Showing posts with label Serving others. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Serving others. Show all posts

“Foxes have dens and birds have nests, but the Son of Man ..." (Luke 9:58)

“Foxes have dens and birds have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head.” (Luke 9:58)

Why did Jesus say this?

Jesus stated this as he was walking along the road, after a man approached him and said the following:
“I will follow you wherever you go.” (Luke 9:57)
What did Jesus mean by his reply?

Was he trying to dissuade the follower?

And didn't Jesus sleep? Didn't he have places to sleep when he went to different towns?

Why did Jesus refer to the 'Son of Man' in the third person?

Why didn't he say "I don't have a place to lay my head"?

This is normally how people refer to themselves - in the first person. They do not typically refer to themselves in the third person. It would be like a person saying to a bank teller (assuming his name was Bill): "Bill doesn't have any money in his wallet. Can you take some money out of his account and give it to him?"

What will the bank teller do in such a situation? The teller will probably think the bank is being robbed or something. Rather, Bill would say, "I don't have any money...."

So why is Jesus referring to himself in the third person? We do know that Jesus indeed is speaking of himself - right?

Not completely. Jesus is referring to a role. We might compare this to how a company vice president might refer to the limitations of their role. They might say, for example: "The vice president doesn't have the ability to fire the president's staff." While the vice president is certainly referring to a situation involving himself, but he is referring to a limitation of his role, rather than himself directly.

What role Jesus is referring to?

The Greek phrase Jesus uses is υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου - being mistranslated to "Son of Man" - is a role. And it has particular distinctions and limitations, as Jesus is stating.

As explained previously, the Greek word υἱός is being translated to "son" can mean "son," but only "in a restricted sense, the male offspring (one born by a father and of a mother)," according to the lexicon.

Why would being a son of a man be a distinctive title? Every male is a son of a man. The expression thus makes no sense in this context.

It would be like an employee of a company going to work and saying among his workmates: "I am special because I'm an employee." The other employees would look at him and say, "That's no big deal - we're all employees!"

The lexicon also defines υἱός as "used to describe one who depends on another or is his follower." What is this?

Quite simply, there are two meanings to the word υἱός - though they are related. υἱός relates to someone who is subservient. A son is still subservient to the father, but a household servant is also subservient. During the time of Jesus, practically any household of any means had a servant. Thus the word υἱός was used often outside of the strict use of "son." In those instances, it referred to someone who was in servitude. Thus its most applicable translation in this context is "servant."

And this alternative use of the word "son" has even carried on through the centuries in its English translation, as a person of authority might frequently refer to someone who is either younger, inferior or subservient as "son" when they weren't their physical son. For example, an older owner of a company might say to one of his younger employees, "son, you will need to work harder." The employee is not the boss' son. This same use of the word "son" was also used between slave owners and their slaves in recent centuries.

The tradition of υἱός in Greek is even more defined. υἱός can be used to refer to a servant, a follower, a devotee, a subject and otherwise in a subservient position. This is reflected by Jesus' own statements using υἱός in these statements - all translated to "subjects" in the 1984 NIV:
"And if I drive out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your subjects drive them out? So then, they will be your judges." (Matt. 12:27)

Jesus replied, "The subjects of this age marry and are given in marriage." (Luke 20:34)
"They are God's servants, since they are subjects of the resurrection." (Luke 20:36)
In fact, the various ecclesiastical translators of these verses have had a tough time with the translation of υἱός in these cases. For example, for Luke 20:34, the 1984 New International Version translates υἱός to "subjects" as above, while the 2010 NIV translates the word to "people." Meanwhile the King James Version translates it to "children" and the New King James Version translates it to "sons" - "The sons of this age..."

The above examples are only a few of the hundreds of times the word is used in the New Testament - used to describe both a literal "son" and those in some sort of subservient position.

In fact, we can see that Jesus himself equates this word υἱός to "servant" in Luke 20:36 above.

Now let's put this together with the rest of the phrase, τοῦ ἀνθρώπου. The word τοῦ means "of." There is no debate with its current translation.

But the word ἀνθρώπου - being translated to "man" - is best translated to either "mankind" or "humanity" - as "humanity" refers to people of both sexes.

So this means that the most appropriate translation of the Greek phrase υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, and the role Jesus was referring to, is: "Servant of the people" or "Servant of Humanity."

