"Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard ..." (Luke 7:22-23)

When the men came to Jesus, they said, "John the Baptist sent us to you to ask, 'Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?' " At that very time Jesus cured many who had diseases, sicknesses and evil spirits, and gave sight to many who were blind. So he replied to the messengers, "Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor. Blessed is anyone who does not stumble on account of me." (Luke 7:22-23)

Why did John's followers ask Jesus this?

John the Baptist had many followers, and he was inquiring whether Jesus was the great Messiah that was expected to emerge. This was seemingly John's expectation. At the time of John, there were predictions - and communications from angels - that a great teacher would emerge. But then we also know that John was a great teacher, and this was predicted to John's father:

Then an angel of the Lord appeared to him, standing at the right side of the altar of incense. When Zechariah saw him, he was startled and was gripped with fear. But the angel said to him: "Do not be afraid, Zechariah; your prayer has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you are to call him John. He will be a joy and delight to you, and many will rejoice because of his birth, for he will be great in the sight of the Lord. He is never to take wine or other fermented drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even before he is born. He will bring back many of the people of Israel to the Lord their God." (Luke 1:11-16)

So while John was seemingly awaiting a great teacher, he himself was already a great teacher. He had converted so many and taught the truth to so many people.

What was the relationship between Jesus and John the Baptist?

This relates directly to John and Jesus' relationship. Were they peers? No. John baptized Jesus. What does this mean? It means that John was Jesus' teacher. How do we know this?

Besides having traveled many miles to hear John the Baptist preach by the river Jordan, and then having received baptism from John, once John was imprisoned, Jesus began to teach precisely what John was preaching before him. How do we know this?

Consider these three verses:

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

From that time on [after Jesus had heard of John's imprisonment] Jesus began to preach, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near." (Matt. 4:17)

Jesus instructed his own disciples to teach the same teaching:

"Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel.As you go, preach this message: 'The kingdom of heaven is near.'" (Matt. 10:5-7)

(Note: The above verses are from the 1984 New International Version 1984. The 2008 NIV changed "is near" to "has come near." Both are translated from the Greek word ἐγγίζω eggizō, which means "to bring near" and "to draw or come near to" - the meaning is discussed here.)

While this is simply an element of their teachings, it illustrates that Jesus was carrying on John's teachings, and he asked his students to pass on the same teachings. The takeaway point is that Jesus was passing on John's teachings, and Jesus' students were also passing on John's teachings.

This illustrates that just as Jesus' disciples were students of Jesus, Jesus was a student of John the Baptist.

Why did John send his disciples to ask Jesus this?

"John the Baptist sent us to you to ask, 'Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?' " (Luke 7:20)

On its surface, this translation seems to imply that John the Baptist was awaiting the arrival of the Messiah, and sent his disciples to find out whether Jesus was the Messiah - despite the fact that John supposedly already knew this when he baptized Jesus.

Jesus' answer seems to affirm this notion, as Jesus mentions his miracles performed.

But is this really what the question was, and what the answer was? Was John the Baptist, who baptized Jesus prior to this - and thus should already have known - really wondering if Jesus was the Messiah?

Let's consider what is written concerning John prior to this event:

The people were waiting expectantly and were all wondering in their hearts if John might possibly be the Messiah. John answered them all, "I baptize you with water. But One who is more powerful than I will come, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. His winnowing fork is in His hand to clear His threshing floor and to gather the wheat into His barn, but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire." And with many other words John exhorted the people and proclaimed the good news to them. (Luke 3:15-18)

The assumption here is that John is speaking of Jesus. But read this again. Are we sure this is Jesus? Note that it concludes with, John exhorted the people and proclaimed the good news to them.

In reality, John is speaking of the Supreme Being here. How do we know this? John was only a couple of years older than Jesus, so Jesus had already "come" at the time John spoke this. John was not predicting the appearance of Jesus, because Jesus was born some 30 years prior.

John is speaking of something that would occur in each person's future. John was speaking of the fact that each one of us will die and meet our Maker - the Supreme Being.

But why then does it say "John answered them" after it talks about people wondering if John was the Messiah?

Why does it say 'John answered them'?

But why then does it say "John answered them" after it talks about people wondering if John was the Messiah?

Because the real Messiah is the Supreme Being.

Only the Supreme Being can baptize someone "with the Holy Spirit and fire." The Supreme Being engages His Holy Spirit to reach out to us. It is an extension of Himself.

Now let's consider another description of John:

John testified concerning Him. He cried out, saying, "This is the One I spoke about when I said, 'He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.' " (John 1:14-15)

This line is put within the preamble concerning John, and it is assumed this is speaking of Jesus. Yet because we know Jesus was born after John, this cannot be referring to Jesus. It can only refer to the Supreme Being - who existed prior to John, and will exist after John.

Here are some other verses:

John replied in the words of Isaiah the prophet, "I am the voice of one calling in the wilderness, 'Make straight the way for the Lord.' " (John 1:23)

Is John speaking of Jesus here again? Certainly not, as Jesus also came to hear John preach in the wilderness. Why would John want them to make their way straight for someone who was there to be baptized with them?

The phrase, 'Make straight the way for the Lord' is speaking of the Supreme Being. John is warning them of the time of death and how they needed to prepare to 'face their Maker.'

Besides, the word κύριος (kyrios) - "Lord" is refering to the Supreme Being, just as Jesus used it when he said:

"For it is written: 'Worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only.'" (Matt. 4:10)

As is convention between spiritual teacher and student - while Jesus' students sometimes referred to Jesus as "Lord," John the Baptist - Jesus' teacher - did not refer to Jesus as "Lord."

Now consider this event, seemingly referring to Jesus:

Now the Pharisees who had been sent questioned him [John], "Why then do you baptize if you are not the Messiah, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?"

"I baptize with water," John replied, "but among you stands One you do not know. He is the One who comes after me, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie."" (John 1:25-28)

So this has to be Jesus, right? Hold on. We find in the very next verses:

This all happened at Bethany on the other side of the Jordan, where John was baptizing. The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!" (John 1:28-29)

So it is clear from these verses that Jesus did not arrive until the next day. This means that John was not referring to Jesus as "but among you stands One..."

So who was John referring to: again, the Supreme Being. God stands next to each of us, in the form of the Holy Spirit - as taught throughout the scriptures.

Now let's consider another set of verses regarding John and Jesus:

An argument developed between some of John's disciples and a certain Jew over the matter of ceremonial washing. They came to John and said to him, "Rabbi, that man who was with you on the other side of the Jordan—the one you testified about—look, he is baptizing, and everyone is going to him." To this John replied, "A person can receive only what is given them from heaven. You yourselves can testify that I said, 'I am not the Messiah but am sent ahead of Him.' The bride belongs to the bridegroom. The friend who attends the bridegroom waits and listens for Him, and is full of joy when he hears the bridegroom's voice. That joy is mine, and it is now complete. He must become greater; I must become less. The one who comes from above is above all; the one who is from the earth belongs to the earth, and speaks as one from the earth. The one who comes from heaven is above all. He testifies to what he has seen and heard, but no one accepts his testimony. Whoever has accepted it has certified that God is truthful. For the one whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God gives the Spirit without limit." (John 3:25-36)

John is very clear here:

"For the one whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God gives the Spirit without limit."

So is John saying that he was not sent by God but Jesus was sent by God? Certainly not.

We must read the parable about the bride and bridegroom carefully. John said, "The friend who attends the bridegroom waits and listens for Him, and is full of joy when he hears the bridegroom's voice. That joy is mine, and it is now complete."

Because we know that Jesus is not God - evidenced throughout the scriptures by the fact that Jesus prayed to God and said things like:

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

and

"For I did not speak on my own, but the Father who sent me commanded me to say all that I have spoken." (John 12:49)

We can know from this that John is not speaking of Jesus as being the Bridegroom. He is speaking of God - and the "bride" is the loving servant of God.

Note that John - full of humility - never likes to admit that he is God's representative. This is why he said:

"The friend who attends the bridegroom waits and listens for Him, and is full of joy when he hears the bridegroom's voice. That joy is mine, and it is now complete."

John is saying that he is one of God's loving servants, and has heard from God. He is thus indirectly stating that he is God's representative.

So what does this have to do with Jesus? Consider carefully John's last sentence:

"For the one whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God gives the Spirit without limit."

"For God gives the Spirit without limit" indicates there can be more than one representative of God. God can have many representatives. John's students are indicating that Jesus could not be God's representative if John was. But John is counteracting this by saying that there is no limit: God can engage multiple people to represent Him - without limit.

What is the meaning of Messiah?

It is important that we understand the word, Messiah.

