alexis-baker andy violence, nonviolence and the temple incident in john 2:13-15

Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2012 DOI: 10.1163/156851511X595549

Biblical Interpretation 20 (2012) 73-96 brill.nl/bi

BiblicalInterpretation

orn

Violence, Nonviolence and the Temple Incident in John 2:13-15

Andy Alexis-BakerMarquette University

Abstract

e temple incident has been a popular episode in Jesus ministry from which Christians since Augustine have drawn to justify Christian violence ranging from punishing schismatics and heretics to justifying war and the death penalty. However, another tradition of reading this passage nonviolently began well before Augustine. Whether contextualizing the passage in a narrative reading so that it would have spiritual meaning or seeing the Greek grammar as disallowing that Jesus hit people with the whip, these nonviolent strategies eectively undercut any notion that Jesus action could provide a model for Christian violence. A close reading of the Greek text, I believe, supports these nonviolent strategies for reading the text, which simply denies based on Greek grammar that Jesus used his whip on any person.

Keywords

temple cleansing, violence, nonviolence

e incident in which Jesus made a whip and cleared the temple has been one of the most popular episodes of Jesus life, inspiring Christians from across the centuries to reect on the scene. In his painting Christ Driving e Money Changers From e Temple (1626), Rembrandt depicted an angry Jesus, whip raised, while an old lady scampers out of his way and some money changers try to protect their faces from the whip. Lorenzo Ghibertis sculpture of the scene on the baptistery doors of San Giovanni in Florence Italy (1403-24) shows a mixed gender crowd eeing as a man lays on the ground, presumably after falling under the force of Jesus upraised whip. Since antiquity, theo-logians and church leaders have cited the temple incident for many

joanHighlight

74 A. Alexis-Baker / Biblical Interpretation 20 (2012) 73-96

purposes, including condemning usury and greed, critiquing merchants, promoting anti-Semitism, and calling for inner conversion. Perhaps the most ubiquitous use of the temple incident, however, has been to justify Christian violence. From just war to Crusades to executing her-etics, Jesus action in the temple has provided fuel for righteous violence and killing. Since the Synoptic Gospels do not include an account of Jesus using a whip, John 2:13-25 has been central to these projects.

Despite the prevailing view that Jesus action in the temple allows Christians to participate in violence, many Christians have interpreted the scene dierently. Indeed, the tradition that interprets Jesus activ-ity as nonviolent is older than that which uses it to justify violence. While the debate between those traditions might seem like a trivial one, there is much at stake in how we interpret this passage. Far from a pedantic, obscure verse, John 2:13-25 has played and continues to play a role in Christianizing violence of all sorts. Although recent scholars have recovered a nonviolent sense of the text, very few have examined the history of interpreting John 2:13-25 and its Synoptic counterparts. erefore, I will begin by outlining and analyzing how authors from the patristic era through the Reformation have interpreted and used the passage. After this historical survey, I will examine the Greek text to highlight interpretive issues that challenge the now mainstream belief that Jesus took up a whip and beat both people and animals in a t of righteous anger. My contention is that the Greek text does not sustain that Jesus used a whip on people.

Interpretation History

Patristic Era

Prior to the fourth century, patristic authors primarily cited John 2:16 and 19 to prove Jesus divinity, the resurrection of the body, and to condemn charging money for ministry.1 During this three hundred

1) Pre-Constantine authors who cite John 2:16 are: Commodianus, Instructiones, 2; Cyprian, Ad Quirinum, 3.100; Tertullian, Aduersus Praxean, 21; Hippolytus, Contra Noetum, 18; Clement of Alexandria, Paedagogus, 9; Origen, De principiis, 2.4. e pre-Constantine citations of John 2:19 are: Pseudo Cyprian, De montibus Sina et Sion,

joanHighlight

joanHighlight

joanHighlight

joanHighlight

joanHighlight

joanHighlight

joanNoteComena la Wirkungsgheschichte (histria de la influncia d'un text al llarg de les seves interpretacions histriques)

A. Alexis-Baker / Biblical Interpretation 20 (2012) 73-96 75

year period, Origen was the only one to comment on John 2:15.2 In his Commentary on the Gospel according to John, Origen notes that the Gospels vary in their accounts of the temple action and states that if we only interpret the passage historically, it is impossible to show that the apparent disagreements are in harmony.3 Instead of a his-torical approach, Origen interpreted the passage spiritually so as to harmonize the Gospels. In response to those who objected to a spiritual interpretation and who insisted that Jesus made a whip and drove out actual animals and people, Origen argued that a historical reading is not plausible because there were a great number of animals in the temple for Jesus to drive out and because the people he whipped would have fought back and overpowered him. Furthermore, Origen argued that a literal reading portrays Jesus behaving uncharacteristically:

4; Tertullian, Aduersus Marcionem, 3.21, 24; De pudicitia, 16; Lactantius, Diuinae Institutiones, 4.18, 25; Clement of Alexandria, Canon ecclesiasticus; Origen, Contra Celsum, 3.32; 8.19; Irenaeus, Aduersus haereses, 5.6; Novatian, De Trinitate, 21; Hip-polytus, Demonstratio de Christo et Antichristo, 6.2) ere is one other possible allusion to John 2:15. In Paedagogus, 3.11.79, Clement of Alexandria says of silver-lovers, liars, hypocrites, and those who peddle the truth ( , , , ) that the Lord cast them out ( ) because he did not want the holy house of God to be a home of unjust trade, words or goods for sale ( ). Clement does not deal with the issue of Jesus using a whip or whether it was in character for Jesus to use what might be vio-lence. All translations from Greek, Latin, German or French texts are mine unless otherwise noted.3) Origin, Commentarire sur Saint Jean, 10.22.130: . Greek text from Origne, Commen-taire sur saint Jean, ed. Ccile Blanc, vol. 157, Sources chrtiennes (Paris: ditions du Cerf, 1970), p. 464. e dierences between the Gospels accounts which Origen highlights include chronology (beginning vs. the end of Jesus ministry), reason for travel (going to Jerusalem for Passover vs. triumphal entry), animals involved (cattle, sheep and doves vs. only sheep and doves), Jesus exact words (you shall not make my house a house of trade vs. you have made it a den of thieves), and whether Jesus used a whip or not.

joanHighlight

joanHighlight

joanHighlight

joanHighlight


Let us consider whether [the fact that] the Son of God takes cords, [makes] a whip for himself and expelled them from the temple does not reveal one who is self-willed, reckless and undisciplined.4

