"Get these out of here! How dare you turn my Father's house into a market!" (John 2:16)

Here Jesus is speaking angrily to those who were selling goods within the boundary of the temple. Here is the text leading to his statement:

When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. (John 2:13-15)

He overturned tables and drove the animals outs. He was very upset. Why was Jesus so upset?

What did Jesus mean by 'my Father's house'?

This is how Jesus described the temple: "my Father's house". Jesus is personalizing the temple. This was where people worshipped God.

There are three pertinent words here:

1) "my" is possessive. Why would Jesus be possessive concerning God? This is because Jesus enjoys a personal relationship with God. A loving relationship. Consider the use of "my" when someone says "my husband" or "my brother." The word "my" signifies a loving relationship that allows them to say "my." Otherwise, there is no ownership. Jesus does not own God any more than a wife does not own her husband or one brother owns another brother. But the use of "my" signifies a particular relationship: one of love.

2) "Father" signifies that God is an individual, separate from Jesus. "Father" also indicates a familial relationship, where one person (Father) created the other (Jesus). It also indicates dependency: A person looks to their father as a protector and guardian. This is how Jesus felt about God.

3) "House" indicates a dwelling place. A "house" is a place where someone lives. In other words, Jesus saw that God dwells in the temple. This does not mean that God only lives in the temple because we know that Jesus and other prophets have described God as residing in heaven. So we know that God can expand Himself, and dwell within those places where He will accept worship. This does not depend upon a building. It depends upon devotion. God will dwell where ever He is worshipped with love and devotion. Once a loving servant of God asks God to come within a particular location to be worshipped, God will comply. This is because God enjoys exchanging loving relationships.

In other words, Jesus became so upset because they were abusing the house of God - with Whom Jesus had a loving relationship.

So we can see that Jesus was upset with people turning the location of loving worship to God into a market. Is this much different from what takes place at most professional churches and temples around the world? We see so many bazaars and flea markets being hosted at churches. Churches have become the means of funding so many unrelated events today.

Why is money so important to some institutions?

We can see Jesus' disdain for turning the temple grounds into a place where money is king. Those sellers and money changers on the temple were all about money. The temple became a place of business. It became centered around money.

This was opposed by Jesus, because Jesus taught that the temple was a place of worship, not a place to make money.

Ironically, even though Jesus angrily turned over tables and chastized these sellers, today we find many sects that claim to follow Jesus will engage so much effort to raise money.

These efforts include turning churches into bazaars and marketplaces, mirroring the kind of event Jesus condemned here.

Some sects have billions of dollars of funding from so many events. To this we add the so many pleas by sectarian evangelists who ask for money in so many tricky ways, to bring billions into their coffers. Why do they need so much money? Why is money such a central focus among these so-called religious leaders?

The reason is that love of God is not as important. If helping others learn to love God - Jesus' primary teaching - is not the primary mission of the institution, that emptiness creates a hole. Such a hole must be filled, and most will fill that hole with the need to make money. This is the hole of self-centeredness, which pervades this world.

Should preachers earn a salary?

Jesus did not earn a salary from preaching. Neither did John the Baptist. Nor did Jesus' disciples.

Yet we find that most of today's religious leaders are paid salaries to preach. Is this appropriate? To turn preaching into a business in order to earn money and even - for some institutions - become wealthy.

Isn't this offensive to God and Jesus? To turn an activity that should be based upon love into a business?

Jesus' example is clear. Teachers who truly represent Jesus do not accept payment for their services. They do not earn salaries. If someone wants to donate to the teacher, that is their free choice. But there is never a salary set up. This taints the entire process with quid-pro-quo, which leads to greed. It has no part in the teachings of God and God's representative.

This does not mean money is not required for distributing spiritual information. Yes, expenses have to be paid, and sometimes printing costs and building costs and microphone costs have to all be paid for. So donations and payments can be made for these things. This is not the same as profitability, however. Once a person takes a profit from passing down the teachings of Jesus and the prophets, those teachings are tainted and have no value.

So how would a teacher of God be fed and have a roof over his or her head? Yes, donations can pay for this. A fund can be set up to house and feed the teacher, and pay his expenses related to teaching.

Things used for the purposes of disseminating the Truth can certainly be paid for by donations. But earning a lucrative salary from preaching runs contrary to everything that Jesus stood for.

