"It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone.'" (Luke 4:4)

According to this and other English translations, Jesus is saying this to the "devil" during his forty-day fast in the desert. According to Luke:

The devil said to him, "If you are the Son of God, tell this stone to become bread." (Luke 4:4)

Jesus' answer, if understood, clarifies the meaning of his forty-day fast, and even who the "devil" really is.

Who is Jesus quoting?

In answering, Jesus indicates that "it is written." What does this mean? It means that Jesus is quoting from scripture. In particular, he is quoting Moses' statement to his students after they had traveled through the desert in search for what has been referred to as "the promised land."

Here is the text from Deuteronomy, Chapter 8, that includes this statement:

"Be careful to follow every command I am giving you today, so that you may live and increase and may enter and possess the land that the LORD promised on oath to your forefathers. Remember how the LORD your God led you all the way in the desert these forty years, to humble you and to test you in order to know what was in your heart, whether or not you would keep His commands. He humbled you, causing you to hunger and then feeding you with manna, which neither you nor your fathers had known, to teach you that man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the LORD." (Deut. 8:1-3)

We can see here the reason that God led the Israelites through the desert, and why they ate manna - a seed-grain pulverized into a meal made into wafers. It explains that the purpose of the journey was "to humble you and to test you in order to know what was in your heart."

Why would God need to test them?

We can understand this when we understand relationships. Let's say we had a close friend that, after many years of friendship, suddenly betrayed us and took off, and for several years stayed out of touch with us. Then suddenly they call us out of the blue and want to be friends again. What would we do?

Most people would be a bit careful. Before re-establishing a trusting relationship with that person we would want to go slowly. We would want to gradually rebuild our relationship. We would also test that friendship over time to see if the person was really serious about being friends again.

For example, we might call the friend and ask them to do something for us that might be a bit difficult for them to do. If they do it, we would know that they are committed to being friends again. If they don't, we know they have an ulterior motive, or they just want to be friends out of convenience (they call this a "fair weather friend").

God, on the other hand, does not need to test us in order to understand whether we are committed to a relationship with Him. He already knows how committed we are. He can see our hearts.

However, He will still put various tests in front of us should we seriously pray to Him and ask to return to Him. Why? Because these tests tell us whether we are really committed to Him or not. They indicate whether we are serious about returning to Him or not.

And what is the value of that? The value is that if we understand our lack of seriousness, we can then work towards becoming more serious about re-establishing our relationship with the Supreme Being. It is like a litmus test for us.

For example, many people will say in passing that "Oh, I love God." But do they really? Do they even know who God is? Have they really committed their lives to doing what is pleasing to God?

Who tempted Jesus and why did he fast?

Many have asked why Jesus took a forty-day fast in the desert. Moses' statement to the Israelites gives us an indication. A forty-day fast provides an appropriate test, and it is significant that Jesus fasted for 40 days - symbolizing the 40-year journey by Moses' students.

And we can see from Jesus' forty-day fast in the desert that he was also being tested:

Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit in the desert, where for forty days he was tempted by the devil. He ate nothing during those days, and at the end of them he was hungry. (Luke 4:1-2)

The word "tempted" is being translated from the Greek word πειράζω (peirazō) means, according to the lexicon, "to try, make trial of, test: for the purpose of ascertaining his quality, or what he thinks, or how he will behave himself." We can thus understand that Jesus was being tested.

Furthermore, it says "he was tempted by the devil." Who is the "devil"?

The concept of the "devil" as promulgated by many, is that the devil is some bad guy who goes around tempting each of us. The idea is that we are all "good" but this guy the devil sits on our shoulder and tempts us with "bad" "sinful" stuff. Or he gets us to sign a contract in blood that then corrupts us.

While there is certainly truth to these symbolic descriptions of life within the physical world, we would be living in cartoon-land if we thought the devil was a physical reality.

The word "devil" in these verses from Luke is translated from the word διάβολος (diabolos). Here is the entire text from Thayer's lexicon defining this word:
1) prone to slander, slanderous, accusing falsely
a) a calumniator, false accuser, slanderer,
2) metaphor - applied to a man who, by opposing the cause of God, may be said to act the part of the devil or to side with him

Thus we can see that the word διάβολος (diabolos) does not actually refer to a physical person, the "devil." It is describing being slanderous or falsely accusing, or when used metaphorically, a person who is "opposing the cause of God." Remember that the term "metaphorically" (metaphor) refers to symbolism.

