Jesus Christ Violent?

Some people seem to think and they base on two events

1) Telling his disciples to buy swords

2) Over turning the money changers’ tables in the temple.

The rationale behind #1 is that Christ is that by asking his disciples to buy swords, was preparing for battle.

From Olabowale on a previous now locked thread

Who was Jesus going to fight?

Honestly, I was about to ask you this question.

From Olabowale

And I read where somebody said that when two of his desciples showed him their swords, purchase with the sales of their clocks, he said that was enough. But they purchased swords as he had instructed them. There there were no need for swords, a thing needed in war, at that time, he would not have instructed them to do so. And I read where somebody said that when two of his desciples showed him their swords, purchase with the sales of their clocks he said that was enough. [b]But they purchased swords as he had instructed them. There there were no need for swords, a thing needed in war, at that time, he would not have instructed them to do so

They didn’t sell anything, they didn’t buy anything, they didn’t sell anything to buy anything. They already had it on them.

Luke 22: 35 - 38

35Then Jesus asked them, "When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?"
      "Nothing," they answered.
36He 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.
37It is written: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors'; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment."
38The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords."  "That is enough," he replied.

That you continue to use the word war is a bit puzzling, I mean I don’t want believe you are doing what I think you are doing. It’s almost like you are trying to jujitsu it into our minds. . . like they do with those commercials, where they repeat something over and over again. . . “Coca-Cola – it’s simply the best” and soon enough, when people hear It’s simply the best, they automatically think of Coca-Cola. A wonderful marketing strategy and I must say, you seem to have perfected it. . . Jesus, Sword, war, Sword, war, Jesus

How about sword a tool for protection?

You know, the painstaking effort you put in choosing your words is admirable, another example Military Confrontation. I mean wow! I am already envisioning military auxiliary - armored trucks, machine guns and the lot when the reality is there were 72 men (at most).

Military confrontation with 72 men, whose professions (the ones we know) range from fishermen, carpenter to tax collectors, armed with 2 swords.

Military confrontation with 72 men, whom Christ called lambs he is sending in the midst of wolves.

Military confrontation with 72 men, who the most they could do when Christ was arrested was cut one person’s ear off.

Wow! Some military confrontationist these one.

Do you see what I mean? LOL.

Not to take the issue to a whole other level. . but I’d also like to introduce another interpretation of the above verse. It states that says Christ was speaking figuratively and the sword he was talking about was one of the tools in The Amour of God as described in Ephesians 6 13 – 17

13Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
14Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;
15And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;
16Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.
17And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:

There are also many interpretations of Jesus’ Response “That is Enough”

(1) Some understand the words as a rebuke to the disciples. If that were the case, then Jesus was saying, “Enough of this kind of talk!” (Leon Morris, The Gospel according to St. Luke: An Introduction and Commentary, p. 310)

(2) Others understand the words to denote the fact that even two swords are enough to show human inadequacy at stopping God’s plan for the death of Christ. Swords could not stop God’s purpose and plan.

(3) Jesus may simply have been saying that two swords were adequate for the 12 of them.

(4) Others see the clause in conjunction with the quotation from Isaiah and understand Jesus to mean that by possessing two swords they would be classified by others as transgressors or criminals. This fourth view seems preferable. [BKC, at Luke 22]

Before we go any further, I want to make it very clear that I am not trying to change your mind on anything because I honestly couldn’t care less what path you or anyone have chosen for themselves. . . some people will see this as very unchristian like and that's fine. I don’t think I have gotten to that point where I think other people’s “salvation” is my responsibility. I am doing this. . . correcting your misrepresentation for the sake of people who might be reading this and not knowing any better or having no desire to look deeper,  decide to take your word as gospel (no pun intended)

About the act of violence that is the overturning of the table, I found this nice article which sheds some light on it

There are two  incidences of Jesus clearing the temple courtyard, one described by John and the other by the Synoptic gospels:

13. And the Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.
14 And He found in the temple those who were selling oxen and sheep and doves, and the moneychangers seated.
15 And He made a scourge of cords, and drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen; and He poured out the coins of the moneychangers, and overturned their tables;
16 and to those who were selling the doves He said, “Take these things away; stop making My Father’s house a house of merchandise.”
17 His disciples remembered that it was written, “Zeal for Thy house will consume me.” 
18 The Jews therefore answered and said to Him, “What sign do You show to us, seeing that You do these things?”
19 Jesus answered and said to them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”
20 The Jews therefore said, “It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?”
21 But He was speaking of the temple of His body. 22 When therefore He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He said this; and they believed the Scripture, and the word which Jesus had spoken. (John 2.13ff)