In addition to being problematic on a factual level, Origen believed that the story imports a bad character to Jesus, whom Origen would otherwise consider nonviolent.5 So he reverses what a surface reading would suggest and interprets the passage in such a way that the temple signies either a persons soul or the church from which Jesus drives out earthly things (cattle), irrationality (sheep), and vanity (doves) with a whip that is a symbol of his powerful words. us in Origens reading the violent whip becomes nonviolent speech.6

Because the passage seemed to impute a violent character on Jesus who taught and lived nonviolence, Christians after Origen continued to question whether the story could be factually correct. For example, around 391 ce John Chrysostom addressed some Christians who had reservations about the historicity of the account. ey maintained that since Jesus argued with people who did far worse things elsewhere, it seemed out of character that in this passage he is not satised with words only but also took up a whip and cast them out.7 Moreover, people saw a discrepancy between peoples reactions in previous con-icts with Jesus and their reactions to the action in the temple. Oddly, when Jesus used only words in his encounters with the Jewish leaders,

4) Ibid., 10.22.147: .5) For example, see Origen, Contra Celsum, 5.33. 6) Origen moves the violence to a spiritual plain in which the battle is not between physical actors but between principalities and power as well as with ones proclivities toward sin. is spiritual interpretation is the literal interpretation because in Origens hermeneutics, the less likely a historical or surface grammar reading is, the more likely the text wants to convey a spiritual meaning.7) John Chrysostom, In Joannem, 23: , , . Greek text from John Chrysostom, Homiliae in Joannem, in Patrologia Graecae, ed. J.P. Migne vol. 59 (Paris: J.P. Migne, 1862), p. 139. For the dating of Chrysostoms homilies on the Gospel of John see Johannes Quasten, Patrology: e Golden Age of Greek Patristic Literature, vol. 3 (Westminster, MD: Christian Classics, 1983), p. 464.

joanHighlight

joanHighlight

joanHighlight

joanHighlight


they reacted with ire. Yet in the temple incident Jesus apparent vic-tims did not react angrily to being hit with a whip. In defense of the accounts historicity Chrysostom responded that Jesus was a poor per-son from a poor family, and Jesus challenge to the powerful business elites was a personally risky action that helped reveal his divinity. How-ever, Chrysostom apparently did not see Jesus temple action as one for his congregants to imitate. Instead, he exhorted his hearers to imitate the disciples who gave alms instead of using whips.

Writing around 550 ce, Cosmas Indicopleustes addressed the same question that Origen and John Chrysostom had dealt with, namely, Since he had performed not even one sign with a view to the punish-ment of people, how then did he, as has been said, take the whip and strike those that were selling in the temple and drive them out of the temple?8 Whereas Origen spiritualized the text and Chrysostom basi-cally ignored the heart of the question, Cosmas dealt with the text head-on:

Answer: What is alleged is false, for he did not in any way strike a human being, but he adopted an admirable and becoming and appropriate course, for he struck the brute beasts only, as it is written: And having made a whip of cords he expelled all from the temple, both the sheep and the cattle. at is to say: He struck these as living but irrational creatures, driving also out of the temple even the things that were brought for sacrice according to the law, But things that had neither life nor sensation he pushed away and overthrew, as it is written: And he poured out the moneychangers money and overthrew their tables. But the rational beings he neither struck nor pushed away, but chastised with speech, as it is written: And to those who sold doves he said, Take these things hence, and do not make my Fathers house a marketplace.9

8) Cosmas Indicopleusts, Topographie Chrtienne, ed. Wanda Wolska-Conus, vol. 141, Sources Chrtiennes (Paris: Cerf, 1968), 3.22 (p. 459): , , , 9) Ibid., 3.22-23 (p. 456-60): , , , , , , , , ,

joanHighlight

joanHighlight

joanHighlight

joanHighlight

joanHighlight

joanHighlight

joanHighlight


us Cosmas found a basis in the text itself to see the action as both historical and nonviolent.

Just a few decades later in 598 ce, writing from southeastern Tur-key, Barhadbesabba related a story about eodore of Mopsuestia who rebuked Rabbula at a synod held in Constantinople (394 ce).10

Rabbula previously showed much aection for the famous Interpreter (eodore) and studied his works. But when, having gone to Constantinople to attend the Council of the Fathers, he was accused of hitting priests, he replied that our Lord also struck [people] when he entered the temple. e Interpreter (eodore) stood up and rebuked him, saying: Our Lord did not do that; he only spoke words to the people, saying, Take that from here, and overturned the tables. But he drove out the bulls and sheep with the blows of his whip.11

. , . , , , , .10) On the date of Barhadbesabbas Cause de la fondation des ecoles see G.J. Reinink, Edessa Grew Dim and Nisibis Shone Forth: e School of Nisibis at the Transition of the Sixth-Seventh Century, in Centres of Learning: Learning and Location in Pre-Modern Europe and the Near East, ed. Jan Willem Drijvers et al. (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995), p. 81 n. 13.11) Barhadbesabba, Cause de la fondation des ecoles, Syriac with French translation by Adda Scher in Patrologia Orientalis 4 (1908), pp. 380-81: Rabbula montrait aupara-vant beaucoup damiti pour le clbre Interprte et tudiait ses ouvrages. Mais tant all Constantinople pour assister au concile des Pres (381), il fut accuse de frapper les clercs; ayant respond que Notre Seigneur frappa lui aussi, quand il entra au temple, lInterprte se leva et le rprimanda en disant: Notre Seigneur ne t pas cela; aux hommes il adressa seulement la parole disant: Otez cela dici, et renversa les tables. Mais il t sortir coups de fouet les taureaux et les moutons. Wanda Wolska cited this in Wenda Wolska, La Topographie Chrtienne de Cosmas Indicopleusts (Paris: Presses Universitaires Fran-caises, 1962), p. 91. Jean Lasserre quoted Wolskas translation to French in Jean Lasserre, Un contresens tenace, Cahiers de la Rconciliation (October 1967), pp. 3-21 (7). Wolska added 381 as a date after Constantinople pour assister au concile des Pres. However, eodore of Mopsuestia did not attend the Second Ecumenical Council in Constantinople in 381, but a synod that met there in 394. at must be the council to which Barhadbesabba refers. John Howard Yoder translated the French (including the date) as found in Lasserre to English in John Howard Yoder, e Politics of Jesus, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2nd ed., 1994), p. 42 n. 37. I have modied Yoders trans-lation.

joanHighlight

joanHighlight

joanHighlight


us from Origen in 250 ce to Barhadbesabba in 598 ce, several read-ing strategies emerged to interpret Jesus action in the temple as phys-ically nonviolent. For Origen, a surface reading of the Greek seemed to suggest Jesus used violence. However, a narrative reading of the text would preclude such a surface reading because it makes the rest of Jesus life and teachings incoherent. us the narrative reading was superior, making a spiritual interpretation justied. For Cosmas and for Barhad-besabba, on the other hand, a close reading of the Greek grammar shows that Jesus did not hit people and thus at the very least could not be accused of doing violence to them. Yet both strategies were attempts to show how the disciple could faithfully follow Jesus who taught non-violence.

