"It says: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'" (Luke 4:12)

Here Jesus is answering to the devil's statement as the devil led him to Jerusalem and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. (Luke 4:9):

"If you are the Son of God," he said, "throw yourself down from here. For it is written: "'He will command his angels concerning you to guard you carefully; they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.'" (Luke 4:9-11)

As we have explained, this part of Luke is using the concept of "devil" metaphorically. Are we to believe that there is a person named the devil who is leading Jesus around and bringing him to Jerusalem and having him stand on top of the Jewish temple? Are we also to believe that such a person would know scripture well enough to quote from it as is indicated here?

If this were true, then we would also be saying that Jesus followed the devil. If the devil 'led him' this also means that Jesus was following the devil. This would mean that Jesus was not only listening to the devil, but he was following the devil around, going to Jerusalem. It means that Jesus followed the devil to the top of the temple.

Certainly, this is ridiculous. But to take the concept of the devil as a person would necessitate that Jesus would not only be following the devil around the desert, but he would be listening to him, engaging in conversation with him, and debating scripture with the devil. This is a ridiculous notion.

The fact is, the notion of the devil, as explained earlier, represents our own self-centeredness combined with our self-centered desires to enjoy within the physical realm. This is often expressed as temptation because we are tempted by our desires. It is also often expressed as the material world tempting us, because the Supreme Being set up the physical world to accommodate our self-centered desires. But those desires are connected to our self-centeredness. If we weren't focused on our own enjoyment, we would not have self-centered desires, and the physical world would not tempt us.

This doesn't mean that the Supreme Being does not have helpers who help orchestrate the various workings of the physical universe. But there is no person who challenges God's control and is responsible for all of our self-centered behavior. Each of us is responsible for our own actions.

This was clarified by Jesus in the Gospel of Mary:

Peter said to him, “As you have told us regarding everything, teach us about the other one: What is the sin of the world?”
The Savior said, “No sin exists outside of you: It is you who makes sin. When you do those things such as adultery, this is called sin." (Gospel of Mary, Verses 4-5)

What is the meaning of "devil" or "satan"?

This is reflected by the proper translation of the Greek word διάβολος (diabolos), which is being translated to "devil" in these verses. As described earlier, according to Thayer's lexicon διάβολος (diabolos) means "prone to slander, slanderous, accusing falsely;" "a calumniator, false accuser, slanderer;" and "(metaphorically) applied to a man who, by opposing the cause of God, may be said to act the part of the devil or to side with him." This last use of the word, as a metaphor, is precisely how it is being used in Luke.

There is no physical devil leading Jesus around, and Jesus is not following the devil around and allowing the devil to tempt him. Rather, what is being communicated is that Jesus, during his forty-day fast and sacrifice, was becoming purified, and was battling his own desires.

The reason "he was led" by the devil is that Jesus was dealing with the temptations offered by the physical world: Those temptations of gaining material wealth, becoming great in the eyes of others, and even using God's power for his own purposes.

Why is this being misinterpreted?

They have misused the words of scripture for their own purposes. For example, many will teach, even though Jesus clarifies it here, that we should pray to Jesus to make us wealthy, make us famous, or otherwise achieve our materialistic desires.

Some have taken this to an extreme by praying for their football team to win, or praying for money. These teachings have become very popular because they are in effect turning God into some sort of Genie who does whatever we beck and call for.

Such teachings may have made many preachers popular and wealthy, but they have misled people.

Those teachings are a perversion of scripture. Scripture teaches the exact opposite: Scripture instructs us to do God's will and worship God - not use God to fulfill our material desires. Not that the purpose of religion is to ask God to do our will.

Should we ask God to do our will?

Trying to get God to do our will is like trying to make God our servant. Rather, the teachings of Jesus and other representatives of God are teaching that we are God's servants, and we are fulfilled when we please God.

This concept - of wanting God to do our will - is related to Jesus' statement above: "Do not put the Lord your God to the test." This is because the repeated asking of God to fulfill my wishes naturally leads to testing. If a person doesn't get what they want from God when they ask for it, they will often follow with condemnation, saying that God didn't get me what I asked for so there must be something wrong with Him, or maybe He doesn't exist. This kind of approach to God is self-centered.

