Source
r/DebateAChristian•
RudePie

Why did Jesus preach peace and love, but build a whip and attack merchants?

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[h] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[i] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

13 When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14 In the temple courts he found people selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. 15 So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. 16 To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! Stop turning my Father’s house into a market!” 17 His disciples remembered that it is written: “Zeal for your house will consume me.”[c]

So now what? What do you believe? It could go either way. If you choose incorrectly on how to interpret this, are you at fault? Do you get punished for it? Is that fair?

Posted Mar 1, 2015, 10:34 PM UTC

3152
tellawub•

Just for some context of the situation:

During the Passover many Jews went to Jerusalem to celebrate. Many of them coming from far away. They needed animals to sacrifice because they couldn't bring sheep and cattle from their hometowns. So, people in Jerusalem would sell cattle, sheep, etc. to those coming to Jerusalem for the Passover. However, they were basically cheating the travelers by selling the animals for far too expensive, in the temple.

5
SsurebreCAgnostic Atheist•

So... capitalism warrants assault from the ever-loving, forgiving God?

2
Tapochka•

It wasn't capitalism. Competition was unofficially forbidden. Anyone who brought an animal from someone not affiliated with the temple had their animal rejected by the priests as unfit religiously even though they met the standards set by God. In return, the approved merchants would grant kickbacks to the priests. As to the assault, you notice he did not strike them with lightening. They lived long enough to witness the crucifixion and resurrection. Repentance was a possibility. That sounds forgiving to me.

4
SsurebreCAgnostic Atheist•

Let me rephrase this... it's either illegal, in which case authorities should have been notified, or it's ilegal, in which case these people were trying to make money using legal methods. Which was it?

As to the assault

He used a whip, what did he use a whip on? The tables or the animals because that seems silly and there's quite a bit of writing about using whips on people. In addition, living long enough still means he could have assaulted them... just not killed them.

Can you at least say destruction of private property?

That sounds forgiving to me.

Sounds like someone didn't have the authority to do anything.

1
Tapochka•

Let me rephrase this... it's either illegal, in which case authorities should have been notified, or it's ilegal, in which case these people were trying to make money using legal methods. Which was it?

The government was the Romans but jurisdiction for religious affairs was the temple. The only thing the Romans cared about was collecting taxes and keeping the piece. There wasn't a police force that could be summoned to make either Jesus stop or the temple stop.

He used a whip, what did he use a whip on? The tables or the animals because that seems silly and there's quite a bit of writing about using whips on people. In addition, living long enough still means he could have assaulted them... just not killed them.

If you see someone waving a whip around and yelling, are you going to hang around and see what he does? There are possibly a few people who were dumb enough to stay but after a couple of strokes with the whip, they moved on quickly. Nobody died.

Can you at least say destruction of private property?

Can you say House of God? I do not care who owns the tables or animals. If someone sets up a market place in my house, I will manage it as I see fit.

Sounds like someone didn't have the authority to do anything.

Only if you assume he was not who he said he was. If he was, then he had the right not only because he is God, but because it happened in his temple.

2
tellawub•

Jesus didn't assault anyone.

1
SsurebreCAgnostic Atheist•

He used a whip didn't he? Can I at least say destruction of private property?

2
tellawub•

Imagine this, there are hundreds of people/merchants in a temple. He isn't simply going to start yelling or clapping his hands. He got their attention by cracking a whip. And Jesus didn't believe it was on private property, he believed it was his "house", Gods house, the temple, a sacred place. After all, that's why he was killed, for claiming to be God.

1
RudePieOP•

What was the whip for? Sharing love? Is Jesus a 50 shades of grey fan?

1
onemoremillionaireAtheist, Ex-Christian•

Nope. DEVO fan. Whip it good! (old school)

3
tellawub•

Getting the attention of the large crowd. Cracking a whip is pretty loud lol

1
[deleted]•

[deleted]

-1
BasilidesIgnostic•

Unfortunately, Yahweh, in the Hebrew Bible, forgot to fix the price of sacrificial animals.

1
SsurebreCAgnostic Atheist•

or adjust for inflation but that's enough circlejerk :[

2
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
livenow222•

No different then destroying a crack house Doesn't say he actually whipped anyone but used it to drive them out. They act like cows that needed to be drive out. Those animals.

He says he drive both sheep as in followers and cattle as in followers of man out so his focus was shutting down the place not being evil.

4
RudePieOP•

Those animals.

They were people.

4
[deleted]•

People are animals...