The word "Messiah" in the New Testament is taken from the Greek word Χριστός (Christos) which can mean "anointed" or "savior" according to the lexicon. What is anointed? The Old Testament defines this clearly as being a priest, or representative of God. Consider God's own statements regarding being anointed:

"After you put these clothes on your brother Aaron and his sons, anoint and ordain them. Consecrate them so they may serve Me as priests." (Exodus 28:41)

"The priest who is anointed and ordained to succeed his father as high priest is to make atonement. He is to put on the sacred linen garments" (Lev. 16:32)

"Anoint Aaron and his sons and consecrate them so they may serve Me as priests." (Exodus 30:30)

"Anoint them just as you anointed their father, so they may serve Me as priests. Their anointing will be to a priesthood that will continue throughout their generations." (Exodus 40:15)

"I will raise up for myself a faithful priest, who will do according to what is in My heart and mind. I will firmly establish his priestly house, and they will minister before My anointed one always." (1 Samuel 2:35)

The descriptions of God's representatives such as David, Samuel, Joshua and others who became anointed and served God as His representative is clear from the Scriptures that being anointed - becoming Messiah - is becoming God's servant and representative. It is also clear that someone who is anointed also serves God's anointed. This confirms the succession of Teachers - or here, Priests - each mentoring from and serving their predecessor.

Note that Jesus' disciples were also carrying out baptism:

Now Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that he was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John—although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples. (John 4:2-3)

This clearly illustrates the continued process of succession from teacher to student, carrying on the priestly tradition utilized in the Old Testament:

And thus we can see that the term Messiah (anointed one) is not a term that is specific to a single person: It is a role. The role of being God's representative.

We might compare the word Messiah to the word "Lieutenant." Once a person has been commissioned as a Lieutenant, people will then refer to that person as such. They might greet him as Lieutenant, or refer to him as "the Lieutenant" within the right context or group. But to say that the person is the only Lieutenant who ever lived would not be correct. Yet at the same time, a particular Lieutenant would indeed be specific to a single person.

This solves the mystery of the centuries-long debates between Jews and Christians regarding the coming of the Messiah. While Jews argue that the Messiah has yet to come, the Christians say that Jesus was the Messiah. Actually, both are right. As we understand Messiah to mean God's representative, then yes, Jesus was certainly God's representative. And as we consider a coming person to be God's representative, the same is true. This is because God perpetually sends His representatives - His loving servants - to the earth to try to persuade us to return home to Him.

Any true follower of God's representative will see their Teacher as not just one of many, but God's exclusive representative because for them, this person represents the Supreme Being. So those Christians who see Jesus as the Messiah are certainly correct.

This is also consistent with John's statements about a coming Messiah, yet at the same time, when he refers to "One who is more powerful than I" John quite simply referring to the Supreme Being as coming by virtue of His representative.

And should we think of the term Messiah as meaning "Savior" again we can understand that someone who represents the Supreme Being.

The point is that there is ultimately one Messiah - and this is the Supreme Being. Only God can save us. But He can save us using one of His representatives. This is made clear by John above, as he states clearly that, "For the one whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God gives the Spirit without limit."

We can see here that John is referring not to Jesus personally, but to the role of God's representative - His Loving servant (or devotee). This is in fact why John did not personally address Jesus in this statement. If he had meant Jesus exclusively, then he would have simply said "Jesus."

This goes for practically every other statement regarding Messiah by Jesus as well. Jesus always referred to "Messiah" in the third person. This is because again, it is a role. Note also that Jesus didn't want his disciples to refer to him as Messiah:

Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah. (Matt. 16:20)

This brings us to the reality of how a true representative and loving servant of God sees himself. He sees himself in a humble manner. This is why John was always referring to himself humbly as not very important, always referring to someone more important and greater than he (being God and His representative).

Jesus also referred to his Teacher John affectionately as superior to himself:

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

While many like to emphasize "born of women" here to insinuate Jesus was coyly not including himself, the reality is that Jesus is praising his Teacher as greater than he. We must remember that even though Mary is said to have been a virgin, it is very clear from the Scriptures that Jesus was considered born from Mary. Therefore we can understand that Jesus saw his Teacher John as greater than he.

Note also that in the verse being discussed above (Luke 7:23), Jesus says:

"Blessed is anyone who does not stumble on account of me."

Here Jesus is humbly portraying himself to the disciples of his Teacher John. He is not boasting of himself. He is not saying "yes, I am the one!"

Rather, he simply tells John's disciples the results of his service. These miracles - as Jesus himself attributes elsewhere - come from God, so Jesus is not taking credit for these. He only portrays them as evidence illustrating the authority God has given Jesus. Otherwise, Jesus would have said "I am doing all these miracles."

And John saw Jesus as greater than himself as well.

This is one of the characteristics of God's representative. He will never see himself as superior to others. He sees himself as a servant. This is why Jesus called himself υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου - the servant of humanity (incorrectly translated to "Son of man"). Jesus saw himself as a servant of God and a servant of humanity. This is why Jesus told his own disciples:

"Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant" (Mark 10:43)

We must understand at the same time that God's representative is representing the Supreme Being. God's representative has great authority. But as John and Jesus both confirm - that authority is God-given. This is why Jesus also said:

"If I testify about myself, my testimony is not true. There is Another who testifies in my favor, and I know that His testimony about me is true. You have sent to John and he has testified to the truth. 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. And the Father who sent me has Himself testified concerning me. You have never heard His voice nor seen His form, nor does His word dwell in you, for you do not believe the one He sent." (John 5:31-38)

Understanding these points, we can now understand the meaning and context of Jesus' statement to John's disciples in Luke 7:22-23.

First, John's disciples were asking if Jesus should be considered God's representative. This is important, and it also explains why John - who should have already known this based on his previous statements - would have sent them. Remember that being God's representative is a role, and a person can step out of that role just as they can step into the role. The role of God's representative requires being authorized by the Supreme Being, but it also requires the person to be doing God's will - serving God. Serving God might also mean referring someone to God's representative.

We might compare this to asking a government's ambassador if they are truly representing their government. To ask the question is to confirm the desire to communicate with that government being represented.

By John ordering his disciples to go ask this question, he was telling them they need to follow Jesus if he is representing God. This is confirmed by John as he said earlier (above): "He must become greater; I must become less."

John had previously brought other disciples to Jesus. Peter, for example, was one of John's disciples. John saw the need of his disciples to follow God's representative. This is critical because following God's representative is a dynamic process that allows us to come into contact with God, and be introduced to God. This was Jesus' role, and why Jesus makes it clear that he has been passing on the teachings of his Teacher, John, saying: "the good news is proclaimed to the poor."

The "good news" refers to the teachings of love of God and serving God. As to the word "poor," this is being translated from the Greek word πτωχός (ptōchos), which can mean "poor" with regard to wealth, but more importantly, "helpless," "powerless," "wretched" and "lacking in anything... in spirit" according to the lexicon. This relates to someone who is in ignorance - as they are bereft of knowledge - poor in knowledge, rather than poor in money.

And what was that "good news"? It was Jesus most important instruction to his students - giving them eternal life:

“‘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)

“The harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few. Ask the Lord ..." (Luke 10:2)

“The harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few. Ask the Lord of the harvest, therefore, to send out workers into His harvest field." (Luke 10:2)

What does the parable of the harvest and the workers mean?

Jesus is speaking to his students as he sends them out to preach. He is sending out his followers to teach to others what he has taught them.

The "harvest" is the opportunity to change peoples hearts, from being self-centered to being worshipers of God. It is "plentiful" because at that time there were a lot of people who were searching for the truth and not finding it among the institutional temple teachers of that era.

The "workers" refers to those of Jesus' followers who are being sent out to preach. Compared to the number of people - hundreds of thousands of people in the nearby towns and villages - there were only a few followers of Jesus available to preach to these people.

Notice that Jesus is speaking of the "Lord of the harvest" in the third person. This means that Jesus was not referring to himself. He was asking his followers to "Ask the Lord." This means he wants each of his followers to rely upon God and teach on behalf of God. He wants each of them to channel God and represent God's interests as they teach to others.

Did he send twelve out or 72?

Jesus is giving instructions to 72 of his students and disciples to go out and preach. How do we know there were 72?

"After this the Lord appointed seventy-two others and sent them two by two ahead of him to every town..." (Luke 10:1)

This number is also confirmed in Luke 10:17: The seventy-two returned...

This is an interesting point because as this event is described in Matthew, only the twelve seem to be sent:

These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions... (Matt. 10:5)

We have to go with 72. Why? Besides the confirmation in Luke, the twelve disciples were certainly contained within the 72. Certainly, Jesus did send out the twelve, as this was the subject of those verses. But we can see from not only Luke 10:1 but many other verses that Jesus had many other disciples outside of the twelve.

