As Jesus taught in the Temple, he told them, “Why do the scribes say the Anointed of God [Messiah, Christ] is the follower of David? For David himself said by the Holy Spirit, ‘The LORD said to my master, sit at my right sight while I put your enemies under your feet.’ David therefore himself called him ‘master,’ from what condition is he his follower?” (Mark 12:35-37)
How say the scribes that Christ is the Son of David? For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The LORD said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool. David therefore himself calleth him Lord; and whence is he then his son? (Mark 12:35-37 KJV)
Was Jesus the son of David?
The translators have utilized the term "son" in a situation that is not even remotely in context with either Jesus' statement or David's statement.
A "son" means to be born of the semen of the father. David lived on the planet about 1,000 years before Jesus. Therefore, using the term "son" would be illogical when relating Jesus to David.
"Son" is being translated in the King James version from the Greek word υἱός (huios). This Greek term can only be applied to "son" "in a restricted sense, the male offspring (one born by a father and of a mother)." Otherwise, the word means, "used to describe one who depends on another or is his follower." This means it can also mean "servant" (when that service is voluntary) or "representative" (when part of that service is to represent).
We can therefore conclude the more appropriate translation from the Lost Gospels of Jesus is not "son of David" - rather, it is "follower of David." At the same time, it could also be translated to "servant of David" or even "representative of David." But in the context, "follower of David" would probably be most appropriate.
Another differential translation term we find here is 'Anointed of God' in addition to Messiah, Christ. These are translated from the Greek word Χριστός. Is this appropriate?
The Greek root of the word Χριστός (Christos) is χρίω - which literally means, "to anoint," or in the derived lexicon, to be blessed by the Supreme Being. Thus the word Χριστός (Christos) means one who is anointed.
The etymology of Χριστός (Christos) includes God's Holy Name. As such, the anointing is being anointed ultimately by God.
This is consistent with the terminology used by the Prophets and God with respect to those who God chose to represent Him:
The Greek root of the word Χριστός (Christos) is χρίω - which literally means, "to anoint,
or in the derived lexicon, to be blessed by the Supreme Being. Thus the word Χριστός (Christos) means one who is anointed.
This is consistent with the terminology used by the Prophets and God with respect to those who God chose to represent Him:
Notice in Mark 12:35-37 that Jesus is speaking in the third person. Is he really speaking of himself in the third person? Is this how people normally refer to themselves? Especially when speaking exclusively of themselves?
For example, would a guy named Joe say to a person he just met at a party:
"Hello, Joe is at a party and Joe is introducing himself to you."
That would be very odd indeed. What they would say is:
"Hello, my name is Joe."
You see, normal people don't speak of themselves in the third person. Unless of course, they are referring to a role, even if they are at that time assuming that role.
For example, if Joe was the captain of the baseball team, then Joe might say something like:
"The captain of the baseball team has to attend these parties."
But in this case, he is referring not just to himself, but also to every other person who assumes the role of captain of the baseball team.
That is essentially why Jesus is referring to himself in the third person. Because he is referring to anyone who is in the role of "Anointed of God [Christ, Messiah]."
This is consistent with the reality that the Prophets had also previously assumed this role, as they were anointed by God, and they were thus representing God.
This translation clearly indicates is that Jesus is not speaking of the "Anointed of God" (or "Christ" or "Messiah") as exclusively himself. He is speaking of a role - the role of being God's representative.
If you read the explanation of the word Χριστός above carefully, you will understand that this role - of being God's Anointed - is the role of being God's representative. This is why God said about His anointed ones:
This is confirmed by so many books of the Old Testament. These indicate that Melchizedek, Abraham, Lot, Joseph, Moses, Jacob, Noah, Eli, Samuel, Saul, David, Job, Isaac and so many other Prophets were Anointed by God. They each assumed the role of God's representative - to a particular society at a particular time, place and circumstance.
Furthermore, each of those representatives of God (Anointed) also had students. And once that Prophet left the planet, some of those students also assumed the role of Anointed by God in order to represent God and continue to pass along His message to those who were interested in the next generation.