2
BasilidesIgnostic•

No different then destroying a crack house

Changing the hearts and minds of crack addicts is the solution to crack addiction. Not destroying a crack house. And Jesus could not destroy the commercial activity in the temple with a tantrum.

3
SsurebreCAgnostic Atheist•

No different then destroying a crack house

As far as I can tell, a crack house has illegal activity and you call in law enforcement. Was there was no law enforcement in the tiny village of Jerusalem that could drive out these people who were, surely, breaking the law?

3
DomhnalEx-Evangelical, Universalist•

They were using sacred space for profit. I don't think you can piss a truth seeker off more than that, if Bill Hicks - the anti-cosmologist - is any starting place for measurement.

1
SsurebreCAgnostic Atheist•

They were using sacred space for profit.

There was such an uproar that nobody did anything against this? I mean, if people didn't shop there, they wouldn't be there. People were making a profit so there was a clear demand. It wasn't large enough to attract local law enforcement. The omnipotent and omniscient God couldn't come up with a reason to make those people leave the temple - he immediately resorted to violence?

1
DomhnalEx-Evangelical, Universalist•

Definitely didn't say it was illegal. I'm just saying it seems pretty clear to me and Bill Hicks why Jesus got pissed off.

And I don't believe Christ was the omnipotent and omniscient God while on earth.

1
twattybanjoAgnostic Atheist•

In Luke 22:36 Jesus says to the disciples, "He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one."

In John 18:10 at the scene of Jesus arrest "Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it and struck the high priest's servant, cutting off his right ear. (The servant's name was Malchus.)"

But then again, in Matt 26:52, just after the servant has his ear chopped off with a sword purchased at Jesus' insistence Jesus says, "Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword."

Consistency isn't his strong suit but to be fair in this instance he did glue the ear back.

4
tenshonChristian•

Jesus says, "Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword."

I think, actually, the reason he says this is because he was afraid that if they started fighting by swords at that point Jesus may end up dying by the sword, which would stop him from fulfilling the prophecy of him dying on the cross (obviously very important to him, and not worth risking). He said to put it back in its place, not to discard it entirely...

2
twattybanjoAgnostic Atheist•

I like this interpretation. I can imagine the last supper being as earthly and mundane too. Imagine a bunch of working class blokes who know that they've got themselves into this astonishing situation. Wine flows, bravado kicks in, Jesus picks up some bread, tears it in two and with a shrug says, "..well, this is my body..." to laughter, and with more bravado, picks up a mug, toasts the room and taking a huge gulp of wine shouts, "and this is my blood!".

I'm currently writing a bunch of short stories based on the NT and that sort of thing is in there. The human stories.

1
tenshonChristian•

Excellent... please share your stories with me when you're done. My life goal is to humanize the New Testament as much as possible, it's been totally supernaturalized and irrationalized - which is one reason why there are so many atheists around today.

I had a bit of a unique perspective on the last supper. I think he was actually linking it with what he said prior - in his parable of the grain of wheat (John 12:24). He said the grain of wheat has to die (transform) in order to grow to become something greater. What's the fruit of a grain of wheat? Bread. That is his body, the fruit. And then what he says about being the vine, and his followers the branches (John 15:5). What's the fruit of the vine? Well, wine of course. So he's saying to his disciples "see me in my fruits, not in what you see in front of you". He wanted to emphasize the necessity of sacrifice in order to bring greater fruits - putting up with suffering, even death, as an investment in creating something much greater.

Just wanted to share that. Feel free to borrow if you find it interesting.

1
twattybanjoAgnostic Atheist•

The imagery of bread as the body of god and wine as his blood predates Christianity by a long, long way and in several traditions.

Your project is an interesting one but there is one problem with it: Many mystery religions have a man/god, often born of a virgin in lowly circumstances, often a healer and teacher, often reviled in his own land, often executed, resurrected and ascending to heaven. Christianity's unique selling point is its insistence that its myth, uniquely, actually happened to and actual man. Dispense with that and you just have another mystery cult.

1
RudePieOP•

Excellent point.

1
pmreddick•

Luke 22:36

Everyone always leaves out the part two lines later, in Luke 22:38: The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.” “That’s enough!” [Jesus] replied.

I've never heard an explanation of what this whole passage meant. But it almost seems like he was being sarcastic when he said to buy the swords. This was all at the Last Supper, so he was talking to the disciples, not to all of his followers. And when he glues the guy's ear back on, he doesn't seem happy that the sword was used in the first place.

1
twattybanjoAgnostic Atheist•

And Mark reports in 14:51-52 "And there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body; and the young men laid hold on him: And he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked."