Rather, what we see is some focus being put on twelve because these were more well-known disciples.

We also see that some have put an emphasis on the 12 because they want to put forth that Jesus appointed 12 people to be his successors. But this is not true. We can see this as the lives of some of the twelve are followed - such as Judas, who hung himself, and James and Peter, who became great teachers. But then there were other followers of Jesus who became great teachers outside of the 12. 

This included Mary who sailed to France and started a mission there. It also includes Joseph of Arimathea, who was a dedicated disciple who arranged the tomb for Jesus and talked Pilate into releasing Jesus to him. Then of course there is Barnabas, who went on to help establish a broad preaching mission in the decades after Jesus' departure. 

Are we to say that these dedicated followers of Jesus were not as dedicated or important to Jesus as the 12? Certainly not. 

In other words, Jesus did not select who became devoted teachers. The Supreme Being did that.

And this is confirmed in Luke 10:1 and 10:2. Jesus did not appoint people to represent him. He offered the truth to every one of his students, and anyone who received that truth from him and put that truth into practice and was empowered by God was capable of passing that truth on to others.

This is also confirmed when Jesus also said to them:

“Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; but whoever rejects me rejects Him who sent me.” (Luke 10:16)

Jesus is putting emphasis on "whoever listens." This means learning. Knowledge is gained through learning from one's teacher, who is passing on the knowledge gained from their own teacher. And the fact that this passing of truth is empowered by God is confirmed with "Him who sent me."

Did Jesus rely upon appointed or elected teachers?

There were many officially appointed or elected teachers of the Jewish temple institution that Jesus could have enlisted to teach his message. But that's not what Jesus did. He enlisted those who had no appointment. He engaged anyone who would sincerely hear his teachings and follow them.

Some institutions like to put emphasis on some sort of appointed selection process in terms of their teachers (popes, priests, preachers). The selection process currently embraced by most sectarian institutions is one of politics - election by committee.

For example, the pope is elected by a group of cardinals. The cardinals were appointed by other cardinals. Priests and preachers are appointed to churches by committees of deacons. And so on. The process of electing or appointing a priest or pope by committees of people means the process is about politics: It has nothing to do with the Supreme Being. It relates to how others are impressed by the resume and physical presentation of the candidate.

Jesus' process was simple. He taught the truth to everyone, and those who became committed to those teachings were sent out to pass those teachings on. There was no limitation or selection process. Why not?

Isn't it God who ultimately chooses?

God's representatives are ultimately chosen by God. Because the real selection process takes place with the Supreme Being. God chooses who will represent Him. His selection process is based upon a relationship: The relationship of devotion between the person and God. If God sees a person is devoted to Him, He may empower that person to pass on the teachings of their empowered teacher to others.

And any institution that removes that authority by the Supreme Being and tries to replace it with an ecclesiastical political process of appointment by committee or succession is not accepting God's authority and His empowerment. Such an institution must therefore not be accepted as empowered to pass on the truth. What they may teach might appear to be the truth - but it has no empowerment. It is empty rhetoric.

In other words, they cannot teach love for the Supreme Being because they do not know the Supreme Being. They are conducting a business. It is not about love. Love for God can only be passed on by someone - an individual - who has a loving service relationship with the Supreme Being.

This is precisely what is occurring between Jesus and the 72 that he is sending out. Notice that Jesus is instructing his students to pray to the Supreme Being directly for their empowerment:

"Ask the Lord of the harvest, therefore, to send out workers into His harvest field."

This "harvest" is the process of God's reaching out to people, by God's servants. Jesus is representing God and reaching out to people, to in effect "harvest" them - ask them to return to their loving service relationship with the Supreme Being. And Jesus' devoted students, by following Jesus' instructions, are also reaching out to people as they pass on Jesus' teachings.

The "workers" then are none other than those who are representing the Supreme Being. Those who are reaching out to others and passing on the teachings of love for God. Jesus is saying that there are too few of these sincere students who are ready to pass on his teachings to others.

And the "Lord of the harvest" is none other than the Supreme Being.

"His harvest field" ultimately represents God's reaching out and requesting we return to Him. This is the purpose of preaching. It is the purpose of scripture. The Supreme Being is reaching out to us through these means. He is asking each of us if we are ready to come home to Him.

God could appear personally with a booming voice and demand we return to Him if He wanted to. But He doesn't. The Supreme Being is very gentle. He is very gracious. He reaches out to us but never forces us. He wants the decision to be ours.

So by Jesus instructing his student to "Ask the Lord of the harvest, therefore, to send out workers into His harvest field," Jesus is requesting that each of them pray to the Supreme Being to empower them to represent the Supreme Being as they reach out to others.

Are they being physically sent out?

The term "to send out" is being portrayed to refer to being physically sent: to physically be sent out to travel. But the real meaning lies with empowerment - being "sent" by God in this context means being empowered by God.

Thus Jesus himself is admitting that he does not empower others to preach. God empowers those He wishes to represent Him.

We can see from the sheer number of people that Jesus sent out that Jesus was not "appointing" those who would teach on his behalf as one typically considers the word "appointing" to mean. Can you imagine such an appointment process - to appoint 72 people? No, this was not appointment as we would define it typically.

By the number of people Jesus sent out we can tell that he was not selecting a few people - he was authorizing anyone who had been sincerely hearing his message and putting those teachings into practice. That is quite different from the process of appointment we typically see among political or ecclesiastical institutions. In these, one person is singled out, or a small group is selected by committee.

The central method that Jesus is using is the teacher-mentorship method. The sincere student is trained by the empowered teacher - the representative of God. This means instructions, and then putting those instructions into practice. This means, in this case, doing those devotional practices that help one develop their relationship with the Supreme Being. 

As we see among Jesus' teachings in the gospels, this means hearing Jesus' teachings, praying to God, praising God - singing and repeating His Holy Names - and in general dedicating one's life to serving God.

So Jesus was seeing these symptoms among those 72 - that they had been Jesus' students and had been putting into practice what Jesus was teaching.

But Jesus is giving the empowerment process to God. That is why he is asking his students to "Ask the Lord of the harvest, therefore, to send..." Jesus is saying that anyone who sincerely hears and puts into practice the teachings of their teacher may teach - but only God may empower that person to represent Him.

But this does not come without a relationship between the teacher and the student. It cannot be imaginary. There must be a relationship. It is not like the imaginary relationship some suggest we must have with Jesus: They say we don't need a teacher because all we need is Jesus. Yet they are teaching us this? They are teaching us that we don't need a teacher? If all we needed was Jesus then why are they trying to teach us?

Rather, Jesus himself illustrated that his sincere students could become teachers. So he sent out 72 of his followers to teach.

Through having a relationship with God's representative, one is introduced to God. Having a relationship means hearing from that person and putting their teachings into practice.

But in order to teach, one must be empowered by the Supreme Being (if the Supreme Being chooses) to pass on the teachings of their teacher. This is not an official appointment process. but it is a strict process in that the Supreme Being must be in charge of it. He dictates what will be said to whom and how it will be said. But that dictation takes place through the surrender of the person to God's will. That they intend to do what God wants them to do.

Such a relationship with God is based on love and trust.

A person must come to trust the Supreme Being. This means being introduced to Him and coming to know Him first. The Supreme Being is the most lovable Person. He is the most kind. The most attractive. The most caring. We can give our hearts to God because He truly cares for each of us. 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)

"All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows ..." (Luke 10:22)

"All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows who the son is except the Father, and no one knows who the Father is except the son and those to whom the son chooses to reveal Him." (Luke 10:22)

What does Jesus mean by 'all things'?

On first glance, "all things have been committed to me by my Father," seems straightforward. Unfortunately, it is mistranslated.

Did he really say "all things"? Does he mean that God gave Jesus everything in creation - everything in existence? All things or everything would also, by definition, include all of God's power over creation. God's omniscience. God's authority.

This would mean that if God gave all this to Jesus, then God would no longer by God since God is omniscient. If God gave His omniscience to someone else, then God would no longer be omniscient. By definition, this would mean that God would no longer be God.

This is a ridiculous supposition. And it is based on a mistranslation. Actually, the Greek word πᾶς (pas) refers to "individually - each, every, any ..." Jesus is speaking of something - not everything in creation.

Furthermore, the phrase, "committed to me" comes from the Greek word παραδίδωμι (paradidōmi), which means, "to give into the hands of another" and "to give over into one's power or use" according to the lexicon.

So what has been given to Jesus by God?

It is related to the subject of Jesus' previous statement - what Jesus has given to his disciples ("little children") has been given to him by the Supreme Being.

This means that Jesus is really saying:

"All of these things have been given to me by my Father."