Thus we can see that the translation to "devil" as a person in these verses is incorrect. The early translators - who were paid professional translators intent on following the edicts of the politically-derived Synod of Nicene driven by the Roman Emperor Constantine's desire to control the Christian world - simply did not portray the meaning of διάβολος (diabolos) with the correct context.

This is because they themselves were not dedicated to the teachings of Jesus. They were not devoted to the Truth. They were simply "doing their job" and they knew that if they didn't translate the texts to the satisfaction of the early Church leaders then they would lose that job and/or be imprisoned or even burnt at the stake.

And the early Roman Church leaders wanted to promote this idea of the "devil" or "satan" because they wanted to scare people into coming to church and paying their alms.

As for later Biblical translators - those with advanced degrees from divinity schools - they also needed to protect their reputation and their professional positions within their institutions - typically financed or supported by churches that also drew upon the Nicene Creed. Thus these later translators also had to maintain the status quo of translating these texts as if a person called the devil was following Jesus around the desert tempting him with stuff.

Rather, as we can see from the definition that in this context, the word διάβολος (diabolos) refers to opposing our natural state of being a loving caregiver of God. By opposing our natural position - as we were each created to be one of the Supreme Being's caregivers - we are thus "opposing the cause of God" or "falsely" considering ourselves not one of the Supreme Being's children.

We are rebelling against God in other words.

Rather than Jesus being "tempted by the devil," Jesus was being tested by the promises of the material world. The nature of the physical world is such that it tests anyone who enters it and takes on a physical body. Why?

The physical world was created by the Supreme Being in order to provide some of His children a place where we could seemingly get away from Him.

Why are we here?

Those of us within the physical world are here because at some point we rejected the Supreme Being and became self-centered. We rejected our position as God's loving servant. We wanted to get away from Him. We wanted to be like Him. We wanted to be the master instead of the servant. So we wanted to get away from Him.

And because the Supreme Being is always present everywhere, in order to satisfy our desire to get away from Him, He created a virtual dimension where we take on physical bodies that cannot see Him. This has allowed us to pretend that He doesn't exist, or doubt His existence.

Thus the physical world is full of promises and desires for seeming pleasure. For this reason, it is also a place of entrapment. By becoming immersed in our desires we become entrapped by the physical world. We become hooked to its sensual nature.

The physical world also has another feature: We are tricked into thinking that these physical bodies are us. We occupy these bodies for a few decades, and then they die and we have to leave them. But we think they are eternal and we think we are them. We thus struggle to keep them alive, not realizing that we are simply driving these bodies around much like a person sits down in a car and drives it for a while.

But once inside the body we begin to identify with it (much as people identify with their cars). We think this body is us, and we search for pleasure within this physical world.

Why aren't we satisfied?

Just as the Rolling Stones sang during the height of their popularity, "I can't get no satisfaction," one can have so many things here in this world and still not be satisfied. Why?

The things of the physical world will not satisfy us because we are spiritual by nature.

This might be compared to us driving our car, and becoming hungry, and thinking that if we fill up the car with gas we will become full and no longer hungry.

But it doesn't work that way. If we fill the car's gas tank with gas it will not affect our stomach, because we are occupying the car. We are not the car.

In the same way, the things of this world will not satisfy the spiritual being - us - within the physical body.

This is what Jesus is teaching as he makes this statement. He is being tested by the promise of the things of the physical world - in this case, food that will break his fast - and he is stating that the things of this physical world will not satisfy us.

The statement, "Man does not live on bread alone" incorporates several important lessons, both on a symbolic and practical way. When Jesus uses the word "live," he is not referring to keeping the body alive. Otherwise, it would be a false statement, because bread does keep the body alive. Thus we can know by the word "live" that Jesus is talking about spiritual life. He is talking about the life of the spiritual being.

And he knows that the spiritual being - each of us dwelling within these physical bodies - will only be able to truly live when we are in our natural position of loving and serving the Supreme Being.

But the idea that the devil is responsible for our self-centered (sinful) nature is not correct. We are responsible for our self-centered nature. We are the only ones who can decide that we want to change our consciousness. But as long as we remain self-centered, then the "devil" of the physical world will continue to tempt us with so many plans, physical goodies, wealth, fame and so on so that we become mired within the web of the physical world.