What is a servant of the people?

Just think about it. Government workers will often refer to themselves as "civil servants" for the same reason - they see themselves as a servant of the people.

This is the meaning of Jesus' reference, but there is a deeper context. He is not talking about serving people's physical bodies, as a government civil servant might. Jesus is referring to people's spiritual lives.

Jesus is serving humanity by bringing us the teachings of love for God.

This use of servant of humanity, in fact, has an even older tradition, and this is what Jesus was alluding to. We find the reference - again incorrectly translated to "son of man" - used for at least three of the prophets of the Old Testament: Job, David, and Ezekial.

David said as he referred to himself:
"O Lord, what is man that you care for him, the son of man [servant of humanity] that you think of him?" (Psalm 144:3)
While many interpreters have tried to say this is referring to Jesus, there is no evidence of this, in fact, throughout David's prayer here he is referring to himself and his relationship with God, and his being grateful for the Supreme Being caring for him.

Job also referred to himself in this manner as he addressed the Supreme Being:
"how much less man, who is but a maggot - a son of man [servant of humanity], who is only a worm!" (Job 25:6)
Certainly, this is a self-reference by Job. Or would they be suggesting that Job is referring to Jesus as a worm? Hardly. Job is referring to himself in a humble manner.

Then we find that God Himself repeatedly used this reference as he addressed Ezekial. In fact, God used this reference to Ezekial over thirty times as He was giving him instructions. Here is one of them:
"He [God] said to me, "Son of man [servant of humanity], stand up on your feet and I will speak to you."" (Ezekial 2:1)
and
"He [God] said: "Son of man [servant of humanity}, 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)
Thus there is a great tradition for the use of this term as a humble subservient role. And Jesus was indeed using this role as a humble self-reference as he considered his position with humility, comparing even to birds and foxes [using the translation to Servant of Humanity]:
“Foxes have dens and birds have nests, but the Servant of Humanity has no place to lay his head.”
We also find that Jesus understood the meaning of service to humanity, as he said plainly to his students:
"Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant." (Mark 10:43)

Was Jesus teaching us about humility?

We can see that in Luke 9:58, Jesus is quite plainly referring to himself in a humble manner, as a servant of humanity. This is why Jesus makes this reference in the third person: Because it is not only about him. It is about the role he has taken on to serve others. And Jesus recognizes that others before him have taken this role, and he is acknowledging that he is following in that role.

And as Jesus is accepting this role, he is also commenting to the potential follower about what is to come for him if he decides to follow Jesus: A life of service.

Jesus was indicating to the potential follower that following him would not be following someone who could offer him the luxuries of a comfortable bed or comfortable life. Jesus was leading an austere life dedicated to helping others. He was working in the capacity of servant to others and as such, was traveling from town to town, with no home to rest at.

And Jesus could not offer the potential follower a room at the temple, as the Temples could offer their priests-in-training, along with meals, and eventually salaries as they gained their priesthood. Jesus could not offer any of this. The only thing he could offer the potential follower was a life of service.

But this is the key to spiritual life and our return to the spiritual realm. You see, the Supreme Being created us to be His loving servants. We were created to give the Supreme Being pleasure, within a loving service relationship. This is our identity: loving servant. This means that those who live within the spiritual realm are joyful and fulfilled as they serve the Supreme Being - the Perfect Person. When He is pleased, they are happy.

This is the opposite of our situation here. Here in the physical world, we are focused upon our own pleasure. We seek to make ourselves happy at any expense, and often at the expense of others' suffering or at least inconvenience. Here we are out for ourselves. This is because we rejected our natural position as God's servant. We didn't want to serve. We wanted to be served.

So God sent us to the physical world where we took on these temporary physical bodies so we could chase around our self-centered goals of making ourselves happy. Why? Because love requires freedom. As He created us, He also gave us the freedom not to love Him.

Are we servants by nature?

And herein lies the rub. In order to return to our natural position within the spiritual realm, we have to engage in a life of service. We have to begin resuming our natural position in order to return to that natural position.

The evidence that this is our natural position is clear: When others serve us, we feel empty. But when we serve others, we feel better. This is why even the most wealthy people - after a life of having everyone serve them - want to serve others by doing charitable works. This is because serving feels better. It feels better to serve because this is our natural position: loving servants.