Notice what a difference "all things" is from "all these things." "All of these things" refers to things in particular, while "all things" refers to everything. The Greek is clear, from the word πᾶς (pas) - certain things, not all things.

So what were "these things?" "These things" refers to Jesus' previous statement - what he has given his disciples - his teachings. Jesus is saying that what he has given his disciples - his teachings - come from God. Jesus is saying "all" of his teachings have been given to him by God.

Why does Jesus then refer to 'son' in the third person?

Then Jesus begins to speak in the third person. Is he speaking exclusively about himself in this next part, and if so, why would he suddenly begin speaking in the third person? He was speaking in the first person first. Why would he suddenly switch? Why not stay in the first person? Especially when it simply is not appropriate to speak exclusively about oneself in the third person, as the example above showed.

If Jesus was speaking exclusively of himself here, why does he begin referring to the "Son" in the third person? This is quite an odd way for anyone to speak of themselves. Did Jesus really speak of himself in the third person?

This might be compared to someone named John talking to someone and saying: "John goes for a walk in the forest every day. John likes the forest."

Who would talk like this? Certainly, John would say, "I go for a walk...." and "I like the forest." Right?

First, let's discuss the beginning of the verse. This verse continues from the previous verse, where Jesus said:

"I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because You have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this is what You were pleased to do." (Luke 10:21)

We clarified the meaning of this statement within the linked article.

The key to understanding this relates to the mistranslation of the word "son."

The Greek word translated to "son" is υἱός (huios). As we've indicated before, this word can only be translated to "son" - "in a restricted sense, the male offspring (one born by a father and of a mother)" according to the lexicon. The lexicon goes further by explaining the use of the word outside of this as:

"used to describe one who depends on another or is his follower - of teachers - i.q. pupils."

"one who is connected with or belongs to a thing by any kind of close relationship."

"instructed in evangelical truth and devotedly obedient to it"

"one to whom anything belongs"

"those to whom the prophetic and covenant promises belong"

"The Jews called the Messiah υἱὸς εἶ τοῦ θεοῦ pre-eminently, as the supreme representative of God"

Certainly this is the context in which Jesus is referring. A "follower" or "one who depends on another" is most certainly, a devotee, a loving servant, or in the case of someone being sent by God - representative.

This is what Jesus is describing here, and this is why Jesus also used this reference in the third person as he spoke of it. Because he isn't the only loving servant, devotee or representative of God.

Consider, for example, the multiple references to "sons of God" among the English Bible translations:

When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them the sons 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)

"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)

Why else would Jesus have used this reference in the third person?

Isn't Jesus referring to a role?

Let's say that a person is the President of the United States. And they are given a bill from Congress to sign. And let's say that the President vetoes the bill. The President might say, in defense of his vetoing the bill:

"Yes, I vetoed the bill. The President always has the right to veto any bill that Congress brings before him."

We see that the President certainly is speaking exclusively of himself in the first sentence - just as Jesus did. But then he switches to the third person when he refers to the office of the President because that right (to be able to veto any bill) is not his exclusive right - it is the exclusive right of any person who is occupying that office of President. And many others have and will occupy that office of President.

If it was that particular person's exclusive right - solely himself having that right and no one else - then he would have continued speaking in first person, saying something like, "I alone have the right of veto."

In the same way, Jesus first refers to himself in this verse - indicated in the Greek by the word ἐγώ (egō) which refers to "me" or "I" - in the first person. But then he goes on to discuss the inherent characteristics that exist between the Supreme Being and anyone who is God's confidential loving servant.

Can others besides Jesus also know God?

Jesus is not saying that no one else but he knows who God is. This would by necessity be saying that Moses didn't know who God was. And Abraham didn't know who God was. And David didn't know God. And no one in the spiritual realm knows who God is. Would Jesus really be saying this?

In fact, this would also be contradicting the Biblical scriptures that described Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon, and others walking with God and otherwise communicating with God. Certainly, they knew God as indicated by these texts.

Certainly, Jesus wouldn't be contradicting the very scriptures he treasured. This is evidenced by the fact that Jesus often quoted the teachings of these and other loving servants of God, as taken from the texts of those scriptures. Even Jesus' "first and foremost commandment" was taken from Moses' teachings.

Rather than Jesus' exclusively referring to himself as interpreted by ecclesiastical teachers, Jesus is referring to an exclusive situation that exists between every confidential loving servant of the Supreme Being and God. Let's thus translate this statement appropriately:

"No one knows who the loving servant is except the Father, and no one knows who the Father is except the loving servant and those to whom the loving servant chooses to reveal Him."

or

"No one knows who the representative is except the Father, and no one knows who the Father is except the representative and those to whom the representative chooses to reveal Him."

God and His confidential loving servants - and when they are sent to the world, representatives - enjoy an exclusive relationship that no one else is privy to. Why?

Isn't that an intimate relationship?

Just consider what intimacy means. Intimacy refers to a relationship that is not seen by others outside the relationship. When a man and a woman have an intimate relationship, what goes on inside that relationship is not known by others. The co-workers of one of them certainly won't know about their relationship - unless of course one of them tells them.

And this is precisely what Jesus is referring to. Yes, Jesus is certainly indicating that he has an intimate and confidential relationship with the Supreme Being. But he isn't saying that no one else but him has ever had an intimate and confidential relationship with God.

Such a position would also render additional descriptions of this relationship. These include not only being a follower, loving servant and devotee of God: But also being God's representative. One who is dependent upon God and is serving God will also represent God. This was Jesus' role - and the role of many who have been sent by God to teach us about Him.

What this is referring to is one of the characteristics of having a confidential loving relationship with God. Only the person who has an intimate, confidential relationship with the Supreme Being knows God, and only God truly knows the loving servant of God. Thus being God's representative would also be an appropriate translation of the word υἱός (huios) in the context of Jesus.

Others - who are not God's loving servants - might claim they know God or represent God. But they don't know God. Why? Even if they have heard a lot about God - even if they read all the scriptures - they still won't truly know God - unless they are God's loving servant.

Why? Because God reveals Himself only to those who sincerely seek Him. He only reveals Himself to those who desire to serve Him. Those who dedicate their lives to pleasing Him are eligible, and to these, He will reveal Himself.

Let's compare to those who doubt in God's existence, challenging God: "If You exist, prove it to me by revealing Yourself."

Does God reveal Himself to these people? Certainly not. But why? Why wouldn't God want to prove He exists to doubters and challengers?

The Supreme Being doesn't have to prove anything to anyone. People who need to prove themselves are those who want to appear to be someone they are not.

The Supreme Being - the Omniscient Person who controls everything - does not have to prove His existence to anyone.

It is always His prerogative to show Himself or not. And God only reveals Himself to those He feels are ready to see Him.

Why doesn't God appear to everyone?

He could if He wanted to. Those He doesn't reveal Himself to don't want to see Him. We may say we want to see Him, and even sometimes demand He show Himself, but we really want to hold on to the belief that He may not exist.

This is because if He might not exist, then we won't have to serve Him. We have an excuse to chase our self-centered desires. If He might not exist, then we can continue to strive to be the hero, the superstar, the all-time greatest, the champion of the world.

But should He reveal Himself to us, we would have to give up these aspirations. Why? Because if God truly revealed Himself to us as He is, we would realize that He is the only true Hero, Superstar, All-time Greatest, and the Champion of the World. By seeing Him, we would know that only He could occupy these posts. We could never hold those positions.

So the Supreme Being has given us these temporary physical bodies and these tiny circumstances surrounding us because we desire to be in the role of hero, superstar, champion and all-time greatest person. We want to get away from God. We want to be able to ignore His existence. We reject our role as one of His servants. So He gives us this temporary world and these temporary bodies to play out our fantasies.

So for Him to suddenly reveal Himself to us would wreck our fantasy that we are so great.

But this world isn't simply fantasy. This physical world does exist - despite the speculations of some who claim this world is only the product of our mind and our mind is all-powerful. If it was the product of our mind and our mind is all-powerful, then why can't we fix the problems of this world? Why can't we remove violence, starvation, wars, disease, old age, death?

Because the physical world is not a product of our mind. Our mind is a product of the physical world.

Yes, the physical world is a real place and we are really here in these temporary physical bodies. Just as a movie is real in that there are real actors and real cameras shooting the movie, the physical world is real in that we are in these bodies playing these temporary roles. But just as the movie is a fictitious remake of real life, the roles we play in the physical world are fictitious (and perverted) reflections of our real selves.

The reality is that we are all, by nature, loving servants of God. Beneath our temporary false identities - beneath these temporary physical bodies - each of us has a unique and intimate relationship with God. But we rejected that relationship. And this is why we are here, away from Him. We are in effect, hiding from God and hiding from our relationship with Him. God simply completes the process by completely covering us up so we cannot see Him, allowing us to forget His existence.