At the beginning of the fth century, Augustine nally broke with these nonviolent interpretive strategies for John 2:13-25. Finding spir-itual meaning in Jesus historical action, Augustine turned to Jesus use of a whip to nd ethical guidance on how to deal with heretics and schismatics, which he rst detailed in his arguments against Donatists. In Contra litteras Petiliani,12 Augustine provided a point by point rebut-tal to the Donatist Petilians arguments against the Catholics. One of the primary recurring charges from Petilian was that Catholics trans-gressed Christs teachings on nonviolence:

Did the apostles persecute any one? Or did Christ betray any one? But I answer you, on the contrary that Jesus Christ never persecuted any one . Where is the saying of the Lord Christ, If you receive a slap on one cheek, prepare the other cheek? Where is the law of God? Where is your Christianity, if you not only do violence and put to death, but also order these things to be done?13

12) Augustine wrote Contra litteras Petiliani between 398 and 401 ce. See Johannes Quasten, Patrology, ed. Angelo Di Berardino, vol. 4 (Westminster, MD: Christian Classics, 1986), p. 384.13) Augustine, Contra litteras Petiliani, CSEL 2.10.23: Petilianus dixit: si apostoli perse-cuti sunt aliquem aut aliquem tradidit christus. 2.81.177: Petilianus dixit: ego uero e contra respondeo iesum christum neminem persecutum. 2:92.200: ubi est quod dicit domi-nus christus: si acceperis alapam, praepara et alteram maxillam? and 94.214: ubi lex dei, ubi christianitas uestra est, si caedes et mortes facitis ac iubetis? e Donatist movement as a whole was not pacist. Donatist peasants called Circumcellions used violence to overthrow landlords in the countryside, to liberate slaves and to warn creditors to release debtors from their obligations. See W.H.C. Frend, e Donatist Church:

joanHighlight

joanHighlight

joanHighlight


In reply Augustine reinterpreted the temple incident to justify Christian violence.

e Lord Christ drove out the shameless merchants from the temple with whippings; in which connection is also the testimony of Scripture, stating, e zeal of your house has consumed me. So we nd Christ a persecutor . Christ even bodily persecuted those whom He expelled from the temple with whippings.14

Augustine expressed similar sentiments in his prolonged homiletic series on the Gospel of John. Speaking extemporaneously to his congregation,

A Movement of Protest in Roman North Africa (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1952), pp. 172-3. However, many Donatist leaders did not support the Circumcellions. A rigor-ously pacist group called the Rogatists, named after their leader Rogatus, saw the Circumcellions as a complete disgrace and broke away from Donatists who stayed in communion with the Circumcellions. e Donatist Tyconius said that the Circumcel-lions were superstitious brethren, and narrated a typical North African ecclesiology, complete with pacism saying that there were two cities and two kingdoms, one in the world, one desiring to serve Christ; one desiring to hold sway in this world, the other eeing the world [ ] One kills, the other is killed (see W.H.C. Frend, Dona-tus paene totam Africam decepit How?, Journal of Ecclesiastical History 48, no. 4 (1997), pp. 611-27 (618, 622). Even Augustine acknowledged that many Donatists did not approve of the Circumcellions stating, ere are certain among you who cry out that these things are, and have ever been displeasing to them. See Augustine, Contra Pet., Book 1:24.26; cf. Book 1:25.27.14) Augustine, Contra litteras Petiliani, CSEL 2.10.24: Et dominus christus agellatos expulit de templo improbos mercatores, ubi etiam conexum est testimonium scripturae dicentis: zelus domus tuae comedit me. Ecce inuenimus apostolum traditorem, christum persecutorem. 2.81.178: Quod autem christus etiam corporaliter fuerit persecutus eos quos de templo expulit agellando. Augustine continued along these lines stating that a boy is beaten contrary to his inclination, and that often by the very man that is most dear to him. And this, indeed, is what the kings would desire to say to you if they were to strike you, for to this end their power has been ordained of God. (Book 2:95.216) Petilian, however, was not impressed by appeal to legal authorities stating, e Apos-tle Paul says, e law is good, if people use it lawfully. What then does the law say? ou shalt not kill. (Book 2:56.127) Petilian also accused Augustine and the Cath-olics of using their power of persuasion to instigate the state to use violence against the Donatists, e hand of the butcher does not move except at your instigation. When Petilian pointed to Jesus disarming Peter at Gethsemane, Augustine countered by spiritualizing the passage and claiming that Catholics have the same motives of defend-ing Christ as Peter did (Book 2:89.194-95).

joanHighlight


he stated, He who was scourged by them rst showed us a certain sign because he made a scourge of ropes and with it he scourged the undis-ciplined who were doing business in the temple of God.15

e debate between Augustine and Petilian demonstrates that sev-eral ways to read the passage had emerged by the end of the patristic era. e reading of John 2:13-25 that asserted that Jesus did not liter-ally hit anyone and that whipping people would have been out of his character continued to hold a powerful sway on many Christians. Some Christians such as Cosmas Indicopleustes and Barhadbesabba used the Greek text itself to show that Jesus did not hit any person with a whip. Yet it was Augustines interpretation and use of John 2:15 which grad-ually won theological ascendance. Indeed, scholar Michael Gormans extensive research on early medieval commentaries on the Bible indi-cates that nearly all commentaries on John compiled in this period tend to be indistinguishable from reworkings of Augustines treatise, a masterpiece which dominated studies of the fourth Gospel for centuries.16 Following Augustines lead, later Christians would use the passage to justify even greater violence.

