This is something I wrote back in 2009. I wanted to share it once again.

Some may consider Jesus turning over the tables of the money changers (Mark 11:15-19, Matthew 21:12-17, Luke 19:41-48, John 2:14-17) as an act of violence. I don’t. Though he was angry, I would suggest that one is reading too much into the text if one believes that Jesus actually hit people with a whip. I mean… I’d be upset too if the people of my church were taking advantage of their own brothers and sisters. I’d be angry if people were gambling with the God’s money. I would certainly be infuriated if all this was going on on church property. If the church charged me for salvation, I would throw a righteous temper tantrum as well. No… Most of us could agree that the act of Jesus flipping over tables doesn’t make him violent. It simply shows how angry Jesus actually was for His “house of prayer” being turned into a “den of thieves”.

Flipping over the tables was enough to get these thieves to go… That alone would have been enough for me to leave… but in the text, John says that He “fashioned a whip, driving all out, cattle and sheep.” My argument is that the text never says that He used the whip on the people at the temple. The whip was made, in my understanding, to drive out the animals. To say that He used this weapon on the people in the temple would be making a huge illogical conclusion. It’s also adding to the text, and I think, especially in this story, it would be dangerous to say that Jesus actually whipped the money changers, being that He is the Prince of Peace, he clearly taught nonviolent methods including, “Those who live by the sword will die by the sword.” It’s no doubt, if Jesus is did indeed use a whip on those at the temple, not only would that mean that mean Jesus was inconsistent, it would make him much worse: a liar. The text never even says He threatened the money changers with a whip. I’m sure some saw Him with it and felt threatened… but I believe the logical conclusion is that His intention was to use the whip on the animals- not the people.

It’s all in the text. If it says He hit people with the whip, then that destroys every argument for Christian pacifism/nonviolence/nonresistance. But it doesn’t say that. Plain and simple.

I guess I’m saying that using this text to conclude that Jesus used violence would be making an illogical conclusion based on what the text actually says. Especially knowing Jesus’ teachings on non-violent methods, I think it is agreeable that the only way this makes sense is that the whip was for the cattle and the sheep. We wouldn’t add to the text any other time. This should not be an exception.