Except for the arrest thing it sounds like a really great night.

1
LiquidSilverIgnostic•

having a linen cloth cast about his naked body

I'm naked under my clothes too.

1
YakowackkoanddotCatholic•

Merchants? That's the euphemism of the day. These individuals were extorting people who were not local to the area by charging large sums of money for animals to be sacrificed. Their actions were preventing others from coming closer to God. Driving them out of the temple was just.

4
RudePieOP•

So if someone is ripping people off, beat them with a whip?

1
YakowackkoanddotCatholic•

It's not just ripping people off, it goes deeper than that. These "merchants" were an obstacle between people and God. They were preventing the worship of God due to their greed for money. That's a little more serous than just ripping someone off in a used car deal.

Furthermore, the bible never says he beat people, just that he that he drove them out of the temple. I guess we can assume some hitting was involved, but I think saying he mercilessly beat them is a bit of a stretch.

2
RudePieOP•

It's not just ripping people off, it goes deeper than that. These "merchants" were an obstacle between people and God. They were preventing the worship of God due to their greed for money. That's a little more serous than just ripping someone off in a used car deal.

This is bullshit. People HAD to buy from these merchants? Why? They didn't understand that if you buy two live stock of different genders, it will cause them to make more of themselves?

Furthermore, the bible never says he beat people, just that he that he drove them out of the temple. I guess we can assume some hitting was involved, but I think saying he mercilessly beat them is a bit of a stretch.

He build a whip but he didnt hit them with it. It was just took the time to build one for no reason. And the reason no one stopped him from throwing over tables and scattering the livestock wasnt because of the whip. Obviously. Its because they were all afraid of Jesus. He was a big, strong guy well known for his physical prowess!

Yeah. Ok.

1
YakowackkoanddotCatholic•

Huh? What? You obviously don't have knowledge of the requirements of sacrificial animals in Jewish religion. It's not just any old animal, it has to be unblemished. How do you propose a group of people transport a sheet/goat/whatever miles without it getting a little dusty?

Furthermore, travelers who weren't located in a major city didn't have access to Jewish money, so they had to exchange their coins for temple money. The money changers had a monopoly, and were able to hike up the prices however much they wanted.

I'm not saying he didn't hit them, you said he beat them. Those are different things. Beating someone implies striking them repeatedly with the only intention being causing them physical harm. I don't understand what you mean with this whole physical prowess thing. What's your point? Are you saying Jesus acted unjustly?

2
LiquidSilverIgnostic•

It was actually God demanding a sacrifice that prevented them from coming closer to him. These people were just taking advantage of that.

1
YakowackkoanddotCatholic•

How do you figure that?

1
LiquidSilverIgnostic•

God enabled these actions because he demanded an arbitrary ritual. If people weren't forced to sacrifice high quality animals if they wanted to come closer to God, the merchants wouldn't have a market and the people wouldn't be prevented from doing so by the high prices.

1
YakowackkoanddotCatholic•

He could have also said they didn't have to come to the temple at all to worship.

You can't just transfer the guilt of the merchants onto God. The sacrifices were for a holy purpose. The merchants were trying to exploit that purpose for money. Why is that Gods fault?

1
maymaytheistChristian, Ex-Atheist•

The real conflict in the passage isn't between the merchants and Jesus but Jesus and the priest who had allowed the trade outside the temple (and likely set the terms and rate of exchange). Jesus is in a unique position to reproach the merchants and priests for what He believe was unfit in His fathers house because He was a perfect judge of the purpose and intent of the temple. Jesus says as much when He is asked to justify his actions by the priest.

Jesus driving out the merchant and cleansing the temple is not a "do like Jesus does" passage. Jesus is allowed to zealously protect the temple (and his interpretation of the faith) because he is God. Anyone else wouldn't have the justification. There are many passages in which Jesus shows anger but in each I would say he is uniquely justified by his divine personage.

Now you can get into debates about his actions, but at the time it seems the priests were more upset by his presumption of authority then his methods. I interpret this as the priest understood and in part agreed with Him and his actions while the damages caused were largely inconsequential or justifiable. Now, you have to remember, the ancient world was a good bit harsher then we are today. Trying to interpret the passage through the lens of modern civility isn't going to get you very far. You are essentially making mountains out of molehills.

Still, if you want to be legalistic, I guess as a Christian you can argue biblically you might be justified in using a bullwhip if someone sets up a lemonade stand on your father's front lawn.