Medieval Period

e temple incident, particularly as portrayed in John 2, was an impor-tant scene for medieval reformers who were concerned that simonybuying and selling res spirituales such as the sacraments, holy order and ecclesiastical ocesbe eradicated. For instance, Princeton Univer-sitys Index of Christian Art lists seventy-seven dierent examples in which artists depict the temple incident from the sixth to the fteenth century. In particular, the eleventh-century reforms of Pope Gregory VII generated a lot of commentaries and some art on this theme.

15) Augustine, Tractatus in Euangelium Ioannis, ed. R. Willems, Corpus Christiano-rum, series Latina (CCL), vol. 36 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1954), 10.5; CCL 278.10-11: qui agellandus erat ab eis, prior illos agellauit), signum quoddam nobis ostendit, quod fecit agellum de resticulis, et inde indisciplinatos, negotiationem de dei templo facientes, agellauit.16) Michael Gorman, e Oldest Epitome of Augustines Tractatus in Euangelium Ioannis and Commentaries on the Gospel of John in the Early Middle Ages, Revue des tudes Augustiniennes 43 (1997), pp. 63-103 (74).

joanHighlight

joanHighlight

joanHighlight

joanHighlight

joanHighlight

joanHighlight


At the Roman Council of 1075, Gregory VII referred to the temple incident, quoting Gregory the Great: e seats of the dove sellers were overturned because they sold spiritual grace and before the eyes of men and the eyes of God the priesthood and virtue were debased.17 e dove sellers in Gregorys context were simoniac clergy. Since he dened simony as heresy, it should be eradicated through violence if other means failed: You prevent such persons, to the best of your ability, even by force if that be necessary, from serving at the sacred mysteries.18 us the Gregorian reforms took on a militant character and one of the key texts was the temple cleansing.

Other medieval writers, including Peter Damian, Anselm of Lucca, Humbert of Silva Candida and Bruno of Segni also cited the temple cleansing numerous times.19 Of these, Bruno of Segni exemplies how the Gregorians interpreted and put the passage to contemporary use. In his Commentaria in Lucam, he quotes Luke 19:45 and Matthew 21:12 and then directly addresses the simoniac clergy:

Listen to this, Simoniacs! Listen, wicked merchants. Either cease from your business, or leave the temple. For the Lord ejected from the temple not one or two, but all the sellers and the buyers indiscriminately. He himself overturned the

17) Concilium Romanum, Patrologia Latina, vol. 148 (Paris: J.P. Migne, 1853), p. 760: Cathedra ergo vendentium columbas evertitur, quando hi qui spiritualem gratiam vend-unt, et ante humanos oculos, et ante Dei oculos, sacerdotio privantur; et merito.18) Gregory VII, To Rudolph of Swabia and Berthold of Carnthia, Against Simony and Concubinage, Jan. 11, 1075, in e Correspondence of Pope Gregory VII: Selected Letters from the Registrum (New York: Octogon Books, 1966), p. 63. Gregory VII was described even by his contemporary supporters as a person prone to violence. For instance, Peter Damian, a Gregorian reformer, called him my Holy Satan (sanctum Satanam meum) because of his inclination. Pope Gregory VII led his own private army and commanded it as a general before becoming pope and afterwards. See Peter Damian, Epistola XVI, Ad Eumdem Alexandrum II, Romanum Ponticem, et Hildebran-dum, S.R.E. Cardinalem Archidiaconum, Patrologia Latina, vol. 143 (Paris: J.P. Migne, 1853), col. 236A.19) Peter Damian, Epistola 241, Ad Eumdem Henricum II Imperatorem, Patrologia Latina, vol. 144 (Paris: J.P. Migne, 1853), col. 436; Anselm of Lucca, Albinus in libro secundo super Matthaeum, Patrologia Latina, vol. 149 (Paris: J.P. Migne, 1853), cols. 475-78; Humbert of Silva Candida, Adversus Simoniacos Libri Tres, Patrologia Latina, vol. 143 (Paris: J.P. Migne, 1853), 1005-212.

joanHighlight

joanHighlight


money changers tables and the seats [cathedras] of those selling doves. You-all are the moneychangers, you-all sell doves, you-all do nothing without money and a price . You-all are thieves erefore leave the house of prayer, which since you-all have lived in it, has been made into a den of thieves.20

After this, Bruno concluded by calling the faithful to action: erefore, if we want to imitate him in this as well, if we cannot do otherwise, then we must violently evict simoniacs from the church.21

Internal reform was not the only use to which the medieval clergy and authors put the temple incident. In the Middle Ages, bishops sought to address increasing social disorder caused by the Carolingian empires collapse. ey eventually proclaimed the Peace or Truce of God, which prohibited violence during certain times and places. Initially, the bish-ops enforced the Peace and Truce through spiritual sanctions such as denying the Eucharist or excommunication. However, they eventually advocated stronger measures, calling upon groups of knights to enforce the rules. Although most confraternities of knights rarely lasted beyond their specic assignmentwhich prevented them from becoming stand-ing armies or long-term institutionsthe one that continued was the Knights Templar, the Order of the Temple.

e Knights Templar formed to escort people on pilgrimages along the Palestinian coastline to Jerusalem. Before long, the knights used their skills in the Second Crusade. In 1127, a church council formally

20) Bruno of Segnis, Commentaria in Lucam, Patrologia Latina, vol. 165 (Paris: J.P. Migne, 1854), col. 440: Audite haec, Simoniaci; audite, nefandi negotiatores: aut cessate a negotiis, aut exite de templo. Non enim unum vel duos, sed indierenter omnes et ven-dentes et ementes Dominus templi ejecit de templo. Ipse et mensas nummulariorum et cathedras vendentium columbas evertit. Vos nummularii estis, vos columbas venditis, vos sine nummo et pretio nihil agitis. Latrones enim vos estis. Exite igitur de domo ora-tionis, quae, quoniam vos in ea habitatis, facta est spelunca latronum. See also Bruno of Segnis, Commentaria in Matthaeum, Patrologia Latina, vol. 165 (Paris: J.P. Migne, 1854), col. 244-45 where he says exactly the same thing but adds some additional words against simony. In his Commentaria in Joannem Bruno simply points back to his previous commentary on the temple cleansing, apparently not wanting to repeat himself a third time. He conated the passages into one story of cleansing, which was a common way of viewing the story.21) Bruno of Segnis, Commentaria in Lucam, col. 440: Si igitur eum in hoc quoque imitari velimus, si aliter non possumus, violenter Simoniacos ab Ecclesia pellere debemus.

