Featured Violence

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?

John 2, NASB
14 And He found in the temple those who were selling oxen and sheep and doves, and the money changers seated at their tables.
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 money changers 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 place of business."​

" ... and He drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen ... "

1. Who are the "them"?
2. Are you aware that "drove" is the Greek ekbello, which denotes violence " ... so employed that the rapid motion of the one going is transferred to the one sending forth; to command or cause one to depart in haste, to draw out with force, tear out with implication of force overcoming opposite force ... "?

 

Yes Bosley, that is the common interpretation I refer to. With my curiosity peaked yesterday, I did attempt a bit of research, and my attention was drawn to the chords used to fashion the "whip." My eyes gave out before I could continue as I wished, but it intrigued me that what I was reading claimed that such a whip would actually be harmless. If I learn to save links properly on this thing I will show them when I can, but perhaps someone else here already knows where this information comes from and if it is accurate?

 

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.

The same is true of this passage--whether Jesus was out of character is moot, the event happened. The sentence order of the first half of the sentence in the original Greek of v. 15 shows that it was the people He drove out; then in the second half the "te...kai" (both...and) construction shows that He also drove out the animals.

Concerning the whip He made, whips are not ever designed to kill or even to injure (except to cut) unless used to choke or hang, which acts are not their designed use. (The "cat-of-nine-tails" used to whip Jesus at His crucifixion is the sole historical exception.) The fact remains that Jesus was violent against sinners and drove them out of His Father's house. I call that a Man defending His home--which Bosley will no doubt mock as he has several of my interpretations (without disproving them).

 

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.

 

Perhaps it's the common, and historical, interpretation because that's what it means.

You aren't given the privilege of interpreting the text according to your imagination.

 

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.

 

21:19 bespeaks of 23:38, but that's another topic.

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

 

Vengeance and defense of persons and property are two entirely different things. Nobody is advocating vengeance.

 

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.

 

Agree.

Didn't mean to insinuate that, my point was that we NT saints just as the OT saints are to 'wait for Jehovah' to save us and recompense on our behalf. Maybe you've done that a kazillion times yourself.......

If it be possible, as much as in you lieth, be at peace with all men. Ro 12:18

...... or maybe for some reasons you have your limitations with some men.

I’ve known only two brothers that I considered to be genuine pacifists in the name of Christ, neither shirked their duties when drafted to war (Korea and Viet Nam), both were infantrymen at the front, both prayed for God to deliver them from violence, and both recounted to me many amazing ‘coincidences’ that always placed them away from the battle. God honored their sincere desire to harm no one. I don’t consider this to be cowardice.

 

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 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:

Amen! I agree with all of this.

 

Earlier on the thread I quoted another relevant passage, which apparently Bosley didn't notice (granting that it wasn't posted in reply to a post of his).

In Prov. 24 it says: 11 If thou forbear to deliver them that are drawn unto death, and those that are ready to be slain; 12 If thou sayest, Behold, we knew it not; doth not he that pondereth the heart consider it? and he that keepeth thy soul, doth not he know it? and shall not he render to every man according to his works?

This passage assumes possible violence in behalf of another. If someone is about to be killed, quite often they must be defended with fighting.

Here is the pledge everyone in my Christian martial arts style must sign every time they advance in rank, and it is partially based on this passage:

PLEDGE​

1. To always practice my martial art to the glory of the only true God and His Son, Jesus Christ.​

2. To never use my martial art for the purpose of glorifying myself.​

3. To only use my martial art for defense, never for attack.​

4. To defend with my martial art my family and the weak and helpless as well as myself.​