I don’t disagree that Jesus had the right to clean his own house (an interesting side note that he never instructs his disciples to participate in this dramatic physical act, it is God’s right alone to establish justice by force). And interesting to note also that the physical “violence” was directed to inanimate objects and that there is no indication that Jesus spilled the blood of his “enemies” here.
1 Like
It may come to you when you get a good night’s sleep, but if not, it’ll surely come to you as soon as Jesus comes back! I know I’m counting on that to answer my many questions (including some of the things you’ve told me.) 
2 Likes
There is a really good book on that very thing: “Jesus Christ, Our Complete Offering” by David D. Burgey. It really opened my eyes on all the sacrifices. It’s fascinating. I think you’d like it.
I got it on Amazon
A big one that is often missed is that in the pagan system the worshipper could decide when to offer sacrifices; this is seen in the situation where Samuel rebukes Saul for saving all the unblemished animals from the Amalekites for the purpose of making sacrifices. For Israel that was changed: sacrifices were to be offered where and when YHWH-Elohim designated, and not otherwise.
2 Likes
I’m not sure I would call chasing out the money-changers, etc. from the Temple a matter of establishing justice so much as defending the proper use of family property. The disciples could, I suppose, have been invited to assist, but Jesus kept it in the family by driving away trespassers from His Dad’s House.
Spilled blood, no; “directed to inanimate objects”… I would say that one does not spend the time to weave/braid a whip from short cords of twine if one does not intend to use it to whip something. And while numerous commentators insist that it was only “inanimate objects” that our Savior targeted, that is silly because neither sheep nor cattle are going to get moving without serious prompting, which means at the very least whipping the animals – and when whipping animals to get them moving, it’s stretching credulity to claim that none of those animals’ minders got in the way and got whipped.
And if His whip did land on some people, so what? He was defending the very point of the existence of Israel, that they should be a blessing to the nations! That market was set up in the Court of the Gentiles, where “goyim” could come to share somewhat in the worship at the Temple, and the market was thus trespassing on the guest-room God had provided. Those ‘merchants’ deserved a whipping and more because they were keeping others from coming to worship.
1 Like
A bit pricey for me at the moment. I was hoping there was a Nook version since those tend to be half the paperback price, but no luck there.
No bruises or scrapes from tables being tipped over on them or while rushing to get out of the way?
Yes, I agree with your expanded theological explanation over the reason behind Jesus’s “temple tantrum”, I hadn’t intended to fully unpack the concept of “justice” in my own post.
I was defining violence as “inflicting physical harm on another”. So if you want to get technical… a whip can be used to crack in the air to make noise, to wave over ones head to get an animal to move, and to physically contact the flanks of an animal to herd it in an intended direction. Any such herding-actions as conducted by goat herds or shepherds are not viewed as “inflicting violence” on the animal, as there is no suggestion in the text that Jesus “violently beat” any animal. And the account in John which is the one that mentions the whip explicitly states it use was to evict all the animals. John says that he evicted the money changers with a verbal “Get out of my father’s house”.
At the end of the day, one can conclude that “no animals or humans were harmed in the making of this video” 
1 Like
So we can use whips of cords to protect and defend and show mercy to victims of street violence.
I don’t know, but you’d have to read it into the text. And if such occurred, these were clearly not life-threatening and not Jesus’s reasoned intent.
Read the text! It says the whip was used to drive out the animals. No whip-action is mentioned on humans…, rather verbal commands
Ah, the plain reading and not the overall big picture of showing mercy to the defenseless under fire. (Jesus used irony too. )
been there, done that.
go in peace brother.
He did get a little tart with false teaching though, and that is is what many Christians have and do think reading pacifism as permeating the Gospels and the rest of the NT is. It leads to lack of mercy and fire suppression. (And you know I support MDS and MCC.)
Yes, thank goodness Jesus only tart with false teaching. Look what happened with the church during the inquisition once the Pandora’s box of violence was opened
I’m afraid that’s a false cause and effect conclusion – there were plenty of other problems in the day, and one that persists a wee bit today, namely pride.
Shalom. 
1 Like
And the same to you, dear sibling!
1 Like
The precedent is only if you’re the Son of God driving out trespassers from an area designated by God as the place that other nations could come and share in worship, in fulfillment of the purpose of Israel that all nations would be blessed through them.
Or at least in direct support of a part of God’s plan.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.