And this is why this world is dosed with the reality of suffering. We all suffer here, not just our physical bodies, but we suffer from loneliness as we try to live without our Best Friend, the Supreme Being.

And all the physical suffering of the physical world is founded upon this loneliness - this emptiness within. As we attempt to fill our empty hearts with so many physical things - from money to sex to fame - we create suffering for ourselves and others.

And this emptiness, in fact, is the cause for all the suffering in the world - the suffering created by violence, hunger, disease, old age, and death. These are all created by our lonely continuous search for happiness where there is none. Suffering is created by our desire to get away from the Supreme Being - and try to make this wasteland of the physical world our home.

The only way home - as Jesus is indicating here - is via our being re-introduced to the Supreme Being by one of His loving servants. God's loving servants enjoy an intimate relationship with Him and through this intimacy, they can also introduce others to Him. This is reflected by Jesus' statement:

"no one knows who the Father is except the loving servant and those to whom the loving servant chooses to reveal Him."

Who can introduce us to God?

Only someone who enjoys a confidential loving relationship with the Supreme Being can introduce others to the Supreme Being.

This is like any other relationship. Could we get to know the President of the United States on a personal basis without being introduced to him by someone who already has a personal relationship with the him? No.

But if we had a personal relationship with someone who hung out with the President personally, it would be a cinch. The person would say, 'hey, let's go hang out with the President. He's my friend.'

And the President would certainly open himself up to such a friend of one of his personal friends. Why? Because this is one of the universal laws of relationships.

Why are these universal laws of relationship? Because all relationships stem from the original relationship between the Supreme Being and His children.

The bottom line is that Jesus is not only speaking of himself being able to introduce God to others. Remember that he is responding to the fact that his disciples just returned from teaching to others. He sent 72 of his disciples off to different villages to teach. How were they able to teach others, and give God to others?

Because they had become part of the linkage that exists between God and His loving servants. Jesus had introduced them to God, and they could then introduce others to God. This is the system among those who become devoted to the Supreme Being.

We can see this system inherent in the teachings of Moses, which were then reiterated by Moses' disciple Joshua, and later by Jesus.

Check out Moses' teachings in this respect, as he attempted to introduce his students to the Supreme Being:

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

“Love the LORD your God and keep his requirements, His decrees, His laws and His commands always.” (Deuteronomy 11:1)

“So if you faithfully obey the commands I am giving you today – to love the LORD your God and to serve Him with all your heart and with all your soul” (Deuteronomy 11:13)

“If you carefully observe all these commands I am giving you to follow – to love the LORD your God, to walk in all His ways and to hold fast to Him – “ (Deuteronomy 11:22)

“…because you carefully follow all these laws I command you today – to love the LORD your God and to walk always in His ways – “ (Deuteronomy 19:19)

“For I command you today to love the LORD your God, to walk in His ways, and to keep His commands, decrees and laws” (Deuteronomy 30:16)

“…and that you may love the LORD your God, listen to His voice, and hold fast to Him. For the LORD is your life...” (Deuteronomy 30:20)

And Moses' disciple, Joshua passed on the same teaching:

“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)

“So be very careful to love the LORD your God.” (Joshua 23:11)

Further down the lineage, we find David taught the same essential teaching:

“Love the LORD, all His saints!” (Psalms 31:23)

“Let those who love the LORD hate evil, for He guards the lives of His faithful ones and delivers them from the hand of the wicked.” (Psalms 97:10)

And of course Jesus taught the same primary teaching to his own students:

“‘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)

"Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’" (Mark 12:30)

“ ‘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)

Why are these teachings so similar? Why do they each impart the same essential invitation to love the Supreme Being? Because they come from those loving servants who each enjoy a confidential loving relationship with the Supreme Being.

"Woe to you Pharisees, because you love the most important seats ..." (Luke 11:43)

"Woe to you Pharisees, because you love the most important seats in the synagogues and respectful greetings in the marketplaces." (Luke 11:43)

Why did the Pharisees 'love the most important seats'?

Jesus isn't speaking specifically of seats here.

The phrase, 'the most important seats' comes from the Greek word πρωτοκαθεδρία (prōtokathedria). This word means, according to the lexicon, the "highest seat" or the "chief seat," or "preeminence in council." The word doesn't specifically relate to the kind of seat that is sat upon.

Rather, the word is referring to position. Rank. The Pharisees were competing to have the highest rank. They each wanted to be seen as having the greatest authority within the institution.

As the Pharisees are described in the Gospels of the New Testament as "lawgivers" and "teachers," we can understand their position as being the judges and the priests of the popular Temple institution of Jesus' day. It was a hierarchy.

This might be compared to the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic sect, where priests will position themselves to be appointed to positions of honor, including cardinal, bishop and pope. Jesus saw this type of competitive positioning among the Pharisees.

We can see clearly that Jesus was not a follower of these institutional Temple teachers. At the same time, we know that Jesus indeed was reverent to the teachings of Abraham, Moses, Joshua, Samuel, David, Solomon, Elijah, Elisha, Zechariah, Zephaniah, Job, Ezekiel, Malachi, and others, as well as observant to the teachings of his own teacher, John the Baptist.

And we know that Jesus followed many of the conventions of the Temple wish system. He was called "rabbi" by his followers and he often taught within the temples - not as the appointed priest but as a guest speaker.

So what was the difference between Jesus and these Pharisees if Jesus was also called "rabbi" (meaning "teacher")and taught among the temples?

Why wasn't Jesus elected or appointed?

Notice that Jesus is grouping all Pharisees into the same criticism here. Does he really mean every Pharisee? Yes. Otherwise, he would have said "some Pharisees." He is speaking of those who were elected and appointed to their official positions within the Temple institution.

Jesus was not elected or appointed to his position by other men - whether it be the councils or the high priests. Being elected or appointed subjects a person to the whims of those who elected or appointed the person. Such an elected person thereby becomes a representative of those who elected or appointed them.

This means, for example, a priest who is appointed by the church leaders and elected into his preaching post by a group of deacons must abide by the whims of those leaders and deacons.

Illustrating this, many deacon councils believe that preachers should support the importance of families. They may have an extended family, and want their preachers to support the importance of family. As a result, many preachers indeed will preach about the importance of family. Even if they are single - as in the case of Catholic priests - many will go out of their way to preach about family values.

Didn't Jesus preach about the importance of family?

Certainly not. Jesus said:

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

And when a follower wanted to attend to his father's funeral, Jesus told him:

“Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and proclaim the kingdom of God.” (Luke 9:60)

In other words, Jesus was not teaching that our love should be focused on the family of this temporary body. He taught that our love should be focused on the Supreme Being:

" 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind.'" (Deut. 6:5, Luke 10:27, Mark 12:30, Matt. 22:37)

But he didn't mean not to love others. Rather, he said that loving others was related to - a consequence of - loving the Supreme Being:

"And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'" (Matt. 22:39)

In other words, ones love for the Supreme Being will automatically extend to others because others are God's children. Not just the family of our body. Everyone.

So why is the Pope teaching people that their love should be directed towards children and not the Supreme Being?

Because the Pope doesn't represent the Supreme Being. He represents those cardinals and bishops that elected him to his post.

Why are elections and appointments political?

Institutional elections of priests, ministers, popes, and cardinals - whether made by a large group of people or only one person - are political affairs. Such elections by men are made with political concerns in mind. The electors are concerned about the reputation of the institution. Thus they seek to elect someone who will further the objectives of the institution.

Why? Because they want their institution to continue because their own reputations and livelihoods are connected to the institution. If the institution gets a bad name, they will get a bad name. If the institution loses followers, then they will lose followers.

For this reason, as a candidate for such an institutional position of priest, pope, minister or cardinal campaigns or interviews for their professional post - they will maneuver to impress those who elect them.

The very process of election and appointment attracts those who seek the respect of others and seek followers. This is the purpose of their maneuvering and positioning themselves to receive the appointments and elections to their official positions.

This desire for the respect of others is being criticized here by Jesus:

"you love the most important seats in the synagogues and respectful greetings in the marketplaces."

Jesus is speaking to all Pharisees here because simply by aspiring for and accepting the post of Pharisee, such a person is desiring the respect of others. They want the "most important seats" and they want "respectful greetings." This means their goal is to achieve the admiration of others.

How can one identify a true representative of God then?

The representative of God must be selected by God. This means the process of becoming appointed or elected through a political process disqualifies such a person from being God's representative. They are representing that institution, not God.

