The Scourge That Cleansed the Temple

"And the Jews' passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting: And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables; And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house a house of merchandise." John 2:13-16 (KJV)

A scourge is a whip or lash used to inflict severe pain.


If Jesus is the sinless son of God, why is he attacking people with such a weapon? I can understand getting frustrated and throwing the tables over. But isn't driving everyone out with a scourge extreme? It doesn't say whether or not he actually whipped anyone with hit. It seems clearly implied, in my opinion. Either way, how much difference would it make? Using a weapon or threatening people with one is far from turning the other cheek.

There were those that believed he did indeed use it, as they depict the scene in these works of art:

Christ driving the Traders from the Temple, circa 1600

A portion of, Driving of the Merchants from the Temple, 1580-1585

Expulsion of the Money-changers from the Temple, 1266-1337

So what's the deal here? Was Jesus sinless? Did he get a free pass? Did he forgive himself later? Was it OK because it was divine justice? Is the passage poorly translated? Is the story false? What example does this set? What lessons should we take away from this?

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

Maybe it's a spare the rod and spoil the child kind of thing .It may have been more of a symbolic gesture and he didn't really hit anyone like you mentioned.

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

He is able to forgive himself as he is whipping them.lol

It's like a paradox. Can Jesus Heat a Burrito Soo Hot that Even He Can't Consume It?lol Sooo, Jesus is able to forgive his sining as he sins.lol

See? It's All Okay Now.

Regards,

a reply to: WakeUpBeer
Jesus was clearly against the blood sacrifice of innocent creatures - and to then have them sold in the House of God was an abomination.

It is easy enough to speculate that in order to actually get people out of the temple, he had to at least appear very forceful in his intention. They were not about to leave otherwise, as it was their livelihood and a long-standing tradition.

It was also likely his means to getting arrested and crucified, but that is another topic, I presume.

a reply to: bb23108

Jesus was clearly against the blood sacrifice of innocent creatures - and to then have them sold in the House of God was an abomination. 

Was he really against blood sacrifice?......he seemed to indulge in a bit of it..

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: WakeUpBeer

Maybe it's a spare the rod and spoil the child kind of thing .It may have been more of a symbolic gesture and he didn't really hit anyone like you mentioned.

Good point.
Do the scriptures actually say that he struck anyone?

Anyway, I am not sure that Jesus was considered 'without sin'. The Pharisees certainly considered many things that he did to be sins.

originally posted by: Prezbo369
a reply to: bb23108

Was he really against blood sacrifice?......he seemed to indulge in a bit of it..

Jesus was continuing the work that prophets like Isaiah and Jeremiah did relative to trying to stop the blood sacrifice of animals.

The three gospels about the driving of the those selling animals for sacrifice from the Temple, are mentioned first.

"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, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. To those who sold doves he said: 'Get out of here.' (John 2:13-16)

"Jesus entered the Temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. 'It is written,' he said to them, 'My house will be called a house of prayer but you are making it a den of robbers.'" (Matthew21:12-13)

Mark also wrote that Jesus accused them of making God's house into a "den of robbers." It should be noted that when Jesus stated this, he was quoting Jeremiah (7:11):

"Has this house, which bears my Name, become a den of robbers to you? But I have been watching! declares the LORD."

In the time of both Jeremiah and Jesus, a robber was someone who was violent and killed - unlike a thief who simply stole.

Both Jesus and Jeremiah were condemning the violence of blood sacrifices, not theft by the temple vendors - the latter being the often assumed interpretation of that word "robbers".

Mark even notes a plot to kill Jesus for trying to eliminate this very profitable system of blood sacrifice:

"The chief priests and the teachers of the law heard this and began looking for a way to kill him, for they feared him, because the whole crowd was amazed at his teaching." (Mark 11:18)

The priests were plotting his death and the people were amazed because Jesus was going against a very established tradition of blood sacrifice.

A few days later Jesus was killed.

Jesus very much wanted it known that God did not want his creatures killed - that blood sacrifices were unnecessary. His teachings are about Love, not killing.

So in order to drive the "robbers" out of the temple, he had to at least appear to be very forceful, and in a manner such people understood.