And this is why people often say, "'Tis better to give than to receive."

But serving others does not completely fulfill us. This is because we were created to serve the Supreme Being. He is our Perfect Person - the person we each have been searching for throughout our lives. He is the one that if we serve and please - we feel complete fulfillment.

But because God loves us so, a true servant of God will also try to serve His children - spiritually.

And Jesus was in this position. He was the Supreme Being's perfect loving servant. He had dedicated his life to pleasing God by teaching love for God to anyone who was interested. And for this service to God, Jesus also assumed that exalted state he referred to himself in the third person as the "Servant of Humanity."

And just what was Jesus' service to humanity? To save humanity through his teachings. And what was Jesus' most important teaching?
“‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment." (Matt. 22:37-38)

"You also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come ..." (Luke 12:39-40)

"But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what hour the thief was coming, he would not have let his house be broken into. You also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him." (Luke 12:39-40)

Is this a doomsday prophesy?

That is a misinterpretation of Jesus' statement. The notion that Jesus was speaking of some kind of end of the world scenario where he would come riding over the clouds, swooping down to kill everyone except those who are members of their organization is a doctrine intended to scare people into joining those sects that teach this.

It certainly is a great membership recruitment strategy. Just threaten everyone who isn't a member that they will be slaughtered when the end of the world comes. And just in case there is any doubt about when the end of the world is coming - new predictions come out every year or two.

Yes, the necessary part of such a strategy is to convince everyone that this end of the world scenario is coming soon - very soon - perhaps this year, or even in a month or two.

How do we know this doomsday prophesy is false?

We know this 'end of the world' teaching is false because it has been taught for centuries and yet still the end of the world has not come.

In fact, sectarian teachers have been threatening us with this end of the world scenario for at least 17 centuries now. And the end of the world still hasn't come. Just consider the many preachers, priests, cardinals, popes, and founders of sects who have inaccurately predicted the end of the world:

Hilary of Poitiers: 365 AD (predicted doomsday date)
Martin of Tours: 375 to 400 AD (predicted doomsday date)
Hydatius (Bishop of Aquae) 482 AD (predicted doomsday date)
Sextus Julius Africanus: 500 AD (predicted doomsday date)
Hippolytus of Rome: 500 AD (predicted doomsday date)
Beatus of Leibana: 793 AD (predicted doomsday date)
Gregory of Tours: 799 to 800 AD (predicted doomsday dates)
Thiota: 847 AD (predicted doomsday date)
Pope Sylvester II: 1000 AD (predicted doomsday date)
Gerard of Poehlde: 1147 AD (predicted doomsday date)
John of Toledo: 1179 AD (predicted doomsday date)
Joachim of Fiore: 1205 AD (predicted doomsday date)
Pope Innocent III: 1284 AD (predicted doomsday date)
Joachimites: 1290 and 1335 AD (predicted doomsday dates)
Jean de Roquetaillade: 1368 and 1370 AD (predicted doomsday dates)
Amaldus de Villa Nova: 1378 (predicted doomsday date)
Thomas Muntzer: 1525 AD  (predicted doomsday date)
Johannes Stoffler: 1524 AD (predicted doomsday date)
Hans Hut (Anabaptist): 1528 AD (predicted doomsday date)
Melchior Hoffman (Anabaptist): 1533 AD (predicted doomsday date)
Jan Matthys (Anabaptist): 1534 AD (predicted doomsday date)
Martin Luther (Augustinian monk): 1600 AD (predicted doomsday date)
Christopher Columbus: 1658 AD (predicted doomsday date)
Joseph Mede: 1660 AD (predicted doomsday date)
Sabbatai Zevi: 1648 and 1666 AD (predicted doomsday dates)
Fifth Monarchists: 1666 and 1673 AD (predicted doomsday dates)
Benjamin Keach (Baptist): 1689 AD (predicted doomsday date)
Pierre Jurieu: 1689 AD (predicted doomsday date)
John Mason (Anglican): 1694 AD (predicted doomsday date)
Johan Heinrich Alsted (Calvinist): 1694 AD (predicted doomsday date)
Cotton Mather (Puritan): 1697, 1716 and 1736 AD (predicted doomsday dates)
Henry Archer (Fifth Monarchist): 1700 AD (predicted doomsday date)
Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa: 1700 to 1734 AD (predicted doomsday dates)
Camisards: 1705 and 1708 AD (predicted doomsday dates)
William Whitson: 1736 AD (predicted doomsday date)
Emanuel Swedenborg (Lutheran): 1757 AD (predicted doomsday date)
The Shakers (Ann Lee): 1792 and 1794 AD (predicted doomsday dates)
Cardinal Pierre d'Ailly: 1789 AD (predicted doomsday date)
Charles Wesley (Methodist): 1794 AD (predicted doomsday date)
Christopher Love (Presbyterian): 1805 AD (predicted doomsday date)
Margaret McDonald: 1830 AD (predicted doomsday date)
Joseph Smith (Mormon): 1832 and 1891 AD (predicted doomsday date)
Johann Albrecht Bengel (Lutheran): 1846 AD (predicted doomsday date)
John Wesley (Methodist founder): 1836 AD (predicted doomsday date)
William Miller (Millerites founder): 1843 and 1844 AD (predicted doomsday dates)
George Rapp (Harmony Society founder): 1847 AD (predicted doomsday date)
Harriet Livermore: 1847 AD (predicted doomsday date)
Ellen White (Seven Day Adventists): 1850, 1856 and "early 1900s" AD (predicted doomsday dates)
John Cumming: 1862 AD (predicted doomsday date)
Joseph Morris (Mormon): 1862 AD (predicted doomsday date)
John Wroe (Christian Israelite Church): 1863 AD (predicted doomsday date)
Jonas Wendell and other Adventist preachers: 1863, 1874, 1870 AD (predicted doomsday dates)
Mother Shipton: 1881 AD (predicted doomsday date)
Wovoka (Ghost Dance): 1890 AD (predicted doomsday date)
Catholic Apostolic Church: 1901 AD (predicted doomsday date)
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (Jehovah's Witnesses): 1914, 1915, 1918, 1920, 1925, 1941, 1975, 1994 and others more recent. (predicted doomsday dates)
Margaret Rowen (Seventh-Day Adventist): 1920 AD (predicted doomsday date)
Spencer Perceval (Catholic Apostolic Church): 1926 AD (predicted doomsday date)
Wilbur Glenn Voliva: 1935 AD (predicted doomsday date)
Herbert Armstrong (Worldwide Church of God founder): 1936 AD (predicted doomsday date)
Florence Houteff (Branch Davidians): 1959 AD (predicted doomsday date)
Johann Bischoff (New Apostolic Church): 1951 and 1960 AD (predicted doomsday dates)
Jim Jones (People's Temple cult): 1967 AD (predicted doomsday date)
George Williams (Church of the Firstborn): 1969 AD (predicted doomsday date)
Herbert Armstrong (Worldwide Church of God): 1972 AD (predicted doomsday date)
John Wroe (Christian Israelite Church): 1977 AD (predicted doomsday date)
William Branham (evangelist): 1977 AD (predicted doomsday date)
Chuck Smith (Calvary Chapel): 1981 AD (predicted doomsday date)
Pat Robertson (evangelist): 1982 and 2007 AD (predicted doomsday dates)
Lester Sumrall (Pentecostal): 1985 AD (predicted doomsday date)
Edgar Whisenant: 1988 AD (predicted doomsday date)
Elizabeth Clare (Summit Lighthouse): 1990 AD (predicted doomsday date)
Rollen Stewart: 1992 AD (predicted doomsday date)
David Berg (The Family): 1993 AD (predicted doomsday date)
Harold Camping: 1994, 1995, 2011 AD (predicted doomsday date)
Ronald Weinland (Church of God): 2011 and 2012 AD (predicted doomsday date)
Aggai: 1997 AD (predicted doomsday date)
Marshall Applewhite (Heavens Gate cult): 1997 AD (predicted doomsday date)
Archbishop James Ussher: 1997 AD (predicted doomsday date)
James Gordon Lindsay (Christ for the Nations): 1999 AD (predicted doomsday date)
Jerry Falwell (evangelist): 2000 AD (predicted doomsday date)
Ed Dobson: 2000 AD (predicted doomsday date)
Lester Sumrall: 2000 AD (predicted doomsday date)
Jonathan Edwards (Congr. Protestant): 2000 AD (predicted doomsday date)
David Meade: 2017 and 2018 AD (predicted doomsday dates)

Yes, all of these predictions were wrong. Should we now believe their next doomsday prediction? And what about those people Jesus is speaking to here? Doomsday didn't happen during their lifetime. So was Jesus making a false prediction for them too?