Jesus' quote about testing comes from one of Moses' talks with his students:

"Do not test the LORD your God as you did at Massah. Be sure to keep the commands of the LORD your God and the stipulations and decrees He has given you." (Deut. 6:16-17)

"Be sure to keep the commands of the LORD your God and the stipulations and decrees He has given you" illustrates clearly that Moses is teaching his students - and Jesus is teaching his students - that God is not our servant. We are God's servants. (Note that the detail of Jesus' forty-day fast most certainly was derived from Jesus' discussions with his disciples, who later passed this on.)

In this respect, a loving servant never tests his beloved master. The beloved master will certainly take care of his subject. To test the master would be insulting because such a test would communicate that the servant doesn't trust the master. He thinks the master is either not in control of the situation, or not caring for the servant.

This is the case with our situation. We were created as the Supreme Being's caregivers. We are His subjects, and He always takes care of us. Thus, we are not in a position to be using Him to accomplish our own goals, and we are not in a position to be testing Him as though we are so superior that we are qualified to judge God.

What is Jesus quoting?

We can also see this sentiment clearly as we delve into the verse that the metaphorical devil quoted from. The verse comes from David's Psalm 91. Here is the Psalm in its entirety:

I will say of the LORD, "He is my refuge and my fortress, my God, in whom I trust." Surely He will save you from the fowler's snare and from the deadly pestilence. He will cover you with His feathers, and under His wings you will find refuge; His faithfulness will be your shield and rampart. You will not fear the terror of night, nor the arrow that flies by day, nor the pestilence that stalks in the darkness, nor the plague that destroys at midday. A thousand may fall at your side, ten thousand at your right hand, but it will not come near you. You will only observe with your eyes and see the punishment of the wicked. If you make the Most High your dwelling--even the LORD, who is my refuge--then no harm will befall you, no disaster will come near your tent. For He will command His angels concerning you to guard you in all your ways; they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone. You will tread upon the lion and the cobra; you will trample the great lion and the serpent. "Because he loves me," says the LORD, "I will rescue him; I will protect him, for he acknowledges My Name. He will call upon Me, and I will answer him; I will be with him in trouble, I will deliver him and honor him. With long life will I satisfy him and show him My salvation." (Psalm 91:1-16)

We can understand from this our true position with respect to the Supreme Being. We are His subjects, and we should be completely trusting that He will take care of us. We do not need to be asking Him for stuff, because He is our refuge.

We also can see from David's Psalm that calling upon God and praising God's Holy Names are important aspects of gaining access to the Supreme Being. These activities connect us with the Supreme Being and allow us to take shelter in the Supreme Being.

This Psalm also requires that we know who we are when we consider that God gives us shelter. We are each spiritual beings, temporarily occupying a physical body. Each of our physical bodies was designed to feel pain, age, become ill and at some point die. It is like owning a car: At some point, the car will get old and no longer run.

While the Supreme Being will certainly protect us, we should not be thinking that by taking shelter in Him our temporary physical body will not get old, get sick and die. The Supreme Being designed these bodies as temporary vehicles and this physical world as a temporary realm. And we can see even from the lives of God's richest devoted servants - such as David and even Jesus - that every body dies. Every physical body meets death - often painfully - within the physical world.

What David is speaking of is the real me: The spiritual being who occupies and drives the physical body. This is who the Supreme Being will protect. He will protect the real me. When David says "no harm will befall you," the "you" is the spiritual person within the body.

This person can easily become lost and tormented should we become immersed in our self-centered desires and their consequences. But to take shelter in God means to rely upon Him and trust that He will deliver us from the physical world and our self-centered nature, and deliver us back to our natural position within the spiritual realm.

After the various challenges and training the physical world presents us with (to prepare us to return to the spiritual realm) are finished, we will return to Him and His children and live eternally within the community of the spiritual realm.

This is David's promise to us and it is Jesus' promise to us.

What should we ask God for?