Jesus - and those he followed including John the Baptist, David, Moses, Jacob, Abraham and so on - were not elected by any councils of men. They were anointed by an individual - meaning they followed the teachings of their predecessor. This does not include being appointed as king - as were David and Solomon. King or other government position - whether of Israel or otherwise - is a necessary political position and requires acceptance of leadership. Being appointed a king did not make David or Solomon a representative of God. They represented God only because God empowered them to do so.

Jesus and his lineage - all the Prophets as well as his devoted disciples - were empowered directly by the Supreme Being to represent Him. They learned the teachings of their teacher, and devoted themselves to God. It was their devotion to God that empowered them - not any appointment.

Many of them - like Jesus, John, Zechariah, Jonah, Malachi, Micah, Hosea, Daniel, Amos, and others - were in fact outsiders to the Temple institutions of their times, and many of them preached against the organized Jerusalem temple of their day.

In fact, the reason why many of them were called "Prophets" in the first place is because they warned ("prophesized") those among the organized institutions of the dire consequences of their rejection of God. As their warnings were not initially heeded, their predictions typically became true - although in some cases such as in Jonah's warning against the town of Nineveh, warnings were heeded and this averted the prophecy of Jonah.

As such, it is hypocrisy for those who purport to follow these non-institutional Prophets (including Jesus) - to require their teachers to be appointed by their institutions in order to be considered bona fide.

In reality, none of the real Prophets were chosen or elected by councils - or even the preceding prophet.

What made them God's representative was the Supreme Being. The Supreme Being personally selected and empowered each of them, because the Supreme Being was pleased with their devotion to Him. This was described in the Book of Matthew with regard to Jesus:

And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son [Representative], whom I love; with him I am well pleased." (Matt. 3:17)

This scenario - of being pleasing to the Supreme Being - was described with respect to Moses in the Book of Exodus:

And the LORD said to Moses, “I will do the very thing you have asked, because I am pleased with you" (Exodus 33:17)

There are other statements that indicate the importance of pleasing the Supreme Being:

"For the sake of His Great Name the LORD will not reject his people, because the LORD was pleased to make you His own." (1 Samuel 12:22)

"Take the ark of God back into the city. If I find favor in the LORD's eyes, He will bring me back and let me see it and His dwelling place again." (2 Samuel 15:25)

"Now be pleased to bless the house of your servant, that it may continue forever in your sight; for You, Sovereign LORD, have spoken, and with Your blessing the house of Your servant will be blessed forever.” (2 Samuel 7:29)

"The Lord was pleased that Solomon had asked for this." (1 Kings 3:10)

"Now you have been pleased to bless the house of Your servant, that it may continue forever in Your sight; for You, LORD, have blessed it, and it will be blessed forever.” (1 Chronicles 17:27)

"I know, my God, that You test the heart and are pleased with integrity." (1 Chron 29:17)

For You are not a God who is pleased with wickedness; with You, evil people are not welcome. (Psalms 5:4)

"Though they offer sacrifices as gifts to Me, and though they eat the meat, the LORD is not pleased with them." (Hosea 8:13)

"I am not pleased with you,” says the LORD Almighty, “and I will accept no offering from your hands." (Malachi 1:10)

Is God a void or impersonal force?

The verses above indicate clearly that the Supreme Being is not a void or vague impersonal force. The Supreme Being is a person. He is the Supreme Person.

Therefore, in order to please the Supreme Being, we must first accept that He is a person, and like any person, there are things He likes and things He doesn't like.

Let's say, for example, that we wanted to please our father on father's day. Would we necessarily be pleasing to our father if we ignored him but sent the company he retired from a gift? Later the father would look at us and say something like, "why would you send a gift to a company I once worked for? And why didn't you at least call me?"

In this example, because we didn't direct our attention and gifts directly at our father, he would most certainly be offended. He would not be pleased. Why? Because he is more interested in our relationship with him. Even if we didn't send a gift to the father on father's day, but simply called him and had a nice talk with him - he'd be pleased.

And this is the point in pleasing the Supreme Being. Pleasing the Supreme Being is about having a relationship with Him. It is about focusing our love, attention, and activities towards pleasing the Supreme Being that is important to Him.

On the other hand, trying to use Him or those institutions that supposedly worship Him to gain the respect of others is not pleasing to Him, as we can see from Jesus' statement about the Pharisees.

Remember that we were 'made in the image' of the Supreme Being. This means we have many of the same tendencies as the Supreme Being. And just as we like to exchange relationships, the Supreme Being enjoys the exchange of relationships.

In fact, our very existence is based upon the Supreme Being's desire to exchange loving relationships. This is our purpose for being created. We were each created to exchange a unique loving relationship with the Supreme Being: We were made to love and lovingly serve the Supreme Being within a personal, unique and intimate relationship.

But because real love requires freedom, the Supreme Being gave each of us the freedom to love Him or not. And those of us who chose not to love Him have been sent away to the physical world and given temporary physical bodies.

Why? In order to be able to forget Him. These temporary physical bodies and this physical world are designed specifically to allow us to ignore the Supreme Being, and forget our former relationship with Him.

But the Supreme Being doesn't want to let us go forever. He wants us to return to Him because He knows only our relationship with Him will make us happy. But He only wants us to return to Him when we decide we want to return to Him. He never forces us to worship Him or even believe in His existence.

This is the purpose of our having physical eyes that can't see Him. It is also the purpose for the so many philosophies, belief systems and institutions that ignore the existence of the Supreme Being: They allow us to impress others with our religiosity yet still completely ignore the Supreme Being if we want.

This is also the purpose of the so many temptations and allurements of the physical world. They are meant to draw our focus and attention away from Him for those of us who are not determined to return to our relationship with Him.

In other words, to please the Supreme Being, we must be determined to return to our relationship with Him. We must be willing to forego everything else in order to please Him.

And only such a person - who is willing to give it all up to please Him - can return to our relationship with Him, and if God chooses, be empowered to represent Him.

This is why Jesus and Moses used the words, "with all your heart," "with all your soul," "with all your strength" and "with all your mind" in their instruction of how to love the Supreme Being. "All" means everything. They wanted us to give all our love to the Supreme Being, and only then will we be truly pleasing to Him. And only then will we be truly happy.

"Woe to you, because you are like unmarked graves ..." (Luke 11:44)

"Woe to you, because you are like unmarked graves, which people walk over without knowing it." (Luke 11:44)

Why are they like "unmarked graves"?

Jesus continues his criticism of the Pharisees - the appointed teachers of the Jewish institution of that time.

The word "unmarked" comes from the Greek word ἄδηλος (adēlos) which means, according to the lexicon, "not manifest, indistinct, uncertain, obscure."

And the word "graves" here is translated from the Greek word μνημεῖον (mnēmeion), which relates to "any visible object for preserving or recalling the memory of any person or thing - a memorial, monument, specifically, a sepulchral monument to a tomb or burial site," as well as "tomb."

So while one could certainly translate this to an "unmarked grave" - typically an "unmarked grave" will at least have some indication that it is a grave - in other words, there will be some sort of tombstone, but without the name of the person who is buried there.

What does he mean by "which people walk over without knowing it."?

Jesus is speaking of complete obscurity here.

Ordinarily, people will not walk over a grave, even if it is an unmarked grave.

But if the grave or burial site is completely obscured - no one knows it is a burial site - then people may easily walk over that site without knowing its contents.

This can occur practically anywhere. At some point or another, some body could have been buried at a spot at some point. We might walk over that grave without knowing it.

What does this have to do with the Pharisees?

Jesus had just mentioned that the Pharisees like to be seen and respected:

"Woe to you Pharisees, because you love the most important seats in the synagogues and respectful greetings in the marketplaces." (Luke 11:43)

So we know that it is not as if the Pharisees are obscure. As Jesus indicates, they are anything but obscure.

What Jesus is speaking of is their ability to affect the spiritual lives of their followers. Jesus is indicating that their teachings have no spiritual power: They had no ability to change a person's heart or purify one's consciousness. They were repeating the 'party line' of their institutions - but their teachings had no real power or authority.

This is because - even though they supposedly were representing the Jewish institutions and thus supposedly God - they were not representing the Supreme Being.

They had been appointed or elected to their posts by councils of men. Thus they were occupying political positions, and they were representing those who elected them - not the Supreme Being.

Plus they were occupying professional political posts. The Pharisees were paid for their posts, either by being given quarters and food or through paid salaries or both. The Pharisees and the Sadducees opposed each other in terms of interpretation of the Hebrew scriptures, but the Pharisees emerged as the group that wielded the most political clout - and were thus supported by the Romans.

We also know from the scriptures that the Pharisees, along with the chief priests, were involved in the persecution of Jesus:

The next day, the one after Preparation Day, the chief priests and the Pharisees went to Pilate. (Matt. 27:62)

Could they be representing God?