No. The reality is that Jesus is not predicting the end of the world as all those above did. It is a misinterpretation and a misunderstanding of the meaning of Jesus' statement and parable.

What is Jesus talking about then?

Jesus is speaking of the time of death of the physical body. The "house" symbolizes the physical body and the possessions of the house represent the things of the physical world - which include wealth, possessions, honor, reputation, fame, accomplishments, family and so on.

The "owner of the house" represents the spirit-person who dwells within the body. This is our identity, as each of us is spiritual by nature - not these physical bodies. Just as the owner of the house is not the house, each of us is not our physical body.

And the "thief" Jesus is discussing represents the death of the physical body. When the physical body dies, everything in the physical world is taken from us. We lose our name, our reputation, our wealth, our family, everything. Everything is lost in one moment.

This is because each of us - the spirit-person who occupies this temporary body - leaves the physical body at the time of death. We leave it behind, and it begins to decompose.

And the reason why the owner of the house does not know when the thief will come is because the thief represents the time of death - and none of us knows in advance when we will die. It comes as a surprise - even for someone who is condemned to death from a disease or by punishment.

The moment of death is never completely known until it happens. The moment of death arrives when the spirit-person leaves the physical body.

This fact has been proven scientifically by studies of hundreds of thousands of individuals who have died clinically and were revived later and describe leaving their physical body and looking down at it. Many accurately describe what was going on around their body even though their physical body's eyes were closed and their face covered.

How could they have described the events taking place around their dead body if they hadn't left the physical body? In fact, there are so many of these cases - now counting into the millions - that it is an understood medical fact that we leave the physical body at the time of death. There can be no other rational and scientific alternative explanation.

What about the Son of Man coming?

"the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him"

Why is Jesus speaking in the third person as he says this? If it were he and he only, why doesn't he say, "I will come at an hour when you do not expect me"?

Wouldn't this be logical? How many people speak of themselves - especially if it is themselves only - in the third person?

This would be akin to a person named Bob saying to someone at the table:

"Can you please pass Bob the peas?" Certainly, he would never say this. Rather, he would say, "Can you please pass me the peas?"

But now if the person is describing a role, rather than himself specifically, this is understandable. Consider, for example, a sergeant announcing to a squadron of troops:

"When you wake up in the morning, the sergeant will be in the barracks with you."

So does this mean that this sergeant person - who is saying this - will be there with each of the men? Certainly, if he is the sergeant of a particular company, he may be there with those troops in their barracks. But if the sergeant is not the sergeant of that particular troop - as 'sergeant' is a role occupied by many - then the particular sergeant who said this statement would not be there - another sergeant will be there in their barracks.

In other words, Jesus is indicating that the "Son of Man" is a role, not simply himself only.

This is confirmed by the fact that David referred to himself as the "son of man" (Psalm 80:17) and so did Job (Job 25:5-6) - and Daniel (Daniel 8:16-18) was called the "son of man" - and God called Ezekiel the "son of man" at least 60 times in the Book of Ezekiel.

What is a "Son of Man"?

The fact is, this is a mistranslation. The phrase, "son of man" has virtually no meaning. Every male is a son of a man. Therefore, it is a ridiculous notion that such a significant role would be translated to "son of man." Only those who don't understand what the role is all about could utilize such an empty phrase. The Greek phrase translated to "son of man" is:
υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου
The word υἱὸς can only mean "son" when speaking of a parent-child relationship, which, according to the lexicon, is "restricted." Otherwise, the word means, according to the lexicon, "used to describe one who depends on another or is his follower."

This would make this word - depending on its context - a follower or servant.

The word ἀνθρώπου is being translated to "man" but this is also a limited translation, as the word relates to "a human being, whether male or female" but also "generically, to include all human individuals" - which means the appropriate translation is "humanity" or "the people."

And the word τοῦ means "of" or "for"

This means the most appropriate translation of the phrase υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου would be 'servant of humanity' or 'servant of the people'.

This context is confirmed, as Jesus specifically taught the need of those who represent the Supreme Being and teach to others to be the servant of others, as he told his students:
"Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant" (Matt. 20:26)

What is a servant of humanity or servant of the people?