One of the lessons of this event between the metaphorical devil and Jesus is the very concept that is being described here: Thinking that if I worship God, that my physical body will no longer feel pain. That my physical body will not get sick. Or age. Or die.

Remember that Jesus' physical body was starving after forty days of fasting in the desert. Jesus' physical body certainly was suffering. But the meaning of his sacrifice was that Jesus was condemning the value of physical pleasure. He was putting his life in God's hands. He was taking refuge in God - just as David's Psalm teaches - and he was not going to test God - as Moses teaches.

Jesus is communicating that he has come to terms with his position with respect to God. He is the Supreme Being's servant, and his goal is to do God's will. This is why Jesus later said:

"For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother." (Matt. 17:50)

Jesus' purpose is to please the Supreme Being, and do His will, because Jesus loves the Supreme Being.

And what is pleasing to the Supreme Being? God wants us back. He wants us to come home to Him. This is because God loves us, and knows that being back in His loving arms will make us happy.

This is what we should be asking God for. We should be asking Him if we can learn to love Him and return to His loving arms. This is why Jesus and Moses both taught:

"'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'" (Luke 10:27 and Deut 6:5)

"No one tears a patch from a new garment and sews it on an old one...." (Luke 5:36-39)

"No one tears a patch from a new garment and sews it on an old one. If he does, he will have torn the new garment, and the patch from the new will not match the old. And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the new wine will burst the skins, the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, new wine must be poured into new wineskins. And no one after drinking old wine wants the new, for he says, 'The old is better.'" (Luke 5:36-39)

Here is Jesus' statement from Matthew:

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

In both, this analogy by Jesus is responding to the question posed by the Pharisees:

They said to him, "John's disciples often fast and pray, and so do the disciples of the Pharisees, but yours go on eating and drinking." (Luke 5:33)

Why is Jesus discussing wineskins and sewing garments?

These are analogies. We can see by comparing the two statements that Jesus' message has nothing to do with wine or sewing. Jesus is illustrating why his specific instructions to his disciples may differ in some cases with specific instructions of John the Baptist to John's disciples, and why these may also differ from specific instructions from previous teachers such as Moses or David.

This doesn't mean their teachings were different. As we can see from Jesus' teachings, they perfectly aligned with John's teachings, Moses' teachings, and the teachings of other prophets. We can see how Jesus' teachings matched Moses when he precisely quoted Moses' most important instruction when asked which of the commandments was the most important:

"'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'" (Luke 10:27 and Deuteronomy 6:5)

And we know that Jesus' general teachings mirrored his teacher John's teachings:

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

After his baptism from John, Jesus began teaching the very same message:

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

Then Jesus also told his disciples to preach this same message to others:

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

What does this teaching mean?

This paraphrased message, 'The kingdom of heaven is near.' has been greatly misinterpreted by those teachers and their institutions who want to scare people into joining their institution by saying that this means John, Jesus, and Jesus' disciples were teaching that the end of the world is coming.

Yet even though through the centuries so many of these teachers predicted the end of the world was coming within a few years, the end of the world still hasn't come, now 2,000 years later. When will the followers of these acclaim-hungry professional teachers realize that John, Jesus, and Jesus' students were not teaching about the end of the world?

In fact, the word "near", taken from the Greek word ἐγγίζω (eggizō), does not mean "soon." It relates to closeness - being nearby. This is confirmed in the lexicon: "to bring near, to join one thing to another; to draw or come near to, to approach."

They were not teaching about the end of the world. They were teaching that the kingdom of God is nearby. God is available to us. We can reach Him easily, should we reach out to Him and re-develop our love for Him.

This interpretation is confirmed by another statement of Jesus regarding the kingdom of God (the spiritual realm):

"The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of God is within you." (Luke 17:20-21)

Being "within you" and "near" are consistent. But it is not consistent to try to twist Jesus', John's, and Jesus' disciples' words to make it seem that they were teaching that the end of the world is coming. That is simply a strategy of some institutions that seek to gain and keep followers by threatening them.

Is God available to each of us?

