Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Bodley, thanks for your answer. I would like to ask you about the temple scene, as the common interpretation has always seemed so out of line/character with everything else in scripture, but that might be a decent little thread on its own. It has always bothered me.
Could you explain this, then, Bos?However I don't think he used the whip on people, I believe he used it on the animals present, especially oxen, in order to get them to vacate the temple complex.
Cursing the fig tree in Matt. 21 was also "out of character" for Jesus, but the fact remains that He did so. Some might think it "out of character" for Jesus to come back and destroy the Antichrist and his whole army, but He will do so--an extremely violent act.Bodley, thanks for your answer. I would like to ask you about the temple scene, as the common interpretation has always seemed so out of line/character with everything else in scripture, but that might be a decent little thread on its own. It has always bothered me.
The verse is not ambiguous in the original Greek. The context of verse 14 and the syntax and word order of the first half of v. 15 show that He drove out the money-changers; in the second half of the verse, the "te...kai" construction of the original shows He also drove out the animals.Yes, well if Jesus actually used the whip against people then that would be out of character I believe. However I don't think he used the whip on people, I believe he used it on the animals present, especially oxen, in order to get them to vacate the temple complex. It's pretty common practice to drive oxen with some sort of whip, and an animal that large isn't going to go anywhere with you pushing it, so I believe Jesus made the whip for that purpose. Unfortunately the text is ambiguous at best in many translations, particularly in the important verse, verse 15:
Perhaps it's the common, and historical, interpretation because that's what it means.You are welcome. By the common interpretation I assume you mean the interpretation of John 2:13-17, that says Jesus went into the temple made a whip and started hitting people with it and chasing them out of the temple?
You aren't given the privilege of interpreting the text according to your imagination.Yes, well if Jesus actually used the whip against people then that would be out of character I believe.
Cursing the fig tree in Matt. 21 was also "out of character" for Jesus, but the fact remains that He did so......
The context shows that Jesus was teaching faith. But this is the only destructive miracle Jesus did, as opposed to His miracles of healing, or His sign miracles (walking on the water, etc.), which proved His deity. So it might be considered out of character for Jesus. I don't believe it is, anymore than I believe the cleansing of the temple was out of character for Him. To say either act was out of character is to impose our opinion of what Jesus was on the Bible Jesus. He is a lion, and lions are not tame, as C. S. Lewis pointed out in Narnia.That's it, as deep as it goes? The Saviour merely lost His temper at a tree and struck it down dead, nothing else symbolic or prophetic happening here?
The context shows that Jesus was teaching faith. But this is the only destructive miracle Jesus did, as opposed to His miracles of healing, or His sign miracles (walking on the water, etc.), which proved His deity. So it might be considered out of character for Jesus. I don't believe it is, anymore than I believe the cleansing of the temple was out of character for Him. To say either act was out of character is to impose our opinion of what Jesus was on the Bible Jesus. He is a lion, and lions are not tame, as C. S. Lewis pointed out in Narnia.
We are to give place for His vengeance, not ours. 'Avenge not yourselves, beloved, but give place unto the wrath of God: for it is written, Vengeance belongeth unto me; I will recompense, saith the Lord.' Ro 12:19
Vengeance and defense of persons and property are two entirely different things. Nobody is advocating vengeance.
Vengeance and defense of persons and property are two entirely different things.
Nobody is advocating vengeance.
Well said. I'm still scratching my head about the idea that self defense = vengeance, that self defense = evil (as in not returning evil for evil), and other statements on this thread.I have come to the conclusion that when something that obvious needs to be explained any real conversation is not possible, either because the conversation is over their head or they just have a blind agenda.
I know this is a common interpretation, and I don't oppose it out of hand, but am not convinced either. Another day another thread perhaps....:wavey:21:19 bespeaks of 23:38, but that's another topic.
Amen! I agree with all of this.I don't consider anything you've presented to be out of character for Jesus, these only prove His deity even the more.
Jesus is Jehovah. 'Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was born, I am.' Jn 8:58
He doesn't change. 'Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and to-day, yea and for ever.' Heb 13:8
He wars. 'Jehovah is a man of war: Jehovah is his name.' Ex 15:3
He fights for His people. 'Jehovah will fight for you, and ye shall hold your peace.' Ex 14:14
We are to give place for His vengeance, not ours. 'Avenge not yourselves, beloved, but give place unto the wrath of God: for it is written, Vengeance belongeth unto me; I will recompense, saith the Lord.' Ro 12:19