From the scriptures - from the ascriptions to David, Daniel, Job, and Ezekiel, and from Jesus' descriptions - we know that the "servant of humanity" is specifically the loving servant of the Supreme Being.

But we know that this particular loving servant of the Supreme Being has a special task. He is sent into the world by the Supreme Being to save others. This is why God said to Ezekiel:
“Son of man [servant of humanity], prophesy against Gog and say: ‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says ..." (Ezekiel 39:1)
Thus we find specifically that God is suggesting that Ezekiel represent Him, and carry His message to others. This means Ezekiel is serving others that message. Jesus also confirmed himself in the same role as God's messenger:
“My teaching is not my own. It comes from the One who sent me." (John 7:16)
Note that the Supreme Being has unlimited numbers of loving servants, who perform all types of service to the Supreme Being. Some provide personal service to God, while others provide other types of services.

But a "servant of humanity" provides a particular type of service to God - that of being God's messenger - which is ultimately a service to all of humanity.

Why? Because the Supreme Being is calling us back to Him. He is wanting us to return to our eternal loving service relationship with Him.

He wants us to be happy. Currently, those of us in the physical world living within these temporary physical bodies are empty and alone without our relationship with Him. No matter how many people surround us, we are lonely without our relationship with Him. This is why everyone searches for their "soul mate" in this lifetime. We are searching for a "soul mate" because we know innately that there is someone special for us. There is someone meant for us to love and give our lives to.

Do we have a soul mate?

Yes. God is our Soul Mate. He is the One we have been looking for to love and give our lives to.

But because we are chasing after our self-centered desires within the physical world we have forgotten our relationship with the Supreme Being. In fact, God has arranged for us to forget Him. This is because we wanted to get away from Him, so He simply accommodated our desire to leave Him, and forget Him.

But like the perfect loving person He is, He never gives up on us. He knows that we can only be happy when we return to Him. So He sends some of His loving servants to us to re-introduce us to Him and bring us back to Him.

Let's use an example. Let's say that we have a friend who is a friend of the President of the U.S. And say this friend wants to introduce us to the President. How does this happen?

The friend of the President might invite us to a dinner at the White House. If we decide to come, what will happen? When we are ready to go to the White House dinner, our friend will arrange for a limo to pick us up, and then he will be there at the White House entrance to welcome us so that he can escort us into the White House and introduce us to the President right?

Such a friend would never just invite us to the White House and then leave us on our own to figure out how to get in. In that case, should we try to get in to the White House, the secret service people would probably arrest us?

But such a person - who invites us to the White House - could not act on his own and just invite people. They would need to make sure the President is okay with his inviting us. The President would likely have us vetted to make sure we were prepared to come to the White House - and we weren't some kind of a weirdo.

And it would be the President's authority that would allow our friend to order the limo and make the arrangements to get us into the White House. Our friend's authority to get us into the White House would ultimately be coming from the President, and only because our friend was a friend of the President. Right?

This is also the role of such a servant of humanity who invites others back home to their relationship with the Supreme Being. The servant of humanity works on behalf of the Supreme Being to carry God's message to others, and then advocates for his follower about God. And then becomes available at the time of the prepared follower's death to escort the person back home to the spiritual realm.

Of course, this is not a physical thing. While our minds want to interpret everything on the physical level, and the symbolism used here and used by Jesus is meant to help a person understand a spiritual concept with the physical mind - the point is that for those who follow God's representative - he will advocate for them and then be there to escort them back to the spiritual realm at their time of death. This advocacy element was confirmed by Jesus as he spoke to his followers:
"And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever—" (John 14:16)

Who is the 'another advocate'?

This "another advocate" is described in the next verses, as the Holy Spirit, who will remain with Jesus' followers after he was to leave them physically. But then we find here and elsewhere that Jesus stated that he would return to them at the time of death, because of his role as servant of humanity.

Of course, no one is forced to follow God's representative. God gives complete freedom, because love requires freedom.

But for those who choose to follow God's representative, the servant of humanity will be there at the time of death for his followers - to escort his follower back to the spiritual realm where they are reunited with their relationship with the Supreme Being.