The bigger picture of the mention of all three - John, Jesus, and Jesus' disciples - teaching the same doctrine of God and His kingdom being available to us - is that Jesus did not go out and invent his own teaching. His teachings were consistent with his teacher John's, and John's teacher (Zechariah), and the entire lineage of teachers coming from Abraham and Moses before them.

This is also why many referred to Jesus as the υἱός (huios) of David. The Greek word υἱός (huios) has been incorrectly translated to "son" in modern New Testament versions, when in fact, the lexicon shows that it only indicates "son" "in a restricted sense, the male offspring (one born by a father and of a mother)."

The lexicon clearly identifies other uses of the word υἱός (huios), including the one applicable here: "used to describe one who depends on another or is his follower 1) a pupil." So the references to Jesus as the "son" of David, were actually referencing that Jesus came in the succession of teachers - i.e., was a "pupil" - or student - coming in line with David.

This is only logical, as there is no chance that Jesus was David's "son" - because David lived centuries prior to Jesus.

What is the meaning of patching an old garment?

This brings us to the point Jesus is making with regard to patching an old garment from a new one and putting new wine into an old wineskin.

Jesus was speaking to the point that God's representatives teach according to the time and circumstances present at the time of their teachings. Their core teachings and message do not change, but their methods and specific instructions may change according to the time and circumstances.

In other words, when someone tries to compare Jesus' specific instructions to his students to Moses' specific instructions to his students, there will be differences. Both Jesus and Moses were teaching love for God, but their specific instructions each related to the particular time and circumstances.

While we might think that there was little difference in the cultures between Moses' time and Jesus' time because they were both from antiquity, that is short-sighted. There were certainly differences in the situation and environment.

This is why, for example, Jesus did not teach the ceremonies of offering butchered animals at the altar. Rather, Jesus taught his students to make private offerings to God as he did, and he also ate no meat. This is because, during Jesus' time and circumstances, meat was not needed to keep the body alive. Judea was a rich farming region during Jesus' time, and they also had fish.

Moses' students, on the other hand, were nomads traveling through a mostly-barren region, so they required meat to survive. Moses thus sanctioned eating meat but only after it had been offered to God at the altar - on the condition it was limited to certain animals and the meat was drained of blood and carefully cooked.

Jesus also made offerings - but of loaves and fish - to the Supreme Being: Jesus' offerings have been mistranslated and misinterpreted as "blessings" but this describes Jesus' personal and private offerings to the Supreme Being as sanctioned by Moses and other teachers in Jesus' line.

There were also differences between John's specific instructions to his students and Jesus', as Jesus is responding to here: John instructed his students to fast on particular holy days in commemoration to that particular purpose - often in devotion to an earlier prophet.

But Jesus' students were traveling with him, often walking many miles between towns, where Jesus would give his sermons and speak personally to people. This was a different situation than John's, who mostly stayed in his monastery in the desert where he taught to people after those people traveled to see him.

Jesus, on the other hand, was reaching out to people by traveling to their towns and cities. Traveling by foot for many miles is not an easy chore, so Jesus and his students needed to eat and drink enough so that they'd have the energy to walk and make the arrangements in each town.

Fasting was out of the question - and could even be considered cruel - when considering that Jesus' students were walking with him from town to town in Judea - a very inhospitable region for foot travel. They were already making great sacrifices in their service to God - which is what fasting is.

Were Jesus' teachings consistent with what John the Baptist taught?

The core instructions were the same. Jesus' instruction was essentially the same as John's with regard to the purpose of his students. The purpose of their efforts was both to serve and please the Supreme Being.

Jesus was traveling through the region teaching about God to introduce others to Him. This is the ultimate service to the Supreme Being. Jesus' students were supporting that service by accompanying Jesus, and setting up places for him to stay and teach. So they were serving Jesus, who was serving God.

John's students primarily stayed at the monastery with John and supported his teachings by helping to accommodate visitors. John was also serving God, and his students supported that service. John also instructed them to fast during the holy days as part of their service.

It could be compared to two people working in two different divisions of a company. One person may be a manager on the production floor and another may be a marketing person. Despite their two different tasks, they are both working for the same company and both trying to make that company successful.