The fact is, the devil symbolizes our desire to enjoy life in a self-centered way. The devil is a self-centered outlook that sees everything around us as objects for our enjoyment. This means that the devil, in fact, is an element of our current consciousness.

In our pure state, each of us is a loving caregiver of the Supreme Being. This is our natural position. Each of us is a spiritual entity: A spiritual person. And we come from the spiritual realm.

But because we became self-centered, and became envious of the Supreme Being, we were tossed out of the spiritual realm and forced to take on physical bodies. These temporary physical bodies are like vehicles: We get in them and drive them for a while.

This means that we are not these bodies, and our true nature is spiritual. This is the meaning of Jesus' statement that "Man does not live on bread alone." Each of us needs spiritual food.

What else does man live on besides bread?

Jesus is referring to Moses' teachings. Moses taught that "man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the LORD."

How can a person "live" "on every word that comes from the mouth of the LORD."

It is love for the Supreme Being. It is a loving relationship with God. When such a devoted person hears from their Beloved, they are happy.

This combines with doing what pleases God. Then when that person follows through on something God says, (translated in Deut. as "commands") they become fulfilled. What God says indicates what pleases Him. If a person does what pleases God out of love, their love is complete, bringing complete fulfillment.

This is what each of us is eternally hungry for. And this is why we are never satisfied with the physical stuff of this world. We are not satisfied with material things, whether it is wealth, fame, power or sensuality. Even the richest, most powerful people in the world are still empty for this reason. We can only be fulfilled when we are lovingly seeking to please our Best Friend and Soul Mate - the Supreme Being.

This is what Jesus is communicating. Yes, Luke clearly indicates that Jesus was tempted by a desire to eat while he was fasting. He was fasting as a sacrifice to please the Supreme Being, and this desire to eat came upon him, but he refused it by commanding that his need was spiritual food, not physical food.

He loves us without condition and wants us to return home to Him because He knows that only this will make us happy.

This is why both Jesus and Moses taught the most important commandment is:

"'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'" (Luke 10:27 and Deut 6:4)

" 'The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because He has anointed me ...." (Luke 4:18-21)

" '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.' " "Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing." (Luke 4:18-21)

Jesus said this to the congregation when he attended a synagogue on the Sabbath Day. Here is the text from Luke leading up to this statement:

Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit, and news about him spread through the whole countryside. He taught in their synagogues, and everyone praised him. He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. And he stood up to read. The scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written: (Luke 4:14-17)

Jesus was reading from Isaiah 61:9:1-2. His addition at the end confirms that Jesus saw himself as the Anointed of God.

Indeed, Jesus attended Jewish temples and stood up and spoke. This (and other statements) also indicates that Jesus was accepted as a Jewish teacher (rabbi) by many Jewish people, but it does not indicate that Jesus accepted any kind of official position within the Jewish temple institutions.

Wasn't Jesus a rabbi?

Yes, Jesus was a rabbi (teacher) but he was not part of the Jewish institution. Rather, Jesus primarily taught in courtyards and out in nature - outside the confines of the organized Jewish temples. He belonged to no institution, and neither did his teacher, nor his students.

This is important. Jesus assumed the position of teacher, based not on an official election of high priests or any other electorate body. Rather, he simply stood up and began teaching where ever he was. Jesus had accepted John the Baptist as his teacher - evidenced by his taking baptism from John. It is clear that John was accepted by many, including Jesus, as a bonafide spiritual teacher:

And with many other words John exhorted the people and preached the good news to them. (Luke 3:18)

And John took on many disciples, of which Jesus was one:

When all the people were being baptized, Jesus was baptized too. (Luke 3:21)

The teaching strategies of both John and Jesus, as well as Jesus' later instructions to his own disciples to go out and preach "the good news" to others, illustrates the bonafide method of teaching about God.

And it does not entail being elected or appointed by councils of people into official institutional positions.

What's wrong with becoming elected or appointed as a teacher?

Because teachers who are elected or appointed become obligated and must keep their allegiance to those who have elected them. Otherwise, they will lose their post. Thus they do not represent God. They represent those councils that elected them.

