I've often been perplexed by the interpretation of "The Temple Cleansing" that attributes to Jesus violence against the money-changers. This view is typically put forth as an objection to Christian pacifism, and a moral justification for violence. The proponents of this view are very sure Jesus whipped human beings in the account. For them, it is plainly evident in the text itself. In point of fact, this is precisely not the case at all. There is absolutely no reason to understand Jesus whipping people in this account, outside of a bias in favor of conceptualizing Jesus as violent. And this is precisely what drives this interpretation. There is a strand of Christianity, that is popular in America, which refuses to picture Jesus as "weak" or "defenseless," and prefers to re-conceptualize Jesus as a macho, divine, ultimate-fighter.
Mark Driscoll embodies this sentiment perfectly:
“There is a strong drift toward the hard theological left. Some emergent types [want] to recast Jesus as a limp-wrist hippie in a dress with a lot of product in His hair, who drank decaf and made pithy Zen statements about life while shopping for the perfect pair of shoes. In Revelation, Jesus is a pride fighter with a tattoo down His leg, a sword in His hand and the commitment to make someone bleed. That is a guy I can worship. I cannot worship the hippie, diaper, halo Christ because I cannot worship a guy I can beat up. I fear some are becoming more cultural than Christian, and without a big Jesus who has authority and hates sin as revealed in the Bible, we will have less and less Christians, and more and more confused, spiritually self-righteous blogger critics of Christianity.”
Here's the problem with the Macho Jesus theology: It's a false Jesus. The biblical Jesus does lay down his life, and does not whip people. If a person is unable to worship a Jesus who chooses self-sacrificial love over judgment or wrath, then that person cannot follow the true Jesus.
For those who are interested in biblical interpretation, and not simply the cultural repackaging of Jesus to suit one's insecurity, John Howard Yoder wrote and illuminating essay on the Temple Cleansing available at JesusRadicals.com.
Just a quick question...we are talking about the same Jesus that killed Annanias and Saphira correct?
ReplyDeleteNow don't get me wrong...I don't wish to paint the all mighty, magnificent savior of my wretched soul as some kind of "ultimate fighter", but you guys have to be honest here. Assuming that you believe that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever (heb 13:8...if you don't stop reading now), wouldn't that mean that the same God that used the army of Israel to slaughter...yes slaughter, untold numbers of men, women and children throughout the OT can still do that today, and that you can't say with all certainty that the Lord doesn't still do that today.
Again, I'm not saying that the Lord is some blood thirsty maniac, obviously the word of God tells us to seek peace, to love, to forgive, etc...I get it. I've been following this blog for a couple months now, and I get the impression that you try to relegate God to this "peace only" box. You can't do that. The simple fact, as mentioned above is that the Lord is unchanging...and inherent in that attribute is the very real possiblity of the Lord using, sanctioning, calling for, and allowing force, violence, war, etc...and what is neccesary in all of those actions...humans, we will be the facilitators of those actions. Sure, the Lord can use other methods, but typically He used nations. The fact that the Lord does not change leaves no room for a view that people serving in the military or a police force are living in sin, and it's simply because your ways...my ways are not the Lords ways. The God of the bible...both testaments may be using those institutions today very similarly to the way he used the army of israel thousands of years ago. Remember God judges time morally and He will use whatever He sees fit to accomplish His ends. Might He decide to use war,,,sure, might He decide to use pacifism...possibly. The bottom line is we need to be seeking the Lord for what He would have us to do, and follow that...honestly.
God Bless
Chris
I agree with you. The Bible says Jesus fashioned a whip, therefor He astually fashioned a whip. Doesn't say He whipped anybody, just says He drove them out of the temple, His House. In my opinion, with a righteuos anger, He overturned tables and put the fear, whether of God or well, Himself into them. But nobody is going to run for their lives, from someone who simply "implores" or asks them to leave, they were quite simply, "DRIVEN" out.
DeleteMy 2 cents.
Need spell check, sorry for the last post....
DeleteI agree with you. The Bible says Jesus fashioned a whip, therefore He actually fashioned a whip. Doesn't say He whipped anybody, just says He drove them out of the temple, His House. In my opinion, with a righteuos anger, He overturned tables and put the fear, whether of God or well, Himself into them. But nobody is going to run for their lives, from someone who simply "implores" or asks them to leave, they were quite simply, "DRIVEN" out. My 2 cents.
Hi Chris,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comment, and for following the blog.
I think your comments represent a view commonly held in evangelical circles, and therefore warrants a thorough response. I have dedicated the next post to your comment and view.
I resonate a lot man... check out Peter Rollins on this topic. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsd4K_CTllw&feature=channel_video_title
ReplyDeleteWow, Mark Driscoll's view is so bizarre. First, I don't like his negative judging of a kind of people; stereotyping, making fun of, etc. Secondly, I agree with Mark Driscoll only when he stated that Jesus hates sin. I believe Jesus does hate sin, and that He has authority, but not the rest of what he said. How unsettling...It is very interesting how Elisha in the OT convinced people not to fight and not to war, and that Jesus rebuked Peter for cutting off the soldier's ear, told Peter to put away his sword, and healed the soldier's ear...with the many selfless and sacrificial things Jesus said, I hope Mark Driscoll re-studied the Gospels really well since the time he made that statement.
ReplyDelete