And Jesus entered the temple and cast out all those who were buying and selling in the temple, and overturned the tables of the moneychangers and the seats of those who were selling doves. 13 And He *said to them, “It is written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer’; but you are making it a robbers‘ den.”  (Matt 21.12ff)

And they *came to Jerusalem. And He entered the temple and began to cast out those who were buying and selling in the temple, and overturned the tables of the moneychangers and the seats of those who were selling doves; 16 and He would not permit anyone to carry goods through the temple. 17 And He began to teach and say to them, “Is it not written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations’? But you have made it a robbers‘ den.” (Mark 11.15ff)

And He entered the temple and began to cast out those who were selling, 46 saying to them, “It is written, ‘And My house shall be a house of prayer,’ but you have made it a robbers‘ den.” (Luke 19.45)

Let start with some observations about the setting and event:

1. The moneychangers and animal merchants had their stalls set up in the outer court of the Temple, in the Court of the Gentiles. This had not always been so, but by Jesus' time it was a major disruption of worship:

"At one time the animal merchants set up their stalls across the Kidron Valley on the slopes of the Mount of Olives, but at this point they were in the temple courts, doubtless in the Court of the Gentiles (the outermost court)" [D. A. Carson, John]

"Jesus' complaint is not that they are guilty of sharp business practices and should therefore reform their ethical life, but that they should not be in the temple area at all. How dare you turn my Father's house into a market! He exclaims. Instead of solemn dignity and the murmur of prayer, there is the bellowing of cattle and bleating of sheep. Instead of brokenness and contrition, holy adoration and prolonged petition, there is noisy commerce…by setting up in the court of the Gentiles, they have excluded Gentiles who might have come to pray…" [Carson, John]

"The court in which all this noisy and boisterous traffic took place was the only court to which Gentiles might go when they wished to pray or mediate in the Temple. They ought to have been able to worship in peace. Instead they found themselves in the middle of a noisy bazaar. ' [Morris, John]

2. It is amazing that they would even let the animals into the courtyard:

"At first sight it seems unlikely that animals would be allowed into any of the Temple courts, because of the risk of their getting loose and defiling the sanctuary. But V. Eppstein argues from Rosh Hash. 31a and other passages in the Babylonian Talmud that there was a dispute between Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin, as a result of which the high priest allowed merchants to set up animal stalls within the temple precincts." [Morris, John (rev ed)]

3. The physical actions involving the whip were directed at the animals, and was forceful but not cruel:

"Jesus' physical action was forceful, but not cruel: one does not easily drive out cattle and sheep without a whip of cords. Still, his action could not have generated a riotous uproar, or there would have been swift reprisals from the Roman troops in the fortress of Antonia overlooking part of the temple complex."

"The driving out of the animals from the temple area (the outer court) serves as a symbolic act. The implication is that the animals should not have been in the temple at all, and it is in this sense that the denunciation of the market atmosphere must be understood. The whip (15) was necessary to control the animals rather than to inflict any punishment upon them. " [New Bible Commentary, at John 2]

4. Commentators see this more as a 'demonstration'; a dramatic, stern, and prophetic act of expulsion [e.g. Richard Bauckham], more driven by the personal power of Jesus and not by some quickly-fashioned "lash of twisted rushes" [Schonfield's phrase, cited by Morris, John (rev)]:

"Jesus made a whip of "cords" (more probably "rushes" and proceeded to drive the traders from the Temple with their goods. It is clear that it was not so much the physical force as the moral power he employed that emptied the courts. 'It was surely the blazing anger of the selfless Christ rather than the weapon which He carried which really cleared the Temple Courts of its noisy, motley throng.'…He commanded the dovesellers to take their birds away." [Morris, John: notice he didn't let the birds out--he didn’t cause loss of property, for even the cattle/sheep owners would eventually recover their animals, just as the moneychangers would get the coins from their respective nationalities sorted out.]