joanHighlight

joanHighlight

joanHighlight


endorsed the knights when master of the order Hugh of Payens visited the West to raise funds and recruits. In addition, Bernard of Clairvaux wrote an inuential pamphlet to help publicize the order called De laude novae militiae. Using his rhetorical skills, Bernard argued that there is a way of salvation by which a person wages physical battle with Gods enemies. With the souls protected by the armor of faith and their bodies protected by the armor of steel, he exhorted the knights to go forth condently and repel the foes of Christ. In taking up this cause and decorating their house in Jerusalem with armaments, Bernard said that the knights:

clearly show that they are animated by the same zeal for the house of God which of old passionately inamed their leader himself when he armed his most holy hands, not indeed with a sword, but with a whip. Having fashioned this from some lengths of cord, he entered the temple and expelled the merchants, scattered the coins of the money changers, and overturned the chairs of the pigeon venders, considering it most untting to dele this house of prayer by such trac.22

Bernard then argued that the Templars should be more indignant that the holy place be polluted by pagans than to be crowded with merchants.23 In one of his letters, Bernard also encouraged the knights not to make truces with Gods enemies, until such time as, by Gods help, they shall be either converted or wiped out.24

22) Bernard, De laude novae militia, 5: Plane his omnibus liquido demonstrantibus eodem pro domo Dei fervere milites zelo, quo ipse quondam militum Dux, vehementissime inam-matus, armata illa sanctissima manu, non tamen ferro, sed agello, quod fecerat de res-ticulis, introivit in templum, negotiantes expulit, nummulariorum eudit aes et cathedras vendentium columbas evertit. Bernard of Clairvaux, Liber ad Milites Templi: de laude novae militiae, in Sancti Bernardi Opera, ed. J. LeClercq and H.M. Rochais vol. 3 (Rome: Editiones Cistercienses, 1963), 3:222.23) Ibid.: Talis proinde sui Regis permotus exemplo devotus exercitus, multo sane indignius longe que intolerabilius arbitrans sancta pollui ab indelibus quam a mercatoribus infes-tari.24) Bernard, Ep. 394. Translation from Bernard of Clairvaux, e Letters of St. Bernard of Clairvaux (trans. Bruno Scott James, New York: AMS Press, 1980), p. 467.

joanHighlight

joanHighlight


Reformation

More than four hundred years after Bernard, the belief that Jesus action in the temple was a violent act that sanctioned Christian violence in service of God was entrenched. Like Augustine and the Gregorian reformers, John Calvin saw the temple action as a model for how to deal with certain heresies. In Defensio Orthodoxae Fidei (1554), Calvin defended his role in burning Michael Servetus at the stake. Calvin argued that Servetus modalist view of God and denial of infant baptism had to be purged from the community to prevent its spread. To justify his actions, Calvin relied primarily on Acts 4-5, arguing that when Ananias and Sapphira dishonored the Holy Spirit, God killed them. us if judges should protect the people, then pious magistrates should not allow Gods honor to be sullied. Calvin then answered his critics, who argued that the meek and mild Jesus of the Gospels would not have burned somebody alive. Calvin turned to Johns account of Jesus with a whip in the temple: Jesus meekness was not intended for the obstinate and evil.

is overview from the patristic era through the Reformation demon-strates how the nonviolent strategies for reading the passage have been eclipsed by readings that see Jesus as using violence and are unconcerned with that image. Jesus action was violent and provides a model for Christian behavior toward heretics and those who threaten Christian security. is reading persists into the present. Jennifer Glancy, for example, quips in a 2009 article that when Jesus picks up a whip and drives out cattle and sheep and merchants and moneychangers, he is not an exemplar of non-violence.25 Likewise, in defending just war

25) Jennifer A. Glancy, Violence as Sign in the Fourth Gospel, p. 108. Others who agree with her that Jesus used the whip on people include C. K. Barrett, e Gospel according to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text, (Philadelphia: Westminster, 2nd ed., 1978), pp. 197-98; George Beasley-Murray, John, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, TX: Word, 1987), p. 38; Raymond Brown, e Gospel according to John, IXII, e Anchor Bible (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966), p. 115; Barnabas Lindars, e Gospel of John, New Century Bible Commentary (London: Oliphants, 1972), p. 138; Mark Matson, e Temple Incident: An Integral Element in the Fourth Gospels Narrative, in Jesus in Johannine Tradition, ed. Robert Fortna et al. vol. 145-53 (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), p. 146;

joanHighlight

joanHighlight

joanHighlight

joanHighlight

joanHighlight

joanHighlight


theory as a Christian option, Daryl Charles and Timothy Demy assert that since Jesus used a whip it neither matters what the whip was made from, nor whether Jesus used it on people or only animals: is most assuredly does not t the prole of the ideological pacist, for in truth it qualies as forceful, even violent, resistance.26

Greek Exegesis

Although earlier nonviolent reading strategies for interpreting John 2:13-25 were eclipsed in the literature for several centuries, recent schol-arship has looked anew at the story and came to similar conclusions as those nonviolent readings. For example, without examining it any fur-ther Ernst Haenchen states that: Since one cannot drive animals with hands alone, Jesus made a kind of whip (read with P66 and P75) out of the ropes with which the animals had been tied up. He did not use it against people, but he drove out the animals with it.27 In his book, Rooted in Jesus Christ, Daniel Izuzquiza argues that the temple action was a nonviolent, countercultural parody of the

John McHugh, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on John 1-4, ed. Graham Stan-ton, e International Critical Commentary (New York: T & T Clark, 2009), p. 205; Francis Moloney, e Gospel of John, Sacra Pagina, vol. 4 (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1998), p. 81. Karl Barth called it a unique picture of actual aggression on Jesus part. See Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, vol. III/4 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1961), p. 433.26) Daryl Charles and Timothy Demy, War, Peace, and Christianity: Questions and Answers from a Just-War Perspective (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2010), p. 370.27) Ernst Haenchen, Das Johannesevangelium: ein Kommentar, p. 200: Da man Tiere nicht mit den bloen Hnden treiben kann, macht sich Jesus eine Art Geiel (lies mit P66 und P75 ) aus Stricken, mit denen die Tiere angebunden gewesen waren. Er verwendert sie nicht gegen Menschen, sondern treibt damit die Tiere hinaus. Some other modern commentators who agree with Haenchen are: Craig Keener, e Gospel of John: A Commentary, p. 522; R. Alan Culpepper, e Gospel and letters of John, p. 132; Mark R. Bredin, Johns Account of Jesus Demonstration in the Tem-ple: Violent or Nonviolent?, p. 46; N. Clayton Croy, e Messianic Whippersnap-per: Did Jesus Use a Whip on People in the Temple (John 2:15)?, Journal of Biblical Literature 128, no. 3 (2009): 3-21.