For example, Abraham was a student of Melchizedek. And Jacob was a student of Moses. And Samuel was a student of Eli. And David was a student of Samuel.
And this is the point - that each of these students - who became Prophets - also addressed their teacher as "master" - or, if you prefer, "lord." The reason is that the student considers his spiritual teacher to be their master - their spiritual master.
Jesus - was in the prophet lineage from David. He thus also considered himself a follower of David (not a "son"). This is because Jesus was following in the Prophets' lineage. Jesus' teacher, John the Baptist, was a student of Zachariah - who was a priest in the Prophet lineage before him that led back to David. This all has nothing to do with family lineage - although sometimes the prophet was a student of his father. But we know that it is not a family lineage because Abraham was not Melchizedek's son. Nor was Jacob the son of Moses. Nor was Samuel the son of Eli. Nor was David the son of Samuel.
You see, the Pharisees and scribes were hyperfocused upon the coming appearance of a "Messiah" - Anointed of God. Some of the people considered Jesus to be that person while some did not.
Jesus' point is that he was trying to show these hyperfocused people that the Anointed of God (Messiah or Christ) is a role, not a single person. If it is a single person, then it would be impossible for that person to at the same time be a follower of David as well as his master.
But if they could accept that the "Anointed of God" - or Messiah or Christ - was a role - the role of God's representative - then we can understand that while David considered God's representative "Anointed of God" (Samuel) as his master, Jesus could also be in the position of God's representative (Anointed of God, Christ or Messiah) while at the same time being one of David's followers (not "son").
Jesus clarifies his role as God's representative in many verses. One of these:
Jesus stated this point many other times in other ways. But some teachers - aligned with the philosophy of the Roman Catholic empire which brutally forced its doctrine upon the Western world for more than ten centuries - have chosen to ignore these statements by Jesus. They have contrived the notion that Jesus is God in human form.
Such a doctrine completely ignores all of the teachings of Jesus. Jesus never once said that he was God in human form. Yes, he did indicate that he was God's representative. But that is a seriously different notion than saying that Jesus was God.
If Jesus was the Supreme Being, who was he praying to when he made this and other prayers:
And if Jesus was God, why did he say:
Even if we were to accept their translation, it simply indicates that Jesus is saying that he and the Supreme Being have the same will - the same purpose. The fact that Jesus describes two individuals - himself and the Supreme Being - indicates they are distinct from each other.
Jesus is simply saying he is God's loving servant and representative - which is why he wanted to do the will of God:
Excepting love out of the equation, confusing Jesus with God might be compared to an ambassador going to a foreign country, and the people in that foreign country confusing the ambassador with the president. No. The president stayed in the country but sent his ambassador - who represents the president. Yes, the president and the ambassador are united. They have the same will. The same purpose. But they are not the same person.
The bottom line - indicated by Jesus' statement above about his "food" - is that Jesus is not God's slave. It is also not his "job" to be God's representative.
Rather, Jesus loves the Supreme Being. He wants to do what pleases God - out of love. This is what someone does for their beloved. They want to please them.
Jesus loves the Supreme Being and wants all of us to come to love Him. This is what God sent Jesus to teach us, and this is why his (and Moses') most important instruction was:
A "son" means to be born of the semen of the father. David lived on the planet about 1,000 years before Jesus. Therefore, using the term "son" would be illogical when relating Jesus to David.
"Son" is being translated in the King James version from the Greek word υἱός (huios). This Greek term can only be applied to "son" "in a restricted sense, the male offspring (one born by a father and of a mother)." Otherwise, the word means, "used to describe one who depends on another or is his follower." This means it can also mean "servant" (when that service is voluntary) or "representative" (when part of that service is to represent).
What does 'anointed' mean?
Another differential translation term we find here is 'Anointed of God' in addition to Messiah, Christ. These are translated from the Greek word Χριστός. Is this appropriate?