"On the necessity of sternness in the face of evil Wright quotes Ruskin, that it is 'quite one of the crowning wickednesses of this age that we have starved and chilled our faculty of indignation'" [Morris, John]

"Luke's narration follows this pattern well, with Jesus entering the Court of the Gentiles, the outer court of the time, where he engages in what Luke describes as a brief, small-scale, but highly symbolic censuring of the temple systems." [Joel B. Green, Luke]

"This notice indicates that Jesus expelled the merchants from the Court of the Gentiles in order to safeguard rights and privileges sanctioned by God. The use of the forecourt as an open market effectually prevented the one area of the Temple which was available to the Gentiles form being a place of prayer." [William Lane, Mark]

"His cleansing of the temple was what would have been recognized in Old Testament times as a prophetic action—the kind of action by which a prophet would occasionally confirm his spoken message and bring it home to the people around him. Jesus protested that the temple was being prevented from fulfilling its purpose as “a house of prayer for all nations” (see Is 56:7)." [HSOBx

5. This act of Jesus was not the act of an individual Israelite (like almost all of His others); it was an act of leadership/governance. As such, it would entail the lawful and legitimate use of appropriate force for timely expulsion or judgment (if necessary), such as will occur upon His return to earth as Vice Regent. That His action was so understood as an act of authority by the Jewish leaders is clear from their response in verse 18-22, demanding a sign "to justify such a display of authority as that which ventured to regulate the temple." [Carson, John]

6. In fact, Jesus actually ended up enforcing existing rabbinic policy, which was NOT being enforced by them:

"Jesus was appalled at this disregard fro the sanctity of an area consecrated for the use of Gentiles who had not yet become full proselytes to Judaism. His action in driving out the merchants and their patrons, overturning the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves, and standing guard over the court to prohibit its use as a thoroughfare, was an astonishing display of zeal for God's honor and respect for the sacredness of the Temple precincts. Ironically, Jesus' spirited protest entailed a rigorous application of existing provisions, which prohibited anyone from entering the Temple Mount with a staff, sandals or his wallet, and which specifically denied the right to make of the forecourt a 'short by-path' (M. Berachoth IX.5; TB Berachoth 54a)." [William Lane, Mark]

There are a number of elements in the story that suggest that it is not as 'violent' as is sometimes visualized:

1. The fact that the Roman guards did not intervene--as they did with the riot over Paul in Acts 21--strongly suggests a "lower key" visualization.

2.        The seats of the dove sellers and the counters of the moneychangers were simply parts of their merchant 'stalls'. The money-tables would not have had much loose coinage on them--the coins would have been in bags behind the counter, and so the common image of many coins scattering everywhere is likely false. And it would not have taken but one example of 'pouring out' of a money bag to get everyone else's 'cooperation' in leaving!

3.        Jesus simply ordered the dove sellers out (and probably the merchants too, although they would have followed their larger animals out of the temple anyway), and the makeshift whip/lash was for the animals.

4.        There was no indication that any human being was assaulted, hit, harmed, or hurt; and the "scourge" was hastily constructed of rushes/weeds pulled out of the cracks in the Courtyard floor/walls (not a whip of the sort He was scourged with).

5.        Jesus forbade subsequent entry simply by his presence, to any non-worshipper who tried to enter.

6.        The many OT/Tanach prophetic references are ample indication that Jesus was acting in prophetic confrontation/symbolic mode.

7.        One should never confuse zeal, judgment, drama, prophetic symbolic action--or even forceful expulsion of destructive agents--with acts of unlawful physical aggression or 'violence' or 'lashing out at enemies'.

Perhaps William's assessment is the most realistic:

"First, then, back to the observation that it is reported as a "violent" act. Part of the reported action, blocking the way of traffic, perhaps involving the obtaining of animals for sacrifice, is more in the mode of nonviolent protest. Overturning the tables of the money changers may be viewed as "violent," but it should be noted that the entire protest is of very short duration. It is not narrated as though there is any intent to harm anyone, to maintain a long occupation, or to assert Jesus' power over the Temple and its dealings. It is clearly in the tradition of the prophets' dramatic representations of Israel's situation and God's word of judgment. In a situation of oppression and a brewing mimetic crisis, it is impossible to avoid the taint of violence if one is to act decisively. The word decision itself, a "cutting off" or "cutting from," already suggests that the harmonious reconciliation of all persons and elements in a situation will not take place. This is the human condition in the world of differences, especially when these differences no longer manage the mimetic desire and rivalry that are ever present and effective." [BVS:228f]

This act was one of dramatic disruption, not destruction and assault. This is so far removed from the violent options  that He rejected:

Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place.” (John 18.36)

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.)  Jesus commanded Peter, “Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?”  (John 18.10ff)

“Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.  Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?” At that time Jesus said to the crowd, “Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me? (Matt 26.52ff)

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/violentx.html

I like the link because it was in response to emotionally charged question from people who saw the overturning of the tables as an act of violence.