joanHighlight

joanHighlight

joanHighlight

joanHighlight

joanHighlight


dominant imperial political power.28 Izuzquiza places the action in a larger context in which Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a small donkey, signaling his humility and meekness. Furthermore, Izuzquiza notes that Mark clearly indicates Jesus disciples were not with him, so the expul-sion was not a violent and uncontrolled explosion, fruit of sudden indignation; rather it was a foreseen, planned, organized nonviolent action.29 He then claims that Jesus only used the whipwhich was the same kind that shepherds and cowherds used to guide their live-stockto drive out the animals.30 us a closer look at the Greek text is in order.

Borrowed from the Latin term agellum, the which Jesus used could refer to an instrument consisting of a thong or thongs, frequently with metal tips to increase the severity of the punishment.31 As an instrument of torture, its primary use can be seen in its verb form , which appears in the passion narratives (Mark 15:15; Matt. 27:26), and was a punishment inicted on slaves and provincials after a sentence of death had been pronounced on them.32 It is unlikely, however, that Jesus had this kind of weapon or inicted that kind of punishment on those in the temple. First, weapons were forbidden in the temple area. e Mishnah states that, One should not enter the Temple mount with his walking stick, his overshoes, his money bag, or with dust on his feet.33 Jesus did not bring the instrument into the temple; he fashioned an ad hoc instrument from whatever materials

28) Daniel Izuzquiza, Rooted in Jesus Christ: Toward a Radical Ecclesiology (Grand Rap-ids: Eerdmans, 2009), p. 233.29) Ibid.30) Ibid. However, Izuzquiza also claims that most commentators agree that Jesus only used the whip on animals. He clearly exaggerated this claim.31) Frederick W. Danker et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed., (BDAG) (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), p. 1064.32) Ibid.33) Jacob Neusner, e Mishnah: A New Translation (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988), p. 14. Raymond Brown also picks up on this. See Brown, e Gospel according to John, I-XII, p. 115.

joanHighlight

joanHighlight

joanHighlight

joanHighlight

joanHighlight

joanHighlight

joanHighlight


were available, which was not likely to include metal shards or leather for thongs. us, the narrative depicts him fashioning the tool - (from reeds), a word Josephus used to describe some of the garb used when mourning with sackcloth and ashes.34 e type of material available would have been animal bedding35 or fodder and ropes with which animals were tied up. An ad hoc whip of this sort hardly rises to the level of a Roman instrument of torture.36

If Jesus had used the kind of weapon that Romans used to punish people, the temple guards and the Roman garrison stationed nearby would have acted swiftly. roughout the Roman Empire, the mili-tarys function was to suppress riots and rebellions. Anything resem-bling a riot would have called out the military garrison as happened in Acts 21 when worshippers dragged Paul out of the temple in Jerusa-lem. Moreover, unrest during Jewish festivals was so commonplace that the Roman authorities prepared for it by sending in extra soldiers to quell any uprising that might occur.37

On Whom or What Did Jesus Use the Makeshift Instrument?

Given that Jesus likely fashioned an instrument out of materials avail-able for tying up or bedding the animals in the temple, the question arises whether Jesus used that whip to hit people. Whereas several Eng-lish Bibles translate John 2:15 as including the people and the animals,

34) See Josephus, Antiquities, 8.385. See also Acts 27:32 where it is used to describe the rope attached to a ships anchor.35) Brown, e Gospel according to John, IXII, p. 115: Jesus may have fashioned his whip from the rushes used as bedding for the animals.36) Moreover, N. Clayton Croy has argued that the modern critical Greek edition which views as a secondary later reading may not be correct: e reading with has better extrinsic and intrinsic support than is often acknowledged. In addition to the manuscript support and the possibility of parablepsis mentioned above, I would note that the evangelist himself had good reason to mollify the image with , given that he juxtaposed the words and , a combination that nearly demands a qualication. See Croy, e Messianic Whippersnapper, p. 557 n. 9. Others also see as the better reading. See Brown, e Gospel according to John, I-XII, p. 115 and Ernst Haenchen, Das Johannesevangelium: ein Kommentar, p. 200.37) Josephus, Antiquities, 20.106. Translation is from the Loeb edition.

joanHighlight

joanHighlight

joanHighlight

joanHighlight

joanHighlight

joanHighlight

joanHighlight


the Greek text is more complicated:38 , . At issue is what refers to. In his recent commentary for e International Commentary Series, John McHugh argues that the term refers to the merchants mentioned in verse 14. In his view, the primary targets of Jesus whip are the sellers in verse 14, and only sec-ondarily the sheep and cattle of verse 15. McHugh and others note that is a masculine pronoun, which suggests that if John had meant that Jesus had only driven out the animals John would have used the neuter .39 us takes its gender from the masculine (those selling) and (money-changers) in verse 14. Moreover, there is a parallelism between the main verbs in each verse, which indicate that Jesus found the merchants and money-changers, and in verse 15, he drove them out from the temple. If this were correct, the phrase should be translated with McHugh, he drove them all out of the Temple (the sheep and the cattle as well).40

Several grammatical problems arise from this view however. First, verse 14 contains all three possible antecedent genders for those selling (m); cattle (m); sheep (n); doves (f); and money changers (m)and they could all provide the pronouns gender. If John had used the neuter , this would suggest Jesus only drove out the sheep ( ). Yet since it was the Passover festival, the sacri-cial sheep had to be male (Exod. 12:5). us the masculine pronoun could cover both the sheep and the cattle. If John had used the femi-

38) For English translations that make people as well as animals the target of Jesus whip see: New Jerusalem Bible; New American Standard; New King James; Good News Translation; e Message; Contemporary English Version; e Living Bible; New English Translation; e New Living Translation; Revised Standard Version; and Youngs Literal Translation.39) See McHugh, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on John 1-4, p. 205; Barrett, e Gospel according to St. John, p. 198; Beasley-Murray, John, p. 38; Rudolph Schnackenburg, e Gospel according to St. John (trans. Kevin Smyth, New York: Herder and Herder, 1968), p. 346; and Ben Witherington, Johns Wisdom: A Com-mentary on the Fourth Gospel (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995), p. 87.40) McHugh, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on John 1-4, p. 203.