4
WilliamHendershotAgnostic, Ex-Protestant•

Jesus is allowed to zealously protect the temple (and his interpretation of the faith) because he is God. Anyone else wouldn't have the justification. There are many passages in which Jesus shows anger but in each I would say he is uniquely justified by his divine personage.

Based upon His authority as God, can you think of anything Jesus could have potentially done that you would consider to be sin? Was it possible for Jesus to sin?

1
maymaytheistChristian, Ex-Atheist•

No. Jesus is sinless. God is sinless. Jesus showed anger. Displays of anger isn't necessarily a sin.

This is a good overview and includes some deeper study of the passages in Matthew that are most often used to show contradiction between Jesus' words and actions.

2
WilliamHendershotAgnostic, Ex-Protestant•

I'm not limiting this to the incident at the Temple.

No matter what God did in the Old Testament, it was not sin because God had authority to do it. When God killed small children or ordered the Israelites to do so, it was not a sin because it was not unauthorized killing.

If Jesus was God, wouldn't this same principle apply to Him? Would it have been an unauthorized killing if Jesus/God had killed a small child?

1
maymaytheistChristian, Ex-Atheist•

Jesus was without sin, but he could have sinned because he was wholly man. The key is God wasn't justified in the old testament because he was God, he was justified because he is just.

0
DomhnalEx-Evangelical, Universalist•

Jesus says as much when He is asked to justify his actions by the priest.

Where does this occur?

1
RudePieOP•

The real conflict in the passage isn't between the merchants and Jesus but Jesus and the priest who had allowed the trade outside the temple (and likely set the terms and rate of exchange).

He didnt whip any priests. He did totally fuck up the merchants.

0
maymaytheistChristian, Ex-Atheist•

That is some interesting exegesis, however, the level of fucked-upedness is open to interpretation as the scriptures are silent on that matter.

1
RudePieOP•

Why did god inspire a book that is unclear? Was that intentional? If people misunderstand the passage and sin as a result...are they at fault?

1
tenshonChristian•

I think this just goes to show us that we shouldn't read Matthew 5 as a command to be passive. He is telling us not to ignore enemies, confront them, engage them, challenge them - just as he did with the priests on a regular basis. Don't run away, "turn the other cheek". His Father doesn't ignore those he hates... he rains on all, brings sunshine to all, engages all...

3
RudePieOP•

So take a beating. Which is exactly what Jesus did. Ya know what's funny? Christians who complain about being persecuted. Try going to r/christianity and mocking the users. You will get banned so fast your ass will have windburn. Meanwhile, Jesus preached to accept the pain. Funny how so few are capable and still call themself a christian.

1
tenshonChristian•

Wait, you may not be understanding what I'm saying. He's not saying simply to "take a beating". He's saying not to run away from the challenge. Give them what they're after, don't ignore them. He clearly believed in fighting back, he argued all the time with the priests. He overturned the tables and whipped people at the temple. He was never afraid of confronting his enemy. He even mentioned this in John 10:11, that he won't run away from enemies. It's from the confrontation that good ultimately comes, this is consistent throughout the Old Testament also (see Judges, for instance, where God sends them out to battle time and time again so that they learn).

1
RudePieOP•

So then its fair to say Jesus preached that you should resist an evil person?

1
tenshonChristian•

Not really resist, confront and resolve.

1
DerrytheAtheist, Ex-Christian•

To add, some transLatinos call it a scourge. This is way more than just a whip. If you've seen the passion movie, the whip with multiple thin strands with metal hooks at the end that got stuck in his side is a scourge.

1
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
gargle_ground_glassIgnostic•

Part man, part god — why should anyone be surprised that this combination was difficult to balance sometimes?

0
RudePieOP•

Part?

1
gargle_ground_glassIgnostic•

He couldn't be both at the same time; he couldn't express both qualities at the same time. Think of a spinning coin; is it heads or tails? He certainly passed as a man, at least according to the gospel accounts. Whipping merchants is manly, not godly.

1
The_Hero_of_CantonChristian•

The Christian position is that Jesus Christ is both fully God and fully human, coeternal and consubstantial with the Father.

3
gargle_ground_glassIgnostic•

That sort of casuistry was promoted after the fact and does nothing to explain his human actions. As the number of sects grew it became more and more difficult to explain the various contradicting interpretations without employing these sorts of intellectual feats of magic. Tertullian, credited with the invention of "cosubstantiality" in the 2nd Century, was himself a follower of the minor sect of Montanism, and is thus a rather dubious source for such a basic tenet of orthodox Christianity.

1
RudePieOP•

Ive heard christians say differently

1
gargle_ground_glassIgnostic•

Them durn christians!

1