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

Exactly who did He chase out?

The moneylenders.

What was the crime of the moneylenders?

Unjust balances.

What was the point?

Moneylenders have no business using unjust balances in the temple.

He kind of did what you have indicated before about churches, he was chasing out of church those who were scamming people out of money, because the temple is a house of prayer, not a place of commerce. I would think you like what He did.

But here you go, Andrew Lloyd Webber's version

I completely get it, as we are the temple of the Holy Ghost as the Bible says, then what do we permit to be bought and sold within us so that we are no longer a place of prayer?

Do we buy and sell our spirituality for unjust gain?

a reply to: bb23108

He was ending the blood sacrifices by becoming the blood sacrifice.

Surely He knew Micah 6

1 Hear ye now what the LORD saith; Arise, contend thou before the mountains, and let the hills hear thy voice. 2 Hear ye, O mountains, the LORD's controversy, and ye strong foundations of the earth: for the LORD hath a controversy with his people, and he will plead with Israel. 3 ¶ O my people, what have I done unto thee? and wherein have I wearied thee? testify against me.

What did I do so bad to you that you have controversy with me? God asks.

Stand up now and tell me what I did to you. God says.

The scourge in the temple was prophetic of Micah 6

6 ¶ Wherewith shall I come before the LORD, and bow myself before the high God? shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves of a year old? 7 Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? 8 He hath showed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God? 9 ¶ The LORD's voice crieth unto the city, and the man of wisdom shall see thy name: hear ye the rod, and who hath appointed it. 10 Are there yet the treasures of wickedness in the house of the wicked, and the scant measure that is abominable? 11 Shall I count them pure with the wicked balances, and with the bag of deceitful weights? 12 For the rich men thereof are full of violence, and the inhabitants thereof have spoken lies, and their tongue is deceitful in their mouth. 13 Therefore also will I make thee sick in smiting thee, in making thee desolate because of thy sins.

Jesus fulfilled that when He scourged the moneylenders.

a reply to: bb23108

But wasn't his apparent sacrifice a blood sacrifice?

A human body offered up in payment for something? After all it is what hes most famous for isn't it?

How could he be 'clearly against the blood sacrifice of innocent creatures' and then offer up his own meat suit as such?

a reply to: WarminIndy

I think the point is that Jesus used violence (and most likely anger) to achieve his goals (even if they are preferable to the alternative) even though everyone claims he is without sin.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: WarminIndy

I think the point is that Jesus used violence (and most likely anger) to achieve his goals (even if they are preferable to the alternative) even though everyone claims he is without sin.

Is it really a sin?

What was He really doing? He was putting out of the temple the very things that desecrated the temple. Look at it this way, from the moment He began teaching He said "MY Father's house", "My Father's business"...that was His house so He was putting out of His house those very things that were detestable, which was unjust exploitation of the poor by the buyers and sellers who were providing merchandise that had nothing to do with what sacrifice was supposed to be about.

Do you have a problem with Jesus taking matters into His own hands because of the exploitation of the poor? The authorities weren't doing anything to stop it. If you really read the passage, exactly who was He scourging? Not the poor, not the exploited, but those who were doing the exploitation and stealing. That's why He said "you have made it a den of thieves".

You only focused on one little part of the picture, the guy was defending the poor and those being exploited under the guise of religious authority.

a reply to: WarminIndy

I was just trying to explain the OP's reasoning. To me, violence isn't necessarily a sin. Anger is only a sin if you are Catholic and believe that the Divine Comedy is religious dogma (which many Catholics seem to do). To be honest, I think the OP is weak reasoning at best. I don't necessarily agree with the tool used to drive them out (since it was a cruel weapon to use), but that isn't a sin in itself.

That being said, I think the notion that Jesus was without sin is ridiculous. Edit: I'd also like to say that what Jesus did was VERY hypocritical of his teachings. Jesus was the person who said to turn the other cheek and no retaliate against aggressive action, and here he is causing unprovoked violence for a supposedly justified reason.

originally posted by: Prezbo369
a reply to: bb23108

But wasn't his apparent sacrifice a blood sacrifice?

A human body offered up in payment for something? After all it is what hes most famous for isn't it?

