Ben Witherington's exegesis seems tortured to me. It seems much more likely that Jesus was ironically pointing out that they did not get it--his kingdom was not of this world, therefore physical weapons were useless. See above where I quoted John 18:36.
Also, Jesus on earth was not non-violent. He was not non-violent in His personal life when he violently drove the money changers out of the temple (twice!) Again, Jesus is also not non-violent now. He will be spectacularly violent when he comes back to rule the world, as Daniel, the Olivet Discourse and Revelation teach.
John, I would slightly question whether there is room to place the Lord Jesus Christ as a violent aggressor using these two examples.
In effect, He was not the aggressor, but the defender of "His Father's house."
Certainly, the folks didn't recognize He and the Father as related, but never-the-less it was not an aggression but defensive action.
Perhaps the same action that a pastor might make if some mafioso were to come set up poker tables in the foyer of a church. The righteous indignation to cast out the thieves and robbers from "the house of God."
The same defensive action is to be taken when He returns. He will at that time not only defend "His Father's house" but the whole of this earthly realm by putting the arch enemy in "time out" and establishing a righteous rule across the whole world.
That it all seems aggressive is because
in our perspective the actions come upon those effected and not from the perspective of Godly authority asserting ownership rights.
The money changers thought they had purchased a spot to do business, God hadn't sold any part of the temple - they were trespassers. God owned the house.
The worldly view is that land, power, and wealth are theirs for the taking, however, in the return, He is showing that sort "the door" (so to speak). Again, that God owns the house.