This idea of ecclesiastical appointment is clearly against the principles that John, Jesus, and Jesus' bonafide disciples utilized. Their method illustrated that one must accept a bonafide spiritual teacher, become a student of that teacher, and then pass on that teacher's teachings to others. It was a personal mentorship, not an institutional hierarchy.

And the teacher must not be a professional teacher who is paid a salary or otherwise making a business of their teachings. They must not be obligated to groups of people who tend to act politically, forcing the teacher to compromise their teachings to align with the political sensitivities of the committee(s) that elected them and control their salaries.

Why did Jesus rail against appointed teachers?

Jesus in fact railed against these ecclesiastically appointed Jewish teachers, who were termed Pharisees and Sadducees. Jesus clarified this to his own disciples:

"Be careful," Jesus said to them. "Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees." (Matt. 16:11)

Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees. (Matt. 16:12)

The Pharisees were a politically active group of Jewish officials who formed a sect. As indicated in the writings of the early historian, Josephus, the Pharisees were the primary political force within the Jewish temples, and they claimed to bear the law of the teachings of Moses. Their teachings were disputed by the Sadducees, who claimed a more privileged stature because they were supposedly ancestors of certain Jewish rulers. Basically, the Sadducees felt they were the chosen ones because of their family descent.

Outside of these two main sects were the teachers of the Essenes movement, who were set against the political organizational structures of the Pharisees and the ancestral claims of the Sadducees. Neither Jesus nor John - nor did Jesus' early disciples such as James - belong to any sect. They were not professional teachers, nor were they elected or appointed by any institutions.

It is also clear that Jesus was set against both the teachings of the Pharisees and the Sadducees. Why? Because they were not focused on loving and pleasing God. They were focused upon their own authority within their political institutions and/or familial positions. They were self-centered rather than God-centered, and their teachings reflected this.

As Jesus stood up among the congregation, Jesus testified to this difference between his teachings and the teachings of the Pharisees and the Sadducees. We can see this within the context of what Jesus quoted. That he was representing God and God's true teachings for the benefit of others.

Many appointed teachers - appointed and elected by political counsels - like to emphasize that Jesus was quoting Isaiah to prove that Isaiah had predicted Jesus' arrival. This twists Jesus' very statement - and makes it seem that Jesus' motive was to promote his own authority. Jesus, however, was promoting God's authority ("He has sent me... the Lord's favor.").

Is Isaiah being misinterpreted?

They even have gone to the extreme of mistranslating some of Isaiah's texts to accommodate this view. The early ecclesiastical Church ministry and their professional scribes - supported and driven by Roman emperors (Constantine and so on) - were fixed on using Christianity to dominate Europe and the Middle East. They tried to create religious exclusivity by claiming that all the prophets of the Old Testament were not teaching their students to love and serve God. They were all supposedly predicting Jesus' arrival.

Does this make any sense? Who were they teaching this to, and what would it matter to a group of Jewish people thousands of years before the birth of Christ that there would come a man-god centuries later (long after they died) who would supposedly "die for mankind's sins"? How would such a teaching benefit those who heard those teachings?

This prediction philosophy - that all those teachers such as Abraham, Moses, David, Isaiah, and others have been incorrectly labeled "prophets" instead of teachers - is ridiculous. This philosophy is not founded upon solid evidence from these scriptural writings, nor from their teachings. Rather, it is grounded upon gleaming out-of-context and poorly-translated short phrases from these ancient texts to try to fit this speculative philosophy.

Let's use Isaiah's text as an example. Jesus was clearly quoting this text because he, like Isaiah, David, Samuel, Moses, Joshua, Job, Abraham and others, was dedicated to passing on the teachings of God, and thus was God's representative. "Because He has anointed me to preach good news" clearly indicates that just as God "anointed" (chose) Moses, Joshua, Eli, Samuel, David, Solomon, Isaiah, John the Baptist and others to preach "the good news," Jesus was also selected by God for this duty.

Then Jesus says, "today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing." This is because Jesus is standing up in the Jewish temple and teaching. This "fulfills" (or satisfies) the text of Isaiah not because Isaiah was predicting Jesus would teach "the good news" but because whoever God chooses to represent Him and teaches others on His behalf will in effect be "fulfilling" Isaiah's text.