How could he be 'clearly against the blood sacrifice of innocent creatures' and then offer up his own meat suit as such?

Jesus clearly instructed his followers to pray to God as Spirit, not through the medium of blood sacrifice.

So I actually don't believe that was Jesus' intention, to become a blood sacrifice for the sake of everyone's future redemption. His birth and life were for the sake of all - not his murder.

But because he was killed, Christianity had to integrate his terrible ending into something Ultimate - and so the salvation myth that his own physical sacrifice was for everyone, forced Christianity to associate with the ancient method of blood sacrifice.

It is ironic to say the least, that this foundation, born of the blood sacrifice, is a key aspect of Christianity, and yet its source (Jesus) was clearly against it!

He taught a most direct unmediated relationship to God as Spirit - one need look no further than his first great commandment to see this.

For the record, it's fair to note Jesus was whipped while he was on his way too...

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: WarminIndy

I was just trying to explain the OP's reasoning. To me, violence isn't necessarily a sin. Anger is only a sin if you are Catholic and believe that the Divine Comedy is religious dogma (which many Catholics seem to do). To be honest, I think the OP is weak reasoning at best. I don't necessarily agree with the tool used to drive them out (since it was a cruel weapon to use), but that isn't a sin in itself.

That being said, I think the notion that Jesus was without sin is ridiculous. Edit: I'd also like to say that what Jesus did was VERY hypocritical of his teachings. Jesus was the person who said to turn the other cheek and no retaliate against aggressive action, and here he is causing unprovoked violence for a supposedly justified reason.

Let me ask this though, is violence never justified?

There was no law against what He did, but you still have to understand exactly who He was scourging and why. Was it hypocritical to chase out people who were exploiting others? Nothing else would have stopped them, certainly the religious authority didn't.

But if you came upon a scene of exploitation of someone less defenseless than you, therefore weaker than you, would you wait until some authority to take care of it or would you do something about it? Would you not defend a woman being beaten by her husband? Would you not defend a child being exploited?

This exploitation would have been different if it had been elsewhere, but since it was at the temple of all places, that makes it different. I am sure that you have problems with Westboro Baptist church, wouldn't you do something if you encountered them? Or would you just stand back and wait until someone in authority made the difference? Then we'd be hearing about how LEOs attacked an innocent group of people who were merely expressing their right to free speech.

This exploitation was buying and selling what poor people could not afford, unjustly weighing balances to exploit the poor out of their money needed to buy food for their families. Was it better then that Jesus said nothing and did nothing, because you have to turn your cheek to your enemies?

Not hypocritical, but defending those who were being exploited because the exploitation had very serious consequences.

originally posted by: WarminIndy
Let me ask this though, is violence never justified?

According to Jesus? No. According to me? Yes, but I wasn't the one who threw the money lenders out of the temple while preaching a doctrine of non-violence.

There was no law against what He did, but you still have to understand exactly who He was scourging and why. Was it hypocritical to chase out people who were exploiting others? Nothing else would have stopped them, certainly the religious authority didn't.

Naturally, but we are talking about a man that reasoned that non-violence (even retaliatory violence) was the way to god and here he is using violence to get his way.

But if you came upon a scene of exploitation of someone less defenseless than you, therefore weaker than you, would you wait until some authority to take care of it or would you do something about it? Would you not defend a woman being beaten by her husband? Would you not defend a child being exploited?

I would certainly do something about it, but I'm not Jesus nor am I a religious leader claimed to have no sin.

This exploitation would have been different if it had been elsewhere, but since it was at the temple of all places, that makes it different. I am sure that you have problems with Westboro Baptist church, wouldn't you do something if you encountered them? Or would you just stand back and wait until someone in authority made the difference? Then we'd be hearing about how LEOs attacked an innocent group of people who were merely expressing their right to free speech.

Erm... If I encountered WBC, I'd just ignore them.

This exploitation was buying and selling what poor people could not afford, unjustly weighing balances to exploit the poor out of their money needed to buy food for their families. Was it better then that Jesus said nothing and did nothing, because you have to turn your cheek to your enemies?