This is the same with God's loving servants and representatives. God dispatches His loving servants to work in their own way in His service, according to their skills and their particular situation, and the environment they are in. One of His servants may travel to different places while another may write, for example.

But if they are in line with the teachings of His true representatives - as Jesus and John were - their teachings will not be different. They will still teach that the only pathway to happiness is to come to know and love the Supreme Being, and then do His will in order to please Him. The only way each of us can be individually happy is if we reach out from within to our Best Friend and Beloved Master - God, who is truly near - and give Him our heart.

Their teachings were consistent because their teachings were coming from God. Jesus affirmed this as he said:

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

Did Jesus teach what many teach today?

Neither Jesus nor the Prophets taught what many modern sects are teaching today: That Jesus is God and all we have to do is accept Jesus "into our heart" and that he "died for my sins" and we are saved.

Jesus never taught this. John never taught this. Zachariah didn't teach this. David didn't teach this. Moses didn't teach this. Abraham didn't teach this. None of the bonafide representatives of the Supreme Being taught this.

So why are these institutions teaching this? Because they are not in line with the lineage of devoted representatives of the Supreme Being, as were Jesus, John, Zachariah, Solomon, Samuel, David, Eli, Joshua, Job, Moses, Abraham and Noah were.

The teachings of these institutions are inconsistent with the teachings of this great lineage of teachers that focused on the instruction that we should learn to love and devote ourselves to the Supreme Being. These teachings were consistent among all the prophets as well as Jesus and John because they each represented God and the only pathway back to the spiritual realm.

These teachings provide the only pathway to happiness because of who we truly are. We are not these temporary physical bodies and their temporary identities - which will decompose at the time of death. We are spiritual beings, and our home is the spiritual realm.

Our natural position is as one of God's caregivers. Each of us has a unique relationship with the Supreme Being. The only way to return to that relationship is to devote ourselves to the one and only Supreme Being. This is why Jesus' taught as Moses taught:

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

"Have you never read what David did ... ?" (Luke 6:3-5)

"Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? He entered the house of God, and taking the consecrated bread, he ate what is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions. The Son of man is Lord of the Sabbath." (Luke 6:3-5)

Here Jesus is responding to a question some Pharisees asked him:

"Why are you doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?" (Luke 6:2)

The background is that Jesus and his disciples were traveling, and they were walking through some grainfields. His disciples, being hungry, 'began to pick some heads of grain, rub them in their hands and eat the kernels.' (Luke 6:1)

Why does Jesus refer to David here?

Jesus was defending his disciples eating grains on the Sabbath - contrary to a devotional rite maintained by the Jewish temple priests and their followers.

In response to the Pharisees' question, Jesus compares this act to when David and his "companions" were eating food by custom permitted only for the temple priests to eat.

The point Jesus is making is that David was serving the Supreme Being directly, and this put him in a position equivalent - even superior - to a priest. And David's "companions" were actually his assistants - his students. This is confirmed by the Greek words μετά (meta) and αὐτός (autos).

While the translators of this verse have assumed μετά (meta) means "with," the lexicon clarifies that the word relates to someone or something that follows "after" or "behind." We can know from this that David's "companions" were actually his followers.

Just as Jesus' disciples were following and assisting Jesus in his mission to serve God, David also had students who were assisting him in his efforts to serve the Supreme Being.

Thus, David was permitted, in the eyes of God, to eat of the consecrated food - e.g, food that had been offered at the Altar of the Supreme Being.

Jesus compares this act to the act of his own disciples eating grain on the Sabbath because Jesus understands that his practical and direct service to the Supreme Being stood above the rituals designed to help people remember the Supreme Being.

What is the purpose of religious rites?

Remembering the Supreme Being is - or should be - the purpose of any ritualistic ceremony or sacrifice. The purpose of the rites and regulations that have descended through the teachings of God's devoted servants is devotion to God. These activities are ultimately meant to remind us of the Supreme Being - and remind us that we are ultimately God's subjects.

Practical service by His devoted servants already accomplished this objective. The actions of God's loving servants to please Him stand above the rituals because they are directly pleasing to the Supreme Being. Devoted lovers of God do not need to be reminded of their Beloved, the Supreme Being, while pushing forward on their mission to serve Him and please Him. They have already achieved the goal of any ceremonial or sacrificial rite.