joanHighlight

joanHighlight

joanHighlight

joanHighlight

joanHighlight

joanHighlight

joanHighlight

joanHighlight

joanHighlight

joanHighlight

joanHighlight

joanHighlight


nine pronoun , this would suggest he absurdly drove out the doves with a whip. Beyond the grammatical and logical improbability, the narrative itself excludes the possibility that the dove sellers were driven out of the temple with the whip. Rather than driving out the doves or their dealers, verse 16 says that Jesus addressed the dove-sell-ers saying, Take these out of here! is presupposed that the vendors continued to be present inside the temple even after he drove all out. us Johns only real option was the masculine pronoun if he did not want to repeat the pronoun in the relevant gender before each word in the subsequent phrase. e question is whether the masculine pronoun covers from verse 14 as well.41 e construction in provides grammatical aid to answer this question.

A construction connects concepts, usu[ally] of the same kind or corresponding as opposites.42 When an author combines the two terms, these two conjunctions signal a closer connection between two sentence parts than either particle can alone, for which English has no equivalent.43 is is common in classical Greek and also in patris-tic literature.44 For instance, the Nicene Creed uses it in the rst line: ,

41) Croy comes to a more cautious conclusion that I am oering. He surveys various grammars and examples from biblical texts to demonstrate that there are no conclusive grammatical rules that govern gender that would force to take its gender from the preceding verse or from the subsequent nouns in which is masculine and could give its gender. He gives numerous exam-ples from Greek literature of pronouns and adjectives taking their gender from a com-plex variety of antecedents and subsequent nouns. According to Croy, what is important from this observation is that the masculinity of does not preclude the subsequent phrase from providing the gender. us though slightly more cautious than my view, his conclusion is no less damaging to the interpretation that sees a necessary connection between and in 2:14. See Croy, e Messianic Whippersnapper, pp. 563-66. See also Lasserre, Un contresens tenace, pp. 13-18.42) Danker et al., BDAG, p. 993. See also Herbert Weir Smyth, A Greek Grammar for Colleges (New York: American Book Company, 1920), p. 667, 2974.43) Karl H. Pridik, , in Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Horst Balz et al. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), p. 339.44) For examples from classical literature see J. D. Denniston, e Greek Particles, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2nd ed., 1959), pp. 511-13.

joanHighlight

joanHighlight


, .45 English versions of the creed normally do not even translate the particle but simply say, of all things visible and invisible, but it could just as well be translated of all things both () visible and () invisible. here con-nects two words with a logical relationship. In this case, they are con-trasting words.

e New Testament uses the construction 90 times.46 e Septuagint uses it 70 times. As in the Creed, in most of these cases the construction simply highlights the connection between two words, whether they are verbs or nouns functioning as subjects, direct objects or indirect objects. e construction in Acts 5:24, for exam-ple, connects two subjects of the verb: . ere are several cases, however, that also function appositionally. An appositive expands or denes another term and syntactically functions the same way as its referent. For instance, the New Testament epistles commonly contain appositions: Paul, a servant of Christ, a called apostle, designated for the Gospel (Romans 1:1). e three appositive phrases after Paul are all in the same nominative case and dene further who Paul is. Both the Septuagint and the New Testament use the construction in appositions. A sample of these texts:

Gen. 2:25 , , .

Luke 22:66 ,

Acts 19:10 , .

Another type of apposition is the partitive apposition, which breaks down the whole noun or substantive adjective into its dierent parts.

Exod. 7:19

45) Greek text in Philip Scha, e Creeds of the Greek and Latin Churches, e Creeds of Christendom, vol. II (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1896), p. 57.46) I derived this number from Lasserre, Un contresens tenace, p. 8.

joanHighlight

joanHighlight

joanHighlight


Exod. 9:22 , , .

Matt. 22:10 , .

Acts 19:17 .

Rom. 3:9

is selective list from the Septuagint and the New Testament dem-onstrates examples in which the construction denes the parts of the pronoun .47 ese along with the other construc-tions abundantly reveal close grammatical parallels with John 2:15, so that the textual evidence overwhelmingly points toward the construction in John 2:15 as a partitive appositive. stands in apposition and claries the constituent parts of the whole (). If this is the case, then the phrase should be translated as he drove them all, both the sheep and the cattle, from the temple (Good News Translation, Authorized Standard Version, Amplied Bible, New Century Version, NIV, NRSV, TNIV). is translation puts John 2:15 in line with how translators universally translate all of the other 90 uses of in the New Testament. Scholars and translators have treated the construction in John 2:15 much dierently than all the other instances where they always translate it with bothand, x as well as y or ignore the and translate (and).

47) e complete list of New Testament verses in which modies a form of are: Matt. 22:10; Act 19:10; 19:17; 26:3; Rom. 1:16; 2:9; 2:20; 3:9; Eph. 3:10; Heb. 2:11. See Lasserre, Un contresens tenace, p. 12. e list from the Septuagint in which functions as a partitive appositive modifying a form of includes: Exod. 7:19; 9:22; 22:9; Esther 8:11. John 2:15 should be added to the list of New Testament verses. Karl Pridick does so without argument in Pridik, , p. 339.

joanHighlight

joanHighlight

joanHighlight

joanHighlight


John and the Synoptics

Although scholars still debate about whether John knew of or used the Synoptic Gospels, Richard Bauckham has argued that John was writ-ten, not for the Johannine community, but to circulate generally among the churches.48 is thesis stands in stark contrast to the standard position that John wrote for his own Christian group.49 Bauckham begins his essay, John for Readers of Mark, by pointing out that the popular view that John wrote his Gospel independently of any knowl-edge of Mark has corresponded with the view that Johns Gospel was written for a largely isolated Christian community that had little con-tact with the other churches. us, the question of whether Johns Gospel is independent of the Synoptics is tied to the view that Johns community was an isolated sectarian group. Bauckham oers a fresh approach, arguing that Johns Gospel was written for the Christian movement as a whole, not merely the Johannine community. us, John must have expected his readers to have been familiar with the Gospel of Mark, for example, which by the time of Johns Gospel was widely circulated. So Bauckham then exhibits evidence that Johns Gospel was designed not to exclude other Christians but to accom-modate readers of Mark. With regard to the temple incident in John, Bauckham concludes that John has to be read as a correction to Mark with greater claims to accuracy.50

With Bauckhams thesis in mind it would be good to look at Mark 11:15-16, which says that Jesus

entered the temple and began to drive out those who were selling and those who were buying in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves; and he would not allow anyone to carry anything through the temple.