I know what they did and I'm not defending their actions. I'm questioning the hypocrisy in claiming a stature of non-violence then using violence to get your way. Justifying it after the fact, is irrelevant. The simple matter is that Jesus used violence to get his way. In this day and age, if someone walked into a church and started throwing undesirables out for whatever reason while using a weapon, he'd be arrested as soon as he exited the church.

Not hypocritical, but defending those who were being exploited because the exploitation had very serious consequences.

I'd think that the true "Son of God, that is without sin" would be able to miracle up a non-violent solution to the problem. Instead we have a largely human answer to a problem of abuse. More violence. So if Jesus was merely just a human, then yea I can totally sympathize with him using violence to defend the weak. However, Christians claim he is without sin and can perform miracles. So therefore, he should be able to carry out some sort of divine plan to get rid of them.

a reply to: butcherguy

Yes and when He used the term the son of man riding the clouds ,they knew exactly who He was calming to be and said "what more prof did they need to accuse Him of blaspheme . A lot of people claim that He never claimed to be God but He did exactly that when He quoted from Daniel .

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: WarminIndy
Let me ask this though, is violence never justified?

According to Jesus? No. According to me? Yes, but I wasn't the one who threw the money lenders out of the temple while preaching a doctrine of non-violence.

There was no law against what He did, but you still have to understand exactly who He was scourging and why. Was it hypocritical to chase out people who were exploiting others? Nothing else would have stopped them, certainly the religious authority didn't.

Naturally, but we are talking about a man that reasoned that non-violence (even retaliatory violence) was the way to god and here he is using violence to get his way.

But if you came upon a scene of exploitation of someone less defenseless than you, therefore weaker than you, would you wait until some authority to take care of it or would you do something about it? Would you not defend a woman being beaten by her husband? Would you not defend a child being exploited?

I would certainly do something about it, but I'm not Jesus nor am I a religious leader claimed to have no sin.

This exploitation would have been different if it had been elsewhere, but since it was at the temple of all places, that makes it different. I am sure that you have problems with Westboro Baptist church, wouldn't you do something if you encountered them? Or would you just stand back and wait until someone in authority made the difference? Then we'd be hearing about how LEOs attacked an innocent group of people who were merely expressing their right to free speech.

Erm... If I encountered WBC, I'd just ignore them.

This exploitation was buying and selling what poor people could not afford, unjustly weighing balances to exploit the poor out of their money needed to buy food for their families. Was it better then that Jesus said nothing and did nothing, because you have to turn your cheek to your enemies?

I know what they did and I'm not defending their actions. I'm questioning the hypocrisy in claiming a stature of non-violence then using violence to get your way. Justifying it after the fact, is irrelevant. The simple matter is that Jesus used violence to get his way. In this day and age, if someone walked into a church and started throwing undesirables out for whatever reason while using a weapon, he'd be arrested as soon as he exited the church.

Not hypocritical, but defending those who were being exploited because the exploitation had very serious consequences.

I'd think that the true "Son of God, that is without sin" would be able to miracle up a non-violent solution to the problem. Instead we have a largely human answer to a problem of abuse. More violence. So if Jesus was merely just a human, then yea I can totally sympathize with him using violence to defend the weak. However, Christians claim he is without sin and can perform miracles. So therefore, he should be able to carry out some sort of divine plan to get rid of them.

Actually, violence as an answer to your own vengeance, then not justified. That is why the Bible says "Vengeance belongs to God". Therefore, He would still be within His rights.

But really, Jesus was saying that violence should not be your first choice, diplomacy is. And if diplomacy fails, walk away, but after you have given them your cloak and your cheek, then what else can you do? But defense for someone else, violence is justified for that, as long as the defenseless are being harmed or exploited at that moment.

There was no duplicitous message if you read the whole passage and the Bible. I am Quakerish and believe peaceful measures, but I am also a realist, there are times when violence is justified and this is the message that I get from this passage.

a reply to: bb23108

Could it have been a misunderstanding of the ancients about the human blood sacrifice that God had planned in providing the Passover lamb and thought it right to take matters into their own hands and create the doctrine of human sacrifice ? I see many denominational churches interpreting scripture differently and so they can't all be correct . Surley there is a truth to the matter but even if put into a codex ,it's possible to misunderstand it .