The underlying statement Jesus is making here is that these Pharisees - along with the chief priests - were not representing the Supreme Being. They were representing their institution and their desires for power and authority. This is why they wanted to get rid of Jesus - because he threatened their authority.

Unlike the false authority these institutional teachers bring, the Supreme Being grants real authority to change people's hearts. This authority comes in the form of empowerment, which is granted only to those involved in a confidential loving relationship with the Supreme Being.

This relationship is based on devotion and commitment. Such a person who becomes devoted to the Supreme Being may become empowered by the Supreme Being to represent Him as the Supreme Being wishes. As such, the selection of who represents the Supreme Being must ultimately come from the Supreme Being.

Yes, they may be introduced to the Supreme Being by one of His representatives - as illustrated in the scriptures with Jesus' own students, Jesus approaching John, and prophets being students of other prophets.

But the sign of someone who is not representing the Supreme Being is that they have been elected or selected by a council of men, a committee of men, or even one man. Such a selection is not the selection of God. It is the appointment or selection of humans.

One might ask: But what if that selection comes from God's messenger?

The assumption is that God's messenger would act on behalf of the Supreme Being and select or appoint his successor(s). But this is not the case.

A true messenger of God does not select who can have a confidential relationship with God. This is between the Supreme Being and the individual. God's messenger might be teaching on God's behalf, but he recognizes that it is ultimately the Supreme Being who exchanges a relationship with each person and thus empowers a person to represent Him.

While God's representative or messenger will teach people personally - introducing them to the Supreme Being - it is not up to God's messenger to choose who will eventually develop their confidential loving relationship with the Supreme Being. This is illustrated by John the Baptist sending his students to ask Jesus:

John's disciples told him about all these things.... When the men came to Jesus, they said, "John the Baptist sent us to you to ask, 'Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?' " (Luke 7:18-20)

And Jesus told his own disciples and students:

"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son [Representative] and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you." (Matt. 27:19-20)

We can see here that neither Jesus nor John chose or selected a successor. They taught to everyone, and accepted those who were serious as students and disciples. And they told them to go out and pass on those teachings to others.

But it was up to each individual to develop their relationship with God. Yes, the Supreme Being is not a vague force or void. And there is no automatic process. The Supreme Being is a Person. This is why God's messenger teaches us to love the Supreme Being. How could someone love a void or vague force? For there to be love, there must be distinct individuals.

Who chooses who represents God?

A real messenger of God will recognize that it is the Supreme Being's prerogative in terms of who will represent Him.

God's representative offers his wisdom to everyone who is willing to hear. There is no exclusion. There is no selection. Jesus stood up on hills and in courtyards, preaching to whoever would come and listen - even Pharisees. And John the Baptist invited anyone and everyone - even Pharisees and chief priests - to come to the desert and hear his teachers.

As such, God's messenger is offering his teachings about God to everyone who becomes serious enough to respect those teachings. There is no exclusion. There is no selection.

Appointment and selection are certainly attractive to some. In fact, they attract those who want the admiration and respect of others. Those who want to attract followers and receive the admiration of others are attracted to the process of appointment. But this is a materialistic desire. It has nothing to do with one's personal relationship with the Supreme Being.

And those who receive the appointments or selections of others within institutions will represent those institutions instead of representing the Supreme Being. This is why those teachers and leaders of the Catholic institution have allowed some of their teachers to continue in their positions even though they molested some of their followers. Because they consider the institution's reputation to be more important than pleasing the Supreme Being.

The bottom line is that Jesus is indicating that these institutional teachers have no real authority from the Supreme Being. They have not been empowered by the Supreme Being and thus cannot change people's hearts. They cannot have the kind of effect that Jesus had upon his followers - and the kind of effect that other prophets such as Moses and Abraham had upon their followers.

Those effects, communicated over the centuries within scripture, did not disappear. Those who sincerely read Jesus' teachings even today will be personally affected by those teachings. Jesus' teachings have the power - even though all the misinterpretation - of changing one's heart from being self-centered to being God-centered.

This is because Jesus was empowered by the Supreme Being, due to the fact that Jesus was pleasing to the Supreme Being:

And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son [Representative], whom I love; with him I am well pleased.” (Matt. 3:17)

Jesus also clarified this empowerment by the Supreme Being, based on his mission to please the Supreme Being:

"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)

"God in his wisdom said, 'I will send them prophets ..." (Luke 11:49-51)

"Because of this, God in his wisdom said, 'I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and others they will persecute.' Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, this generation will be held responsible for it all." (Luke 11:49-51)

This verse clarifies that the statement made in the Book of Matthew is actually quoting a statement by the Supreme Being:

“Therefore I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berakiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation.” (Matt. 23:34-36)

Is this the same incident?

This is a different portrayal of the same statement. The setting between the two verses is consistent, for example. In both, Jesus is speaking of the Pharisees as he says, "woe to you..." This is consistent between Luke 11:42 to Luke 11:44 and Matt. 23:23 to 23:27.

We find many other similarities between the two - both speak of sending prophets, both speak of those prophets being killed, both speak of Abel and Zechariah, and both state how Zechariah was killed between the temple and the altar (or "altar and the sanctuary").

Yet we find no specific verse in the Old Testament where this precise statement by God is written. At the time of Jesus there were other Hebrew texts that didn't make it into the Canon.

We do, however, find similar statements made by God in the Bible. For example, God instructed Ezekiel:

“Son of man, I am sending you to the Israelites, to a rebellious nation that has rebelled against Me; they and their ancestors have been in revolt against Me to this very day." (Ezekiel 2:3)

So we can see that God certainly communicated that some from the nation of Israel had forsaken Him, and had killed some of those who worshipped Him.

However, the question of whether the Supreme Being said this statement in the Old Testament is not important. Why? Because Jesus is God's representative - and if he said it, we can conclude that God said it.

This can also be said of many of the statements made by prophets such as Moses, Isaiah, David, and many others, who spoke on behalf of the Supreme Being. Consider, for example, Isaiah's statement, passing on the message of the Supreme Being:

The Lord says: "These people come near to me with their mouth and honor Me with their lips, but their hearts are far from Me. Their worship of Me is based on merely human rules they have been taught." (Isaiah 29:13)

So whether Jesus is quoting a previous scriptural passage - as Jesus had quoted Isaiah 29:13 in Matt. 15:8 - or whether he is directly speaking for the Supreme Being is not important.

What is the point?

What is important is the message. The meaning. And the fact that it is being spoken by God's representative - Jesus.

Yet another issue that may be brought up is that the message of Matt. 23:34-36 appears to be Jesus speaking of those who will be sent in the future, while Luke 11:49-51 appears to be speaking solely of those prophets and apostles from the past who were persecuted.

What is obvious from the comparison of the statements in Matthew and Luke is that each is portraying the hearing of Jesus' statement from two different perspectives - neither of which should be considered wrong.

In reality, in both the Luke and Matthew statements, Jesus is speaking of the past, present, and future. Those leaders and promoters of ecclesiastical institutions and power structures - created by those who seek their own power and authority in the name of religion - are responsible for persecuting God's messengers who have been sent periodically by the Supreme Being to teach us.

Who will be sent and who will kill them?

Jesus is quoting God, 'I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and others they will persecute.'

Is this statement saying the purpose of the Prophets being sent is to be killed or persecuted? No. It is saying they were sent by the Supreme Being. That is the central message. But the Supreme Being also knew they would be either killed and/or otherwise persecuted.

One might ask: Why would God send His prophets and allow them to be persecuted?

The reality is that we are not these physical bodies. They are temporary vehicles that we drive. The spirit-person within who operates this physical body is not touched by what happens to the physical body. This was taught specifically by Jesus:

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

So if the body being killed does not kill the soul, we know that the killing or persecution of the prophets took place upon the physical bodies of the prophets. Those prophets - exalted spirit-persons who were lovingly serving the Supreme Being - were not harmed. Rather they were protected. After they left their bodies, they simply returned to the spiritual realm after being sent to pass on the message of the Supreme Being.

Furthermore, their allowing their physical bodies to be persecuted because of their teachings illustrates their total commitment to those teachings, and their loving relationship with the Supreme Being.

What does 'blood of the Prophets' mean?'

"Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary."

This translation presents a misunderstanding of Jesus' message: The word "generation" implies that all the people of that particular era - those who lived at the time of Jesus - which would also include Jesus - are responsible for the killing of all the prophets - even those who lived centuries earlier.

How could this be true?

The fact is, it has been mistranslated. The phrase "this generation" - taken from the Greek γενεᾶς ταύτης - contains the key root, γενεά (genea) - which can certainly be translated to "generation." But it can also mean, when used metaphorically, "a group of men very like each other in endowments, pursuits, character."