The word "fulfilled" is coming from the Greek word πληρόω (plēroō), to "consummate" or "to carry into effect, bring to realization, realize" according to the lexicon. Jesus, is in effect, carrying out Isaiah's words, bringing them into realization. This does not mean that Isaiah himself also did not carry out his own words, however. To "fulfill" or "carry out" does not render exclusivity. Jesus' disciples, for example, also carried on Jesus' teachings. So where is the exclusivity?

To understand this better, let's consider the full text of Isaiah, from which Jesus quoted from:

The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on me, because the LORD has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners, to proclaim the year of the LORD's favor and the day of consequence [**] of our God, to comfort all who mourn, and provide for those who grieve in Zion--to bestow on them a crown of beauty instead of ashes, the oil of gladness instead of mourning, and a garment of praise instead of a spirit of despair. They will be called oaks of righteousness, a planting of the LORD for the display of His splendor. They will rebuild the ancient ruins and restore the places long devastated; they will renew the ruined cities that have been devastated for generations. Aliens will shepherd your flocks; foreigners will work your fields and vineyards. And you will be called priests of the LORD, you will be named ministers of our God. You will feed on the wealth of nations, and in their riches you will boast. Instead of their shame my people will receive a double portion, and instead of disgrace they will rejoice in their inheritance; and so they will inherit a double portion in their land, and everlasting joy will be theirs. For Yĕhovah says, "I the LORD,["For I, the LORD...."*] love justice; I hate robbery and iniquity. In my faithfulness I will reward them and make an everlasting covenant with them. In my faithfulness He will faithfully give them their recompense and make and everlasting covenant with them. Their descendants will be known among the nations and their offspring among the peoples. All who see them will acknowledge that they are a people the LORD has blessed." I delight greatly in the LORD; my soul rejoices in my God. For he has clothed me with garments of salvation and arrayed me in a robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom adorns his head like a priest, and as a bride adorns herself with her jewels. For as the soil makes the sprout come up and a garden causes seeds to grow, so the Sovereign LORD will make righteousness and praise spring up before all nations. (Isaiah 61)

It is clear from Isaiah's text that his focus is not upon predicting Jesus' arrival. Why wouldn't he just come out and say it then? Rather, in the early part of this text, Isaiah is obviously speaking of himself as "the LORD has anointed me to preach good news" and "He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted" and so on.

Isaiah says "He has sent me". If he was predicting Jesus' arrival, then he would have said: "He will send Jesus in the future." Why must this text be twisted around to support a thesis? Would one of God's trusted devotees twist his text around like this? No. It is very clear. Isaiah is talking about being sent by God to teach others. And teach he did, evidenced by so many other texts he wrote and spoke to his own students.

Now words like "the poor," "brokenhearted," "the blind" and "the oppressed" are used symbolically. "Poor" doesn't mean they only are teaching people without money. Physical wealth is relative. A person with sandals was considered wealthy compared to a person without. Rather, what is being discussed is humility. "Poor in spirit," as Jesus said in Matthew 5:3:

"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." (Matt. 5:3)

Similar to this symbolism, a person who is "brokenhearted" is saddened and let down by the physical world. A person who is "blind" is spiritually blinded, and the "oppressed" indicates someone who realizes the oppression of the physical world (as freedom is being assumed to represent becoming spiritually liberated).

Who is ready to hear about God?

All of these types of people are ready to become illuminated by the teachings of Isaiah, Jesus, and other ancient teachers. These are ready to receive "the good news" about God and the spiritual realm: "to comfort all who mourn, and provide for those who grieve in Zion--to bestow on them a crown of beauty instead of ashes, the oil of gladness instead of mourning, and a garment of praise instead of a spirit of despair."

And what is that "garment of praise" that Isaiah refers to symbolically? It is praising God. This is confirmed throughout the texts of the Bible - that praising God, doing God's will and loving God are the keys to happiness. This is confirmed by Isaiah, as he says in the text above:

"I delight greatly in the LORD; my soul rejoices in my God."

Isaiah also comments on how his teachings will render other teachers, as his students go out and continue to spread the "good news:"

"And you will be called priests of the LORD, you will be named ministers of our God."

This confirms, in fact, Isaiah's audience. Isaiah is teaching his students, whom he hoped would go out and continue spreading those teachings, as "ministers."

Some of Isaiah's text utilizes deep symbolism, and much of this has been misconstrued by those later scribes who - like the Sadducees who wanted to be recognized as authorities based on the family they were born in - the supposed "chosen people."