The Greek root of the word Χριστός (Christos) is χρίω - which literally means, "to anoint," or in the derived lexicon, to be blessed by the Supreme Being. Thus the word Χριστός (Christos) means one who is anointed.
The etymology of Χριστός (Christos) includes God's Holy Name. As such, the anointing is being anointed ultimately by God.
This is consistent with the terminology used by the Prophets and God with respect to those who God chose to represent Him:
The Greek root of the word Χριστός (Christos) is χρίω - which literally means, "to anoint,
or in the derived lexicon, to be blessed by the Supreme Being. Thus the word Χριστός (Christos) means one who is anointed.
This is consistent with the terminology used by the Prophets and God with respect to those who God chose to represent Him:
[God speaking]"Anoint them just as you anointed their father,[teacher] so they may serve Me as priests. Their anointing will be to a priesthood that will continue throughout their generations.” (Exodus 40:15)
[God speaking]"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." (2 Samuel 2:35)Jesus also states this directly, as he quotes Isaiah 61:9:1-2:
" 'The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because He has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor.' " (Luke 4:18-21)
Was Jesus referring to a role?
Notice in Mark 12:35-37 that Jesus is speaking in the third person. Is he really speaking of himself in the third person? Is this how people normally refer to themselves? Especially when speaking exclusively of themselves?
For example, would a guy named Joe say to a person he just met at a party:
"Hello, Joe is at a party and Joe is introducing himself to you."
That would be very odd indeed. What they would say is:
"Hello, my name is Joe."
You see, normal people don't speak of themselves in the third person. Unless of course, they are referring to a role, even if they are at that time assuming that role.
For example, if Joe was the captain of the baseball team, then Joe might say something like:
"The captain of the baseball team has to attend these parties."
But in this case, he is referring not just to himself, but also to every other person who assumes the role of captain of the baseball team.
That is essentially why Jesus is referring to himself in the third person. Because he is referring to anyone who is in the role of "Anointed of God [Christ, Messiah]."
This is consistent with the reality that the Prophets had also previously assumed this role, as they were anointed by God, and they were thus representing God.
This translation clearly indicates is that Jesus is not speaking of the "Anointed of God" (or "Christ" or "Messiah") as exclusively himself. He is speaking of a role - the role of being God's representative.
If you read the explanation of the word Χριστός above carefully, you will understand that this role - of being God's Anointed - is the role of being God's representative. This is why God said about His anointed ones:
"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)This - along with the other verses quoted in the link above - indicates that the Supreme Being has created a role for those who are representing Him. Those who are authorized to preach on His behalf have appeared throughout the ages.
This is confirmed by so many books of the Old Testament. These indicate that Melchizedek, Abraham, Lot, Joseph, Moses, Jacob, Noah, Eli, Samuel, Saul, David, Job, Isaac and so many other Prophets were Anointed by God. They each assumed the role of God's representative - to a particular society at a particular time, place and circumstance.
Furthermore, each of those representatives of God (Anointed) also had students. And once that Prophet left the planet, some of those students also assumed the role of Anointed by God in order to represent God and continue to pass along His message to those who were interested in the next generation.
For example, Abraham was a student of Melchizedek. And Jacob was a student of Moses. And Samuel was a student of Eli. And David was a student of Samuel.
And this is the point - that each of these students - who became Prophets - also addressed their teacher as "master" - or, if you prefer, "lord." The reason is that the student considers his spiritual teacher to be their master - their spiritual master.
Was Jesus a follower and teacher in the lineage of David?
Jesus - was in the prophet lineage from David. He thus also considered himself a follower of David (not a "son"). This is because Jesus was following in the Prophets' lineage. Jesus' teacher, John the Baptist, was a student of Zachariah - who was a priest in the Prophet lineage before him that led back to David. This all has nothing to do with family lineage - although sometimes the prophet was a student of his father. But we know that it is not a family lineage because Abraham was not Melchizedek's son. Nor was Jacob the son of Moses. Nor was Samuel the son of Eli. Nor was David the son of Samuel.