Jesus states this

"Freely you have received; freely give." (Matt. 10:8)

Jesus was not paid to teach. Neither was his teacher John. Neither were his disciples. Why not? Because this is God's will.

Teaching about God is not a paid position. And receiving a salary for teaching about God is offensive to God. Yet so many sectarian teachers today will pay for their seminary education, and then be paid to teach. Contrasting Jesus' principle, theirs is:

"You have paid to receive, now charge to give."

This function - of paying to receive and being paid to give - is rooted in self-centeredness. Service is the opposite of self-centeredness, and thus indenture. If a person is paid to do their service then the service is not voluntary. It is indentured.

The Supreme Being wants us to come to love Him out of our free will. Not in exchange for something else.

"I have food to eat that you know nothing about." (John 4:32)

They came out of the town and made their way toward him. Meanwhile his disciples urged him, "Rabbi, eat something." But he said to them, "I have food to eat that you know nothing about." (John 4:30-32) 

What is the 'food' they 'know nothing about'?

After Jesus was urged by his disciples to eat something, he tells them he has food they don't know about. What is that food? It is spiritual food.

Jesus' statement also confirms the meaning of “give us each day our daily bread” (Luke 11:3) in the Lord’s prayer. The food that Jesus is discussing is the food that feeds the spiritual self.

Our real food is a loving relationship with the Supreme Person, God. Once the spirit-person within - the spiritual being - renews their relationship with the Supreme Being, they want to do the will of the One they love:

Such a person will want to do God's will out of love. This service relationship satisfies the spiritual person, just as physical food satisfies the physical body’s hunger.

And why does Jesus say that his audience knows nothing about this spiritual food? It is because the physical world is where those who don't want to have a relationship with God come to. This is where those who have rejected their relationship with God go.

This issue of internal satisfaction is specifically why most people in the physical world are struggling to become fulfilled with the forms and things of the physical world, yet remain empty and unhappy.

Can we be full yet empty within?

Through media, we have been able to see the most wealthy and famous people become physically full yet remain unfulfilled. Why?

We have been able to watch some of the richest and most glorified people in the world descend into depression, drug abuse and suicidal behaviors. Even though they had everything material a person could ever desire: The adoration of millions of people and all the money they could ever spend; their activities indicate a continued emptiness. They have remained unfulfilled despite having practically everything the physical world can offer.

Assuming that happiness results from obtaining these and other physical things, there is a problem. Because the world's most famous and wealthy people have all these things and more. They can have whatever the physical world can offer.

Even the assumption that family brings happiness - the moral of so many movies and shows - is also devoid. If family brings happiness, why are there so many unhappy, depressed people? Practically everyone has family of some sort. Why is there so much unhappiness despite so many large families?

Because not only do physical things like money and fame not bring happiness: Families of this world also do not bring happiness.

Why don't these things bring us happiness?

This points to the reality that we are not these physical bodies. If we were these physical bodies, then why would the things of the physical world not satisfy us?

Since the forms and things of the physical world do not satisfy us, we must not be physical. We must have a deeper existence, one beyond the confines of this temporary physical body.

And certainly, we see this at the time of death. A dead body lies there, but without life. The entire body - every molecule and cell - is still there in the dead body. But the body is lifeless. What has changed?

The spirit-person within - who was driving that physical body - has left.

The fact that we cannot see this spirit-person within who leaves the physical body points to the fact that the spirit-person lies within another dimension. It is not perceivable by the gross physical senses.

This is why there are so many clinical death cases where a person whose body was revived reports having left the body and observed things from outside the body. They observed the body from above, and many cases prove the spirit-person could observe things that were not otherwise observed as their physical body lay with closed eyes and a sheet over the head.

Since we are spiritual in essence and not these physical bodies, then we cannot be satisfied by the things of the physical world. It might be compared to a driver of a car being hungry and thinking that if he fills his car's gas tank up with gas he will no longer be hungry. He will soon find that filling the gas tank won't relinquish the car driver's hunger because the car driver is not the car.

For this reason, Jesus, identifying himself as the spiritual child of God and not the physical body, relayed to his students that his food was loving the Supreme Being and serving Him. This is confirmed by Jesus' next statement:

“My food,” said Jesus, “is to do the will of Him who sent me and to finish His work." (John 4:34)