Yes - the spiritual realm is a personal place. It is a place of relationships. It is not as though someone is tossed into some void or blurry zone to float around. The spiritual realm is full of relationships. These relationships are all related to the Supreme Being - and each of us has a unique relationship with the Supreme Being.

And God's representative - empowered by the Supreme Being as Jesus was, and thus authorized by Him - will appear before those who follow him, at the time of death, to escort them back to their relationship with God.

This is why Jesus utilized the word ἔρχομαι (erchomai) - translated to "is coming." This word can mean "to come," but also means "to appear" and "make one's appearance" according to the lexicon.

Thus the more appropriate translation of Luke 12:40, as Jesus describes their coming time of death, would be:
"You also must be ready, because the Servant of humanity will appear at an hour when you do not expect him."

"You hypocrites! Doesn't each of you on the Sabbath ..." (Luke 13:15-16)

"You hypocrites! Doesn't each of you on the Sabbath untie your ox or donkey from the stall and lead it out to give it water? Then should not this woman, a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan has kept bound for eighteen long years, be set free on the Sabbath day from what bound her?" (Luke 13:15-16)
Jesus, having cured a woman of her infirmity, was responding to a temple official. Here is what Jesus is responding to:
Indignant because Jesus had healed on the Sabbath, the synagogue leader said to the people, "There are six days for work. So come and be healed on those days, not on the Sabbath." (Luke 13:14)

Why did the synagogue leader say this?

What would make the temple official so upset that Jesus healed a woman on the Sabbath?

Envy. Yes, it is envy that lies at the heart of such an offensive statement. Instead of feeling compassion for the woman and elation that God's representative had healed her of her affliction, the temple leader was envious. He was envious because he wanted to be the guy who performed the miracle. The synagogue leader wanted to be the one who was admired. He wanted to be the center of attention, not Jesus.

So instead of being thrilled about Jesus' miracle, he decided to criticize it. He had to find some fault in Jesus' act of mercy. He had to find something to be critical of - so he chose to criticize Jesus' doing this on the Sabbath.

If it wasn't that, he would have found fault otherwise in Jesus' act. This is the characteristic of someone who is envious.

What is envy?

Envy is rooted in the desire to be on top. The desire to be number one. We find this is actually a common characteristic among those of us living in the physical world. We want to be superior. We want to be the master.

This is why we in the material world strive to be champions. We want to be the hero. The gold-medal winner. The Olympic champion. The rock star. The Emmy-award-winning actor or actress. The CEO. The president. Whatever position we may choose to play out our desire to be number one.

Wanting to be number one is rooted in the desire to be the master. And this is ultimately rooted in our underlying rejection of the Supreme Being.

Once we rejected God as our Best Friend and Soulmate, we became envious of Him. This is why we are here in the material world, away from the Supreme Being, occupying these temporary physical bodies.

Is this why we are away from God?

Envy automatically separates us from the Supreme Being. That's because envy and love are like oil and water - they don't mix because they are diametrically opposed to each other.

The Supreme Being - the Source of everything - is full of love. Therefore, someone who becomes envious automatically becomes separated from the Supreme Being.

In love, each person wants to please the other. Each person wants to serve the other. But in envy, a person wants to be better than the other. It is a completely opposite consciousness.

Once we felt like this, we were separated from God. We no longer shared our love with God. We suddenly wanted to be master. We wanted to be the center.

So the Supreme Being - in His ultimate wisdom and compassion - gave us the opportunity to pretend to be the center. He created this physical universe and these physical bodies so that we could be separate from Him and play out our fantasies of being number one. Being the most important person - which of course who God is.

Once we achieved this separation, we created so many different games, events, positions, and criteria so each of us would have an opportunity to claim the position of being number one - in something. This can range from the most difficult of challenges - such as an Olympic athlete or a president - to easier methods such as winning one race or event or getting a blue ribbon at a fair. Or perhaps becoming a supervisor at work. Or perhaps being the big priest or reverend at a church - or the synagogue leader as this man who offended Jesus was.

And even if we don't make it to the top of a particular position or event, we can still imagine ourselves in the number one position as we become a parent or we get a pet, or otherwise. Thus we can become the master of a child or a pet - ordering them around and telling them what to do and so on.

Are these positions real?

If we sit back for a second and think about it, we can realize immediately that our claimed position as number one - in something - is temporary. It is a fantasy.