48) Richard Bauckham, John for Readers of Mark, in Gospels for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences, ed. Richard Bauckham (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), p. 149.49) is position is associated with Raymond Brown, e Community of the Beloved Disciple (New York: Paulist Press, 1979) and others.50) Bauckham, John for Readers of Mark, pp. 159-60.

joanHighlight

joanHighlight

joanHighlight


If the Greek reading of John 2:13-15 above is correct, John could be read as Bauckham suggests. For Mark, like the other Synoptics, claims that Jesus drove out those who were selling and those who were buy-ing ( ). By adding the construction , John could be read as clarifying exactly whom Jesus drove out so that John indeed corrects Mark to clarify that Jesus did not drive out the money changers and vendors with violence. Instead, he drove out their animals, and wanting to look after their property, they followed after the cattle and sheep. If this suggestion is plausible, then Johns passage would be even more intentionally nonviolent than the Synoptics because John intentionally added the partitive appositive construction to clar-ify ambiguities in Mark and the other Gospels.

Violence and Nonviolence

e Greek text does not support a view that would see Jesus action as a model for violent action. ere is also no need to spiritualize the text along the lines of Origen in order to avoid such imputation onto Jesus. Cosmas Indicopleustes and Barhadbesabba were correct to deny that Jesus hit people with the whip. We might go further and deny that Jesus committed violence against the sheep and cattle, since a make-shift whip of rope would hardly do much more than get them moving out the door, their owners following after them to keep them from running amok. In a real sense, the narrative does not depict Jesus beat-ing the animals; but instead he saves their lives from sacricial slaugh-ter in a monetary and religious system. e fact that he deliberately refrains from overturning caged pigeons shows his carefulness with the animals.51

51) You cannot drive caged pigeons, and it would be brutal to overturn their cages; all you can do is to order the dealers o. C.H. Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963), p. 158. See also John Phillips, Exploring the Gospel of John, e John Phillips Commentary series (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2001), p. 60: With dignity and restraint that marked his every move, he ordered those that sold doves to remove their propertythus gently safe-guarding the innocent birds.

joanHighlight

joanHighlight

joanHighlight

joanHighlight

joanHighlight

joanHighlight


e fact that Jesus used a makeshift instrument to move the cattle and sheep out of the temple is logically very dierent from warfare and capital punishment. Jesus did not kill anybody. erefore, even if we want to see Jesus behavior as a model, and even if we think he hit some-body with the whip, to jump from that action to killing is a big leap. Indeed, Roland Bainton has pointed out the dissimilarity between weap-ons of modern warfare and a makeshift whip:

Here was undeniably an instance of ery indignation against the profanation of the sacred, but the whip of cords, if genuine, was no hand grenade and the success of Jesus in routing the hucksters was scarcely due to physical prowess.52

To move from a little whip and overturning a table to ring machine guns, missiles and other modern weaponry is simply absurd. From this text we could justify acts of civil disobedience, property tamper-ing and even acts to restrain evil, but not killing, and certainly not warfare.

Moreover, modern interpreters who use this text as a warrant for vio-lence and killing have generally not been so keen to align themselves with crusading ideology or rst strike aggression. ey argue that Jesus action provides justication for theories like the just war to become operative in Christian life. But Jesus was not operating under just war principles. As Origen noted, under that reading Jesus attacked people who were doing what was probably lawful, who had done him no harm, and who had no idea why he was acting the way he was. e merchants were victims of assault under the standard reading since Augustine. at is why the text could be used in such a way as to justify burning heretics and underwriting the crusades.

A nonviolent reading undercuts all of that. It not only makes more sense of the actual Greek text, but it also makes more sense logically of the entire narrative sequence. If Christians want to justify war and other forms of killing, they will need to look somewhere besides this passage.

52) Roland H. Bainton, Christian Attitudes Toward War and Peace (New York: Abing-don Press, 1960), p. 56.

joanHighlight

joanHighlight

joanHighlight

joanHighlight

joanHighlight


Conclusion

e temple incident has been a popular episode in the life of Jesus. Church leaders and theologians have used the incidents for many pur-poses, but one of the most ubiquitous has been to justify Christian violence. Because Jesus has been thought to have used a whip on the backs of people in a t of righteous rage, many Christians through the centuries have seen in that action an example for Christians to follow. us schismatics and heretics received not only whippings, but death sentences as a result of this interpretation. Moreover, the passage con-tinues to be used to justify Christian violence, even in western liberal democracies. Military service and war are more acceptable for Christians thanks to this interpretation.

However, another tradition of reading this passage nonviolently began well before Augustine rst drew upon it to use violence against the Donatists. Whether contextualizing the passage in a narrative reading so that it would have spiritual meaning or seeing the Greek grammar as disallowing that Jesus hit people with the whip, these nonviolent strategies eectively undercut any notion that Jesus action could pro-vide a model for Christian violence. A close reading of the Greek text, I believe, supports Cosmas Indicopleustes strategy for reading the text, which simply denies based on the sense of the grammar that Jesus used his whip on any person. I think we may go even farther and question whether violence was done to the animals given the ad hoc charac-ter of and the fact that by moving them out of the tem-ple, Jesus at least temporarily stayed their execution on the bloody altar.

Moreover, the logic of the text precludes using it to justify killing of any sort, since using lethal weapons is hardly comparable to a make-shift whip. Dropping bombs on cities is simply too far removed from this incident for it to be of use for Christian justication of violence.

us, Cosmas was wise not only to read the text closely, but to deny the logic behind a violent reading that imports an erratic behavior to Jesus in this instance. ankfully, some newer translations such as the NRSV and NIV have translated the text more accurately, which will hopefully begin to counteract 1,500 years of abusing this passage.

joanHighlight

joanHighlight

joanHighlight

joanHighlight

Copyright of Biblical Interpretation is the property of Brill Academic Publishers and its content may not becopied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express writtenpermission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

alexis-baker andy violence, nonviolence and the temple incident in john 2:13-15

Documents

jesus action

jesus ministry

account of jesus

angry jesus

christian violence

force of jesus upraised

jesus activity

christianizing violence