October 4, 2013
-
Did Jesus Seriously Whip the Money Changers?
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.
Comments (19)
I recommend this article: http://www.anabaptistnetwork.com/node/165
It’s a bit long, but makes some excellent points.
The story shows that Jesus wasn’t passive. It’s about Active Pacifism. It’s not just about being peaceful, but creating peace.
@foxes_have_holes - Thanks! Actually, I’ve read this before.
I agree with you 100%. Jesus was peaceful, but he wasn’t passive. He acted in nonviolence, but he did cause commotion.
Agreed…
People read into the text WAAAAY too much. It’s not proper exegesis.
There is no translation that says that he whipped people……also, it’s pretty customary to to whip animals…
Proper Exegesis is PIVOTAL!!!
Also, It’s interesting to note that the synoptic gospels most likely used the Gospel of Mark as a source…The account of this story in Mark doesn’t even say anything about Jesus using a whip at all……
Obviously Mark didn’t think it was important to put it in….and as the earliest Gospel account that we have…..it’s probably the most accurate…
That’s my 2 cents from the view of Biblical Criticism….
-Tesia
Whether he whipped people or animals or no one, that was clearly an act of violence that frightened the people his acts were directed towards. Do you think those merchants didn’t have families to feed? Do you think anyone ever told them before there was a problem with what they were doing. Was it right that they lost a day’s income based on his outburst?
It doesn’t work for you because you need everything that Jesus said or did to be perfect and without sin. I don’t have that problem.
It’s okay with me that Jesus lost his cool and blew it in the temple for everyone to see and record and pass down as a very poor example of how one should behave when one is pissed. I still love Jesus and he still loves me and we’re getting along great.
@dirtbubble - hmmm……theology of a sinful Jesus?
I’m just wondering your explanation of how it’s okay for Jesus to sin and be fully God at the same time.
Just wondering and excited to hear your ideas!
-Tesia
@dirtbubble - Well, I won’t say much about what you said, but I will say this:
Prostitutes also (in many cases) have families to feed. But just because that is their only source of income, doesn’t mean that their actions are excused.In that culture, they were taught the Torah. They knew the law and they knew right and wrong. They should have known in their hearts (and I assume, probably did) know that they were cheating people. Jesus reacted in righteouseness… and to me, it’s clear because I see God when I see Christ.
While Jesus is the “prince of peace” (Isaiah 9:6), He was not, and is not, a pacifist. Revelation 19:15,
speaking of Jesus, declares, “Out of His mouth comes a sharp sword with
which to strike down the nations. He will rule them with an iron
scepter. He treads the wine-press of the fury of the wrath of God
Almighty.” Ecclesiastes 3:1, 3, & 8
say, “There is a time for everything and a season for every activity
under the heaven…a time to kill and a time to heal, a time to tear down
and a time to build…a time to love and a time to hate, a time for war
and a time for peace.” Daniel 9:26 says that “war will continue until the end, and desolation’s have been decreed.”
“For we know Him who said, ‘It is mine to avenge; I will repay,’ and
again, ‘The Lord will judge his people.’ It is a dreadful thing to fall
into the hands of the living God” (Hebrews 10:30-31)
I never will understand how Jesus is made into “peace” while the rest of who he is discarded –as if he somehow changed his nature
@ShamelesslyRed - For what you’ve said here, I’ll refer you to xccp.xanga.com.
I don’t believe Jesus was a pacifist, but rather, nonviolent. The word pacifist was not around when Jesus was walking on Earth. I do want to say though, that though there will be a battle at the end times, I believe there is a huge difference between a spiritual battle and a physical battle. For example, do you really believe that Jesus will pull a physical sword out of his mouth? Or do you believe it is spiritual? He will speak and just how our bible is the sword of the spirit, Christ’s words are too, the sword of the spirit. That is what I believe. I don’t discard anything in scripture… some things are just up to interpretation.
@t_sheffield - I’m not going bust out my whole new church over here on our host’s page. Jesus clearly made a mistake because it was this example of righteous anger that so-called followers have mimicked time and time again over the ages. I think he would take that one back if he had to do it all over again.
@jmallory - Let the prostitutes do what they must to feed their children. I didn’t see Jesus busting their chops over the whole deal. If they can figure a way without whoring, good for them, but better whore than let a child starve to death.
@dirtbubble - But that is contrary to what Jesus even teaches, for example- It is better you cut off your right hand if it causes you to sin. Of course, Jesus didn’t mean literally, but metaphorically. If you are prostituting yourself for the sake of income, sacrifice the income. There are other ways. And Jesus did tell a woman caught in adultry (prostitution is adultry) to go and sin no more.
@dirtbubble - thanks for your thoughts:)
@jmallory - Right: stop sinning. But to stop other people from “sinning” (and is doing business in the temple really a sin?), to jack up their stuff and kick them out, to cut off someone else’s hand or pluck out someone else’s eye, that requires judgment. Then we have to next address what Jesus taught us about judgm,ent and by then we’ve clouded the issue thoroughly. Better to stick to making yourself a better person.
