While I don’t agree with this interpretation, again I have to say that this is probably the best argument I have heard in support of the use of violence.
I enjoy your input!

Of course from my secular worldview, we have a name for people who’s actions contradict what they preach…

Take that interpretation for what it’s worth. It is from a non-believer who hasn’t study that part of the Bible.

I appreciate your input. I think that it is important for us to wrestle with these kinds of questions. So many times we just fit Jesus into the mold of our current beliefs and worldviews without actually considering the radical implications of following His lead. The Kingdom of God is so topsy-turvy…or maybe it’s the kingdom of the world that is so topsy-turvy

You said:
So, am I the only one arguing from silence?

Honestly, I think that you are. I believe that in this episode we have presented a solid case from Scripture for Jesus both teaching and living out an ethic of non-violence. However, I don’t know of a passage in Scripture that demonstrates Jesus inflicting violence or teaching others to do so, as would harmonize with your interpretation of Jesus “clearing the Temple.”

There is ample evidence, both in the teachings and example of Jesus and the apostles, that believers are called to a lifestyle of loving enemies, overcoming evil with good, and “turning the other cheek.” Where is any Scriptural proof that believers are allowed a “free pass” when facing certain kinds of enemies or are experiencing “righteous anger?”

This is why I stated earlier that we must interpret the ambiguous passages in the Scriptures in light of the more obvious and reoccurring passages and themes in the same.

As to your application of Jesus’ encounter with Pilate, I take something far different away from their conversation. I think that Jesus was basically saying to Pilate, “A sign of the kingdoms that are worldly is that they are willing to fight in order to further their agenda. But, My Kingdom is not of this world (worldly), and My Kingdom advances in a very different way–the way of love. Instead of conquering enemies, we serve them. Instead of seeking our own benefit, we seek the benefit of others. In this Kingdom, we would rather be crucified at the hands of our enemies than to call down 12 legions of angels to violently defend our cause.”

I hope that this helps to clarify where I am coming from. I have not always felt this way. As Steve said in the podcast, it wasn’t that long ago that both he and I were calling for the heads of terrorists post 911. It has definitely been a process for me to come to the conclusions that I am here elaborating, but please know that I am open to dialog on this topic. I would love to hear any further insights that you have on this topic (or any other for that matter). There are many different parts in His Body, but when we come together, we have the “mind of Christ.”

Bless you brother!

To the point you made on conflicting with what He taught and lived, you made reference to Jesus before Pilot. In that dialog He said “if my kingdom were of this world, then my disciples would fight”. I believe that Jesus was(violently)defending His Father’s house which at that time was the closest thing to the kingdom of God in the earth (I guess it would be proper to say that it was His Kingdom).

I understand that the 2 incidents of Jesus clearing the Temple can, on the surface, present a problem with a believer’s embracing non-violence. However, the Bible says nothing of Jesus using the whip on any person or hurting anyone in the process of clearing out the Temple courts.

I think that we should always interpret ambiguous passages in the Bible in light of those which are obvious. As we discussed in this episode of the podcast, Jesus taught us to embrace a non-violent response to our enemies and then demonstrated the extent of this teaching by dying at the hands of His enemies rather than being delivered through violent means (12 legions of angels, etc.).

I see the clearing of the Temple as a real example of Jesus’ humanity. He looked around and saw people being ripped off in the name of His Father, in the place where they were supposed to be able to come into communion with God and He decided to do something about it. To me, if we read into this that Jesus whipped the men who were there, we are presented with a much greater problem than if we view this incident through Jesus’ teachings and demonstration of non-violence. This interpretation would seem to be completely inconsistent with both Jesus’ teachings and the record of His life as found in the Scriptures. We must be careful not to assume an interpretation that comes from silence and conflicts with the rest of what Jesus clearly taught and lived.

What does everyone else think?

BTW Sid,
That study is very disturbing indeed. I think that alot of the reason for such a sentiment is that so many believers have been taught to walk in lock-step with a political party that embraces these kinds of views.

To me, it seems unrealistic to believe that Jesus didn’t use it on the men. I can’t see Him flailing around wildly and turning over tables and running out the sheep and oxen without the intent of using the whip on anyone who got in His way.

I too, was once in the camp that justified violence. I was one of the voices that said “go get em’” after 911. Wow, it is amazing how Father can change your heart and mind!

Dana,
Glad you enjoyed this episode and great to have you along for the ride!

Oh, I can’t see Russia, but I can see a smoking volcano. Perhaps that’s my punishment for being a heretic.

Blessings guys!!!

Heather