose when it comes to the use of money.

There are many other examples of this type of oneness of purpose. There is a oneness of purpose between an ambassador and the government leader the ambassador represents. There is a oneness of purpose between the baseball player and the baseball coach. 

There is a oneness of purpose between the CEO of a company and the company's managers. In all of these instances, the individuals involved do not lose their individuality. They simply have a particular relationship that predicates having an identical purpose.

Jesus' relationship with the Supreme Being is based upon loving service: Jesus is the loving servant and messenger of the Supreme Being, and as a result, the Supreme Being has instructed Jesus to teach others on His behalf. This creates a oneness of purpose as Jesus executed this instruction.

The other point Jesus makes is that even though Moses laid down the law, and those people surrounding Jesus were supposedly following Moses' teachings (as they were Jews), they were trying to kill Jesus – someone who was teaching on behalf of the Supreme Being just as Moses was. 

"I did one miracle, and you are all astonished ..." (John 7:21-24)

"I did one miracle, and you are all astonished. Yet, because Moses gave you circumcision - though actually it did not come from Moses, but from the patriarchs - you circumcise a child on the Sabbath. Now if a child can be circumcised on the Sabbath so that the law of Moses may not be broken, why are you angry with me for healing the whole man on the Sabbath? Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment." (John 7:21-24) 

What does healing on the Sabbath have to do with circumcision?

Jesus is arguing the logic of institutional temple officials who were criticizing Jesus for healing a person on the Sabbath. Jesus is questioning them: Why do they permit circumcision on the Sabbath but not healing?

Both healing and circumcision are activities that relate to the physical body. In the case of circumcision, the issue is cleanliness. Circumcision during a time when bathing was not as available helped save men from getting infected.

This is now a proven part of the scientific record. Men who are circumcised tend to get fewer genital infections.

Healing is not that different because it also has to do with the health of the physical body. Jesus was healing people's physical bodies. This can be comparable to circumcision because of its positive effect on the health of the body.

Where does circumcision come from?

Jesus also points out that the instruction to circumcise came not from Moses, but from the patriarchs. Who are the patriarchs?

The patriarchs are Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. These are considered the preeminent messengers of God prior to Moses.

Jesus was right. We find these verses in the Book of Genesis:

[God speaking to Abraham]"This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you." (Genesis 17:10-11)

This indicates that Jesus was well-versed in the scriptures we now describe as the Old Testament. While the teachers at the Temple referred to circumcision in relation to Moses, Jesus knew the teaching preceded Moses.

Was Jesus disavowing Moses?

Jesus was in no way indicating a lack of deference to Moses. He was stating a fact, that the teaching of circumcision did not originate with Moses.

Jesus acknowledged Moses' position as God's representative repeatedly. In fact, Jesus' central teaching was also the central teaching of Moses. Here is Jesus quoting Moses:

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

Moses' student, Joshua, after Moses passed, also taught the same message:

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

In fact, all of the bona fide prophets and teachers of the Bible taught the same basic instruction, even though they also had specific instructions intended for their particular students, time and circumstance.

Why did Jesus heal people?

Jesus performed a minimal number of healings. He didn't heal everyone. He didn't open a hospital and take on the responsibility of healing everyone that was sick.

Rather, Jesus' healings were intended to increase people's faith in God. The purpose was to focus their attention on the power and authority of the Supreme Being. Jesus used his healings to project this instruction.

This is why his healings would be acceptable activities during the Sabbath. There was a spiritual purpose for them. They were not rituals.

Jesus is pointing out that these institutional temple authorities had put ritual ahead of purpose. They were not cognizant of the purpose of the instructions and the service of God's representatives.

The various rules and regulations given by the messengers of God (such as Moses, Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon, Jonah and Jesus) are meant to ultimately bring their followers closer to God. 

Yet we can easily see that some of those instructions were specific to a time and circumstance, and others were not. We can see this throughout the Bible, from the Old Testament leading up to the days of Jesus, and then amongst Jesus' disciples.