Jesus' disciples were traveling by foot from town to town in Judea to assist Jesus' preaching. They were performing practical service to support Jesus' efforts to please the Supreme Being. Because they were traveling by foot, they needed to eat. They were traveling on the Sabbath, so they could not fast as others who could take the day off and not work during the Sabbath.

It didn't matter whether it was the Sabbath or not to Jesus. For Jesus, every day was dedicated to the Supreme Being. While others did other types of work on the non-Sabbath days, Jesus continued his efforts to please the Supreme Being seven days a week. He was the perfect loving servant of the Supreme Being.

What does 'the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath' mean?

This point of perfect loving servant is precisely why Jesus described himself - along with David - as the "Son of man."

Notice that Jesus does not say "I am the Lord of the Sabbath." Or even, "I, the Son of man, am the Lord of the Sabbath." Why not? 

Jesus is clearly referring to the "Son of man" in the third person. Why is that?

Is this the way people talk? Would a person come up to us and talk of themselves in the third person? Would they (assuming they were wearing a blue shirt) say: "Hello. The man wearing the blue shirt is named Sam and he is speaking with you" ? No. He would say, "Hello. I am Sam and I am pleased to speak with you."

Rather, Jesus was referring to the position of "Son of man" rather than personally to himself. Jesus had just compared his disciples eating the grain to David and David's students eating consecrated bread. So the "Son of man" was inclusive of David.

In other words, Jesus was referring to the role of "Son of man." Otherwise, it makes no sense that Jesus would suddenly take a third-person stance in his statement. When someone speaks of themselves exclusively, they say "me" or "I" - they speak in the first person.

When they mean "you" or "he" or "she" they speak in the second person. But when they speak of a person taking on a particular role, they speak in the third person, as Jesus was speaking.

Let's use an example. Let's say that an Army officer is mixing it up in the Officer's Club at the Army base. Suddenly he sees a private walking and milling around in the Officer's Club. What will he say? He will say something like: "This club is only for officers." He won't say: "This club is only for me" because that would not be true. There are other officers besides himself, so the officer discusses the role or position of officer in the third person.

This is confirmed by the fact that David also identified himself as a "Son of man:"

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

Notice that David also uses this term in the third person, once again because it is a role or position. And we know that David was speaking of himself here (despite incorrect interpretations by professional Christian teachers to the contrary), because of the context of the verse, and the previous verse:

"He is my loving God and my fortress, my stronghold and my deliverer, my shield, in whom I take refuge, who subdues peoples under me." (Psalm 144:2)

In fact, we know that others in the Old Testament were also referred to as "Son of man." Consider Job's self-description, once again in the third person:

"who (referring to himself) is but a maggot - a Son of man, who is only a worm!" (Job 25:6)

God also repeatedly addressed Ezekial as "Son of man." Here is one of the many verses:

"He [God] 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." (Ezekial 2:3)

Furthermore, we must clarify that the English phrase translated by professional translators - "Son of man" - is a misinterpretation.

What could "Son of man" possibly mean, and why would this be a distinctive title anyway? There is nothing distinctive about being a son of a man. Every man is a son of a man. Therefore, we must invalidate this translation from both the Greek and Hebrew phrases.

The Hebrew word "Son of man" is taken from two Hebrew words: בן (ben) and אדם ('adam) (or אנוש ('enowsh) - both refer to humanity). The word בן (ben) can certainly mean "son" when used in the context of a physical family. But the word can also, according to the Hebrew lexicon, refer to someone who is a follower or servant of a particular order, person or philosophy. According to the lexicon, בן (ben) can be used to describe "a member of a guild, order, class."

For example, בן (ben) was used repeatedly throughout the Old Testament to describe the Israelites - בן (ben) ישראל Yisra'el - literally translated to "sons of Israel." And this was not describing people who were necessarily descendants of Israel or born in the tribe. This is describing those who followed the philosophy of the prophet Israel.