As such we cannot say that everyone living at that time in history was solely responsible. That would necessarily eliminate those who actually persecuted those prophets centuries earlier - a crazy proposition.

But if we understand that Jesus is speaking of a common denominator - a type of people that both were existing around Jesus and have existed for centuries before (and after) Jesus - then we have the formula for who Jesus is speaking of - those responsible for the murder and persecution of these prophets.

What is that common denominator?

It is those who were a part of the institutions that were either involved directly or have allowed the persecution of teachers of the truth through the ages.

It is the leaders of these organizations, who seek power and authority over others - and those who promote such organizations in order to gain acceptance by these leaders and others - who Jesus is speaking of.

And as we've seen historically among these groups - such as the ecclesiastical Jewish institution led by the high priests and Pharisees that were responsible for the arrest of Jesus and the recommendation that his body be put to death. This same institution was responsible for allowing John the Baptist to be arrested and John's body to eventually be put to death without any protest.

And this ecclesiastical Jewish institution - as Jesus indicates here - was the descendant of those institutions and leaders that allowed Jeremiah, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Micah, Amos, Zechariah, and others to be persecuted over the centuries. They were either directly implicated in the persecution or allowed the persecution to happen without protest.

Rather than allowing one of God's representatives to be persecuted, human society and its various organizations should be providing protection for them at all costs.

Why will this generation be responsible?

"Yes, I tell you, this generation will be held responsible for it all."

Again, understanding the meaning of γενεά (genea) - see above - allows us to understand that those who lead or promote organizations that have not protected those representatives of God before them will also become accountable for the prior activities of that institution.

This can also be applied today. Those who lead or promote institutions that have been responsible for the persecution of God's messengers, as well as innocent people, are in effect approving the prior activities of those institutions. To the degree of their involvement, they will also be held accountable, according to Jesus' teachings.

This is part of the law of consequences. The physical world designed by the Supreme Being maintains the law of consequences, which means that whatever we do with a self-interested motive will come back to us, either in this lifetime or the next.

And just as aiding a criminal will also be punishable under most laws, accommodating the actions of an institution by one's involvement with that institution also creates responsibility.

Serving the Supreme Being, however, does not create physical consequences. This is because serving God is our innate natural position.

"There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed ..." (Luke 12:2-3)

"There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. What you have said in the dark will be heard in the daylight, and what you have whispered in the ear in the inner rooms will be proclaimed from the roofs." (Luke 12:2-3)

Jesus continues to address his students after he said:

Jesus began to speak first to his disciples, saying: "Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy." (Luke 12:1)

What does he mean by 'nothing concealed'?

The topic of this statement relates to the teachings of the Pharisees, as explained in this previous verse.

But what do the Pharisees have to do with something concealed being brought into the open? And why does Jesus speak of "What you have said..."?

Jesus is speaking of knowledge and teaching. Jesus' disciples will be instructed by Jesus to pass his teachings on to others. Thus he is teaching them about the topic of passing on knowledge. First, he instructs them to not hear the teachings ("yeast") of the Pharisees. Then he speaks of teaching about knowledge.

How is this about knowledge?

The word being translated to "known" is γινώσκω (ginōskō) - which means "to learn to know, come to know, get knowledge of, perceive" according to the lexicon.

Sometimes Jesus' teachings were a bit mysterious because he spoke in parables, and some of his disciples would get confused. Jesus explained this elsewhere:

The disciples came to him and asked, "Why do you speak to the people in parables?" He replied, "Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. This is why I speak to them in parables: "Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand." (Matt. 13:10-13)

This was stated slightly differently in Luke:

His disciples asked him what this parable meant. He said, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to others I speak in parables, so that, " 'though seeing, they may not see; though hearing, they may not understand.'" (Luke 8:9-10)

What does what 'said in the dark will be heard in the daylight' mean?

Jesus also said, "What you have said in the dark will be heard in the daylight..."

Jesus is speaking directly about teaching now. The first sentence above regards gaining knowledge and the second regards teaching knowledge. Jesus is clarifying that not only will they eventually come to know the Truth, but when they pass it on to others it will become known to others.

It is not as if Jesus is wanting to keep the teachings of the Supreme Being private. Why then would he travel the countryside teaching?

Rather, what he was teaching was for a select few: Those who were ready to hear. Those who had a desire to come to know and love the Supreme Being.

Those who didn't have that desire would not understand the Truth even if they physically heard it: "though hearing, they may not understand."

What about whispering in the ear?

He also says, "... and what you have whispered in the ear in the inner rooms will be proclaimed from the roofs."

Jesus is using symbolism to convey that should they pass on Jesus' teachings, then those who have that desire to hear God's message will also be able to convey the teachings to others, who will also receive them and be able to pass them on to others.

This is the process the Supreme Being utilizes to broadcast His message to us. Externally, He utilizes His messengers to pass on His teachings - from Teacher to the student, and confirmed by scripture (which portrays the teachings of Teachers before).

Then the Supreme Being teaches from within as well. For a person who has respected and carefully heard the teachings of His messenger, the Supreme Being teaches from within as the Holy Spirit. This was confirmed specifically by Jesus:

"But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you." (John 14:26)

Here "send in my name" means that the Supreme Being recognizes the student's observance and dedication to God's representative.

Why, one may ask, would God need His representative to teach us externally before He teaches from within? Can't the Supreme Being just come and teach us from within only?

This question also relates to the many people over the centuries who have claimed to have had a vision of the Supreme Being or of Jesus from within and thus claim this vision gives them the ability to teach to others.

Isn't such a position hypocritical?

A person who says they have received a vision from within and this gives them the right to teach to others is saying that they didn't need an external teacher, but others - those whom they are teaching to - do need an external teacher - more specifically, themselves.

This is hypocritical because they didn't need a teacher. Why do we need them as our teacher? Why can't each of us just have our own vision? Why do they even need to teach if we each can just have a vision like they did?

Or are they saying that they are somehow special - and better than everyone else?

If they are teaching that we should follow them, then it would be hypocritical to also say we need to hear their teachings, when they didn't need to hear and follow the teachings of a teacher. To "follow" means to do what they do, right?

In fact, this is one of the main reasons why these institutions founded by charismatic "visionaries" have strayed from what Jesus really taught: Because their founders believed their so-called visions gave them the license to create their own philosophy and interpretation of Jesus' teachings.

Yet if they really followed Jesus' teachings then they would also seek and accept a teacher, just as Jesus showed us with accepting John the Baptist as his teacher - symbolized by his accepting baptism.

And even if we have not found a teacher in this world, we can still accept Jesus as our teacher as long as we are following his teachings and not making up our own or following those who have made up their own teachings. 

Or following those who have followed those who have made up their own teachings. This would be the case for those institutions that have followed Pauline theology - those teachings of Paul that strayed from Jesus' teachings.

We can find clear indications that Jesus didn't make up his own teachings. He followed the teachings of his teacher John, and also taught them to others. The fact that Jesus specifically passed on the teachings of John was portrayed in these three verses:

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

From that time on [after John's imprisonment] Jesus began to preach, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near." (Matt. 4:17)

[Jesus told his disciples] "As you go, preach this message: 'The kingdom of heaven is near.'" (Matt. 10:7)

While this ("The kingdom of heaven is near") is a generalization of Jesus' teachings (find the meaning here) - we can see that Jesus passed on what John taught and then instructed his students to pass on the same teaching.

And while we might accept that Jesus was exalted and didn't need a teacher, Jesus himself said after John questioned whether he should baptize Jesus:

"Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness." (Matt. 3:15)

What does 'all righteousness' mean?

"All righteousness" refers to the process of becoming a student before becoming a teacher. One must become a student before becoming a teacher.

The reason behind this is to avoid the dangers of mental speculation. The physical mind has a great ability to deceive. It can make us believe we have had a special vision. The mind can deceive us into thinking that we can make up our own interpretation and that since we made it up it must be correct. The mind can deceive us into thinking that we have some special gift that others do not have, and thus the ability to teach to others despite not having been a student.

But if one sits at the feet of a teacher and learns from them those teachings that the teacher is passing on from his own teacher, the student will be able to discern the difference between what is coming from the mind and what is coming from the Supreme Being within. This is illustrated by Jesus' statement above:

"But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you."

In other words, the Holy Spirit acts to confirm the teachings of His representative - to clarify them. But never to contradict them.

Why is this important? Because the spiritual realm (the kingdom of heaven) is about the loving relationships that exist between the Supreme Being and His loving servants. To learn from one of His loving servants means to enter into those loving relationships that exist between the Supreme Being and His loving servants.

This is why even Jesus' teachings did not contradict the teachings of John, or the Prophets. And even his most important instruction was quoted from Moses' teachings:

" 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment." (Matt. 22:37-38 quoted from Deuteronomy 6:5)