You see, the Pharisees and scribes were hyperfocused upon the coming appearance of a "Messiah" - Anointed of God. Some of the people considered Jesus to be that person while some did not.
Jesus' point is that he was trying to show these hyperfocused people that the Anointed of God (Messiah or Christ) is a role, not a single person. If it is a single person, then it would be impossible for that person to at the same time be a follower of David as well as his master.
But if they could accept that the "Anointed of God" - or Messiah or Christ - was a role - the role of God's representative - then we can understand that while David considered God's representative "Anointed of God" (Samuel) as his master, Jesus could also be in the position of God's representative (Anointed of God, Christ or Messiah) while at the same time being one of David's followers (not "son").
What is Jesus' role?
Jesus clarifies his role as God's representative in many verses. One of these:
“My teaching is not mine, but comes from He who sent me. A person who seeks to please Him will know whether these teachings are from God or whether I speak from myself." (John 7:16-17)Jesus is indicating that not only are his teachings coming from God: But someone will recognize that they are from God if they are interested in pleasing God - doing God's will.
Jesus stated this point many other times in other ways. But some teachers - aligned with the philosophy of the Roman Catholic empire which brutally forced its doctrine upon the Western world for more than ten centuries - have chosen to ignore these statements by Jesus. They have contrived the notion that Jesus is God in human form.
Is Jesus the Supreme Being?
Such a doctrine completely ignores all of the teachings of Jesus. Jesus never once said that he was God in human form. Yes, he did indicate that he was God's representative. But that is a seriously different notion than saying that Jesus was God.
If Jesus was the Supreme Being, who was he praying to when he made this and other prayers:
“LORD, if it pleases You, take this cup away from me, but let Your will – not mine – be done.” (Luke 22:42)If Jesus was God, then who was he praying to? Who did he ask to do their will and not his own will?
And if Jesus was God, why did he say:
"Not everyone who says to me, ‘lord, lord,’ shall enter the sanctuary of the spiritual realm – only one who does what pleases my LORD in the spiritual realm. Many will say to me at that time, ‘Master, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name cast out demons, and in your name perform many miracles? And I will say to them, ‘I never knew you: Get away from me, you who practice wickedness.’" (Luke 7:21-23)It is obvious from this and other statements that Jesus is not God. Simply by reading the Scriptures we can know this. And those statements these teachers use to "prove" that Jesus was God are either mistranslated or are simply indicating that Jesus is God's representative. Like this one:
"The Creator and I are united.” (John 10:30)This has been erroneously translated as "I and the Father are one" in most Bible versions.
Even if we were to accept their translation, it simply indicates that Jesus is saying that he and the Supreme Being have the same will - the same purpose. The fact that Jesus describes two individuals - himself and the Supreme Being - indicates they are distinct from each other.
Jesus is simply saying he is God's loving servant and representative - which is why he wanted to do the will of God:
“My food is to do what pleases Him who sent me and to complete His work." (John 4:34)Being God's loving servant and representative means by default that they should have the same will.
Excepting love out of the equation, confusing Jesus with God might be compared to an ambassador going to a foreign country, and the people in that foreign country confusing the ambassador with the president. No. The president stayed in the country but sent his ambassador - who represents the president. Yes, the president and the ambassador are united. They have the same will. The same purpose. But they are not the same person.
The bottom line - indicated by Jesus' statement above about his "food" - is that Jesus is not God's slave. It is also not his "job" to be God's representative.
Rather, Jesus loves the Supreme Being. He wants to do what pleases God - out of love. This is what someone does for their beloved. They want to please them.
Jesus loves the Supreme Being and wants all of us to come to love Him. This is what God sent Jesus to teach us, and this is why his (and Moses') most important instruction was:
“The most important of all the instructions is, ‘Hear O Israel – the LORD our God is our only Lord – and you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength’ – this is the most important instruction." (Mark 12:29-30 - Jesus quoting Moses, Deut. 6:5)