You can say Jesus’ divinity gave him the right to judge and to act the way he did. I dispute that. I say he made an error. This is why Christians, especially pacifists, continually have to come back and deal with this problem. Your take is to continually cite and nuance scripture that spins off from the original question like a centrifuge because you must insist that Jesus was incapable of doing the wrong thing. If you allow, on the other hand, that he made a mistake, then everything begins to fall into place.
@dirtbubble - Or you can take the scripture in its context. Jesus later says why he had the authority to cause such a commotion and he did not recant (see Matthew 21:23-27, Mark 11:27-33, Luke 20:1-8). Just because it may not seem right to you, doesn’t mean it wasn’t. There are a lot of things that don’t seem right, yet we need to trust what God tells us. It’s the whole point of Job.
You need to remember that these are people who claimed to be believers. It is right for us to hold our brothers accountable. It is right to tell “believers” what is right and wrong. Jesus did it all the time. He didn’t just give his opinion, but said that what he says is truth. Of course, I’ll let you believe what you want, but everything really does “fall into place” when you take the scripture in context.
@dirtbubble - If Jesus had made a mistake then wouldn’t that be evident in the text and be spoken by the early church as opposed to recorded in the same fashion as all his other actions and teachings? Of course he believe Jesus was perfect and sinless. Scripture tells us this (Hebrews 4:15). So yes, pacifists and nonviolent Christians absolutely lean on this pillar that Jesus was sinless and that we are to imitate him.
From all my studying, it is clear that Jesus isn’t upset at people in the temple for doing business as much as doing unjust business and doing it in a sacred place. Greg Boyd did a sermon on this that explains what was taking place in the temple at the time of Jesus (I’ll look for it when I get off work in a few hours). Jesus wasn’t in the business of letting people do what they want but rather calling them to holy living that honors God, especially the Jewish people who were given the law and the prophets. Maybe it seems unfair that they lose income because of this but they were exploiting people as well and that’s not right.
The way in which JMallory seems to be discussing violence is in the definition regarding physical harm. Yelling can be considered violent but we’re concerned with a specific type of violence in this discussion.
@TheGreatBout - Please understand it’s not my style to carry on a long debate on someone else’s blog, but since we’ve opened up again, I did have this response already in the pipeline.
We a have fundamental disagreement about scriptural authority and that will not help us meet anywhere in the middle. My position is that Jesus’ human fallibility has not made the final edit. To me, it’s plain what has transpired and it is not the commonly held view. I see a striking contrast to the way Jesus normally behaved in accordance with his sermons and miracles: teaching and healing. What transpired in the temple is not in keeping with this message. And that is the message.
You, on the other hand, need to have a Bible study to figure out if Jesus wasn’t whipping people and maybe not the animals either and maybe he just slapped his hands down on the table too hard and it broke or something like that and he had some strong words for the sinners. Come on.
Is the temple-whuppin violent or not? Can you honestly tell me that was a civil conversation? Jesus jumped in there and started thrashing.
@dirtbubble - I agree. We have that fundamental difference and it’s a huge deterrent to finding agreement. (I’d like to have a discussion about the authority of scripture and nature of Christ sometime though outside of this specific venue if you’re be down for it).
I’m not at all claiming Jesus walked in, slammed his hands on a table too hard and attempted to have civil conversation. I’m simply saying the text gives no reason for the reader to assume Jesus inflicted physical harm on any person. Are Jesus’ actions violent in a sense? Absolutely. Yelling and turning over tables can be considered violent. I wouldn’t say Jesus was completely civil here. Did Jesus use physical violence against anyone? Not according to the text. No. And I don’t think it’s at all a same assumption to say that he did.
@dirtbubble - Here is that Greg Boyd video I mentioned. He talks about the temple merchants in the first few minutes. Don’t be alarmed by the 10 minute timeline lol. http://www.youtube.com/user/deepcoffee#p/u/0/RLmiPR2w2TE
The Greek reads quite plainly that Jesus used the Scourge (a whipe designed for Humans, not for Animals) to “Drive out” or to “Cast out” the people in the temple. The word for “cast out” implies violence. The Greek leaves no room for this nonsense, Jesus made a scourge (again, a whip designed to be used on humans for punishment) and viloently drove out those wicked who dared to descecrate His Father’s house.
The Spirit that was in Jesus, flooded the entire world, killing probably millions if not billions. He rained fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, then cursed those cities that rejected Him, declaring the Judgement would be better for Sodom than for them.
Jesus was neither, Passive, nor Non-Violent, He clearly commands His Disciples to obtain swords for self-defence (those who argue it was for the garden are simply wrong, Jesus tells us it was because He would be “Numbered with the transgressors” Mark tells us that this prophecy was fulfilled when Jesus was on the Cross!, Jesus was telling His Disciples, they’re going to kill me with criminals, you guys are going to need to defend yourselves.”).
The bible tells us that the ANTI-CHRIST was going to KILL MANY through “Peace”, but it also tells us that Jesus would bring TRUE PEACE at the end of the sword. God’s wrath abides over the wicked, and He WILL avenge His saints.