בן (ben) was also used to describe "sons of God" multiple times, such as:

When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them the sons 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 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 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 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 of God shouted for joy? (Job 38:7)

We find the same phrase used in the New Testament:

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

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons 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 of God. (Romans 8:14)

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

These are not describing "sons" as the physical offspring, but rather, followers of God. Devotees of God. Depending upon the context, this could be translated to either "followers of God" or "devotees of God" or "servants of God" - but also (as in the case of Jesus in the singular) - "representative of God."

While certainly "son" was also used to describe physical sons in other texts of the Bible, there is a blurring of the word in other places as it was also used to describe followers or devotees. This interchangeability continues even to this day, as many institutions call their priest "father." Is the priest really their physical "father?" Certainly not. The correct address is "teacher."

As a result of this periodic mistranslation and confusion, the texts of the Bible refer to some as physical sons, when in fact, they were followers. Here is an example:

'The priests, the sons of Levi, shall step forward, for the LORD your God has chosen them to minister and to pronounce blessings in the name of the LORD and to decide all cases of dispute and assault.' (Deuteronomy 21:5)

Were all those priests - spoken of generally in this verse - the physical offspring of Levi? Certainly not. Rather, they were followers of Levi. They were in the order of Levi.

Similar periodic misinterpretations were also made in the New Testament, but this time from the Greek language (this is not a coincidence, as the Greek texts mirrored the devotional language of the Hebrew texts.)

In the New Testament the word "son" in "Son of man" and "Son of God" is coming from the Greek word υἱός (huios). Just as בן (ben) can also refer to a follower or member of an order, the Greek lexicon details that the word is "used to describe one who depends on another or is his follower. 1) a pupil" Thus just as we find many uses of בן (ben) in the Old Testament that describe followers, devotees or subjects, we also find the same uses in the New Testament. Consider for example, a statement by Jesus in Matthew:

"But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." (Matt. 8:12)

In this statement, "subjects" is being translated from the Greek word υἱός (huios) - the same word used in "son of man" and "son of God." We know that Jesus was not talking about physical "sons" of a kingdom in Matt. 8:12. He was speaking of those who follow a particular philosophy - the philosophy of materialism - the kingdom of the physical world.

In the very same way, the use of the word υἱός (huios) in the Greek phrase υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου does not refer to a physical son of a man. This would be a preposterous and meaningless title.

Rather, the words υἱός (huios) and בן (ben) in these contexts refer to service. Jesus, David, Ezekial and Job are being referred to as servants - dedicated servants. But servants of what? In υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, the Greek word τοῦ refers to "of" and the Greek word ἀνθρώπου refers to either "man" "mankind" or "humanity" - just as אדם ('adam) or אנוש ('enowsh) do.

Thus, the proper translation of υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου is not "Son of man."

It is "Servant of humanity."

Was Jesus serving humanity?

This is the appropriate title for one who assumes the role of serving all of humanity. They are trying to deliver God's message to us. They are performing a service to us, and to the Supreme Being. They are delivering a message from the Supreme Being. This is illustrated in God's instruction to Ezekiel quoted above (Ezekial 2:3).

This might be compared to a college professor who might say he is providing a service to his students, or an elected leader who says he is performing government service - to the people.

In this case, however, the service that Jesus, David, Job, and Ezekial - along with all of the prophets who have represented God - comes not from a salary or public post, but from a place of love. They are loving the Supreme Being, and thus loving all humanity - God's children. They are thus trying to bring us back to the spiritual realm, where we can be happy.

This was Jesus' service to us, and thus he is the ultimate Servant of humanity.

And this is why Jesus made a point of saying that those who assume this role of Servant of humanity on behalf of the Supreme Being, are also the "Lord of the Sabbath." They are not "Lord" as in the Supreme Being. But they are "Lord" in the context that they are above the rituals that have been ordained for us ordinary folks who need to be reminded of the Supreme Being.

Besides, Jesus was not interested in being "Lord." His interest was being God's servant and the servant of humanity. This is why he also said:

"If anyone wants to be first, he must be the very last, and the servant of all." (Mark 9:35)