What is the purpose of God's messengers?

We can see from this chronology of teachers that the Bible is a history of the lives and teachings of God's messengers and their followers.

We can also see from the examples of Abraham, Moses, Joshua, Jacob, Isaac, Eli, David, Solomon and so many other great messengers from the Bible that each held in the highest regard, the instructions of their teacher, their teacher's teacher and so on.

Even Jesus illustrated this as he accepted initiation (baptism) from John the Baptist.

Each of these messengers from God, after receiving instructions from their teacher, presented instructions to their students, as God had empowered them to.

This is because following the teachings of God's messengers is critical to the success of our spiritual lives.

Not doing so can and has resulted in many speculative interpretations.

Hypocrisy in the name of Jesus?

The prime example of this sort of speculation is that today, many ecclesiastical sectarian teachers are teaching that we don't need a teacher because we can go directly to Jesus. Yet isn't it interesting that they need to teach us this? If they are teaching this, then they are a teacher. 

It is hypocritical to teach that a person does not need a teacher. It is also hypocritical to teach without having first been a student.

We can tell immediately that a person does not know Jesus or represent God when he gives this contradictory teaching. It means their teachings make no sense. Can we trust any other statement they may make about Jesus?

It might be said that a person with an official title of priest, minister, reverend, bishop, cardinal, or even pope should be authorized to represent Jesus and God because they were a student attended an official school and that school maintained teachers. However, are those teachers representing God or representing their respective ecclesiastical organizations?

The crux of the matter is how those teachers gained their positions of authority. These official seminaries and Bible colleges select their teachers by committee: A committee of men. This selection by committee is a political process (ecclesiastical). 

The candidate must impress the committee with their resume, credentials, reputation, interview and recommendations (who they know, in other words). This is no different from a candidate running for political office. It has nothing to do with representing God.

This is also how priests, reverends, ministers, bishops, cardinals, and popes are chosen for their respective titles or positions as teachers within a church. They are chosen by an election of a committee. In the case of Protestant churches, there is typically a church committee called the deacons. 

Once again, the candidate must impress the committee with their resume, credentials, reputation, interview and recommendations. This is a political process that does not represent God's empowerment.

Can God's representatives be elected by people?

A central reason why these sectarian organizations are hypocritical is that their teachers and officials are elected using a political process. Regardless of the type of committee, politics is always involved when a person must impress a group of people.

Again, this has nothing to do with representing the Supreme Being. For example, if a prime minister was elected by the people of Spain, could that leader represent the people of England? No. 

The elected leader can only represent those who elected him or her. In the same way, sectarian officials elected or appointed by people can only represent those who elected or appointed them. They can not represent the Supreme Being unless God chose them to represent Him.

But can't those officials elected by these committees also be chosen by God? No. Why? Because the Supreme Being is offended by a person who pretends to be His representative when they are not. 

A person who puts on the big robes, the crown, or whatever dress, and then accepts the title given by men cannot be in a position as God's representative without being empowered by the Supreme Being.

Such a person elected by men may well be a kind and considerate person. But God will never empower that person unless they abandon their fake position and go through the heart-changing process of developing a relationship with Him.

This is only logical. Let's say a person pretends they are an employee of a company when he is not. Say he goes out and sells the company's product, collects people's money, and then cannot ship the product. 

He is basically stealing the money while pretending to be part of the company. Will the company's management then hire him while he is stealing from their potential customers? Certainly not. The company would have the person arrested.

What if the fake employee quit the scam and came to the company and asked for a job? Would the company hire him? Think again. The only way they would hire him is on the condition that he gave back all the money and rectified all the lying and stealing they had done first.

As Jesus identified in a previous statement, the only way we can see who is empowered by God is if we sincerely want to do God's will. We must have the desire to do God's will in order to see who is doing God's will, as did Jesus, his disciples, John the Baptist, David, Isaac, Moses, Abraham, Solomon, Jacob, Jonah and so many others depicted in the scriptures.

This is why Jesus 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)"