All of these roles pretending to be the champion were all ultimately designed by the Supreme Being to allow us to play out our fantasies of being number one.

But in order to do this, He had to create a virtual platform - away from our actual spiritual identities. Each of us is a  spiritual being - from the spiritual realm. We are not these temporary physical bodies. Our composition is spiritual and our innate identity is connected to our specific loving relationship with God.

This means in order to play out our fantasies of being number one, He had to create virtual identities for us - within a virtual world. This might be compared to how a person might escape to the virtual world of a video computer game. The game also allows us to take on a virtual identity - an icon or "avatar" - allowing us to immerse within the virtual game environment.

This also takes place when we are dreaming. This is a further virtual environment, allowing us to escape into a fantasy land in order to play out our more ridiculous fantasies.

But the physical world is more 'real' than these two examples. The physical body is real in the sense that it is made of molecules and light, whereas the video game is made of computer graphics and the dreamscape is made of mental images.

But all of these facilities present the same opportunity - all created by the ultimate designer and programmer, the Supreme Being. They each allow us to play out our fantasies of being number one.

But in His wisdom, the Supreme Being also created this physical world with many lessons that go along with the fantasies. These lessons allow for the opportunity for us to be rehabilitated at the same time. The goal, of course, is to allow us the opportunity to return to the spiritual realm and resume our actual identities - our spiritual identities - which are complete with spiritual love and happiness.

How does He impart these lessons?

Just think about it for a second. Just think about all the trials and tribulations that accompany our attempts to achieve a goal of being in some kind of number one position:

Just consider a person who wants to win at an Olympic event. Such a person will have to train for many years prior and undergo painful injuries and/or traumas as they climb to the top. Each of these presents lessons: Lessons that indicate that we actually are not really number one. Lessons that show us that we are each, in fact, inferiors: servants, not masters.

In other words, in order to reach the so-called number one spot, we will have to become a servant. We will have to serve the body through training. Or if we want to be a movie star, we will have to serve the movie directors and executives. Then later we will have to serve our fans by posing and doing other things to remain popular.

And if we want to be a business tycoon - a CEO - we will have to start by serving our bosses and customers, and then later, serving board members and stockholders. And if we want to be president, we will have to start off by serving smaller communities as councilmen or mayor, while serving the interests of those businesspeople who give us campaign money.

Even if we want to be the number one in a family by having children, or even by having a dog or cat - we will still have to serve. In these supposed number one positions we will need to serve the children by feeding them and changing their diapers and then working to bring in their food and education and so on. And if it is a pet, we will need to serve them by feeding them every day for the rest of their lives, along with picking up their poop every day.

Yes - is this not only ironic but poetic justice and hilarious at the same time? That we set out to be superior - number one - and we simply end up in our innate position as servant. We never actually achieve any number one status. We just end up serving people in order to maintain a position we once imagined for ourselves.

Even one of the ultimate 'number one' men of our materialistic society - the founder of the Playboy enterprise - illustrates this. After so many years of pretending to be the 'number one' guy with all his friends surrounding him and supposedly serving him: He actually ended up having to serve the young wives and girlfriends that demanded his time and devotion to them. He found himself serving some of the very same 'friends' he thought he had arranged to serve him. He also ended up serving customers, investors and family members. And near the end of his body's life, he had to serve his body in a struggle to keep it alive  - which ultimately failed.

What is the primary lesson?

The primary lesson in this is obvious: We are not number one. We are not master. We are not the playboy. We are not the top dog. Whether we are wearing the body of a male or female, we will never be in charge. 

Regardless of our attempts to be master, we will each have to become servants and caregivers. Even the most famous rock star or movie star must cater to (serve) their fans.

This illustrates that whether by choice or not, we are caregivers by nature. We are not in charge here or anywhere. We were created to be caregivers.

We see here that Jesus considered himself in this way. With his statement regarding giving water to the ox or donkey - he is indicating service. He is indicating that one must be a servant or caregiver. And this is precisely what he was doing with the woman. He was being of service. He was helping her - which is service.

By his own omission, Jesus clarified his role as servant of the Supreme Being:
"-for I seek not to please myself but Him who sent me." (John 5:30)
"For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me." (John 6:38)
And he wanted those who followed him to also understand their role as servants:
"The greatest among you will be your servant." (Matt. 23:11)