For example, Isaiah's text is translated to "Instead of their shame my people will receive a double portion, and instead of disgrace they will rejoice in their inheritance; and so they will inherit a double portion in their land, and everlasting joy will be theirs." He is not talking about inheriting a certain physical territory of land. The concept of "land" is symbolic here. The "inheritance" Isaiah is speaking of is inheriting and passing on those teachings of the spiritual realm and God. After all, how could a few acres of land create "everlasting joy"?

This concept of the Israelites - or anyone else - being chosen to inherit a bunch of largely barren land in the middle east or anywhere else was interpreted from scriptural text by those who wanted to cement their physical ownership of certain lands. As so many tribes in the years from 500 B.C.E. to 2,500 B.C.E. fought for control over land in the middle east - as they do to this day - it would be expected that teachers of those days would use the concept of land ownership symbolically.

What they actually were trying to teach was the concept that our real inheritance is our spiritual position.

Where is the promised land?

The "promised land" is the spiritual realm. Each of us is a spiritual being - not the physical body. Each of us originates from the spiritual realm and our natural position as one of God's loving caregivers. This is our inheritance - one that, if we accept our position - can deliver us back into the loving arms of the Supreme Being.

And "the Lord's favor"? What is that? It is pleasing God. When a person loves the Supreme Being, pleasing Him becomes critical. This is the same as doing God's will - as Jesus spoke of many times. When a person loves someone, they naturally want to please them.

In the text above, two elements of Isaiah's text should also be clarified:

1 (*) 61:8 in the NIV, KJV and a few others - but not all - use "For I, the LORD...." While this is technically correct, within the context of the text, it is important - and indicated by the quotes - that Isaiah is quoting God here in the second person. He is not suddenly shifting from being anointed by God to being God. Therefore, the correct translation - as indicated in some versions, is - For Yĕhovah says, "I the LORD....."

This very subtle twisting of the text removes the element showing that Isaiah is quoting God was created to imply that Jesus is suggesting this text of Isaiah's is about him only. 

In doing so, they essentially suggest that Jesus is God. This is despite scriptural evidence that Jesus was representing God, was chosen by God; and used his life to worship God, praise God, and serve God.

In other words, the interpretation that Jesus is God has no support from scripture. Scripture clearly indicates that he is God's representative wanting to serve God.

2 (**) 61:2 NIV uses the word "vengeance" for the Hebrew word נקם (naqam). This word is inappropriate, as it communicates that God must avenge Himself. The word "avenge" indicates 'getting even' with someone. God never has to 'get even' with anyone. The Supreme Being is above everyone. He is not subject to this emotion.

What is consequence learning?

What is being discussed by Isaiah is consequence learning. The word נקם (naqam) also means punishment according to the lexicon. However, God does not punish anyone in the modern context - meant to hurt someone. What the Supreme Being does is present us with consequences for our actions. This is part of His design of the physical world. The physical world renders consequences for our actions. These are designed to teach us.

Just consider if there were no consequences for actions that hurt others and/or hurt ourselves. This might be compared to feeling pain if we burnt our finger. If we didn't feel pain when we burn our finger our body might catch fire and die before we knew it. So feeling pain teaches us.

In the same way, consequences teach us. They guide us. When we do good things, good things happen. When we do bad things, bad things happen. These are consequences. They help us to become better people. They help us to realize that others are important, and they help steer us towards loving others.

This is God's intent with consequences. He wants us to begin caring for others, because we will become happier when we care about others. He also knows we will become ultimately happy when we return to our loving relationship with Him. This is why He sends His representatives such as Moses, Isaiah, John the Baptist, and Jesus. To bring us home to Him.

This is the bottom line of Jesus' statement in the temple. He is clarifying that those he is speaking to would be better off by hearing and following Jesus' teachings rather than the teachings of the Pharisees or the Sadducees, which sought to gain followers in order to promote their own institutions, together with their political agendas and positions of power.

Jesus, on the other hand, sought no position of power. He only sought to give his life to his beloved, the Supreme Being. This is why, instead of seeking a position of power and authority among the people, he accepted being condemned, tortured and his body murdered on behalf of his teachings. And what was Jesus' most important teaching, which he stated when asked by a Pharisee what was the most important commandment?

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