His Kingdom is Peace: What About the Temple Cleansing? Caleb Miller

I am often questioned about my stance on peace, as though it is some radical new thought that we should aim for peace in every circumstance. The questions usually come in the form of a barrage, and the barrage heads in one of two directions. The first is the inevitable "what if your wife or children were being raped" atrocity of a question. Why is this where our minds go for rhetorical questions? Straight to rape? It can't just be that one of my kids is being bullied by an adult? I think this says a little bit about our state of mind. 

The answer to this and all questions like it is - I intervene. Killing the assailant is not the first thing on my mind, but saving the victim is. I can use all sorts of means to make the situation move in a more favorable light without ending the life of someone who is obviously in serious pain. (we don't hurt one another unless we are hurting-and we all are). We have created a false dichotomy in saying that every situation is a “kill or be killed” situation. I choose to not judge the life of someone who has had darkness nearly overtake them as less valuable than my own. I also do not judge others who don't take that stance. Everyone has to do what their convictions lead them to, and my convictions and my theology have led me to non violent response because I believe it is how Jesus told us to live. 

The other question that comes to the floor is regarding the temple cleansing incident. We all know the story - Jesus gets pissed about something, makes a whip, and goes to town cleansing the temple like a wild man. Makes for a great story, and I can just imagine Jesus running around screaming and cracking his whip. Jesus wasn't a weakling, he was just nonviolent. 

This temple incident is the ONLY time Jesus does anything remotely like this, and so people make all sorts of assumptions about what is going on. We hear all sorts of silly doctrines like Jesus was saying "don't give" to things like "Jesus would come into the church with a whip because you sell books". Those are ridiculous. This isn't about not giving to a church - there wasn't a church at this point. This also isn't about merchandise inside the four walls of some commercial building you call church. This is about one thing - his Father. Jesus is upset that this place that was meant to be a place where all can be included without regard for financial status has been turned into a place where the rich are at the front of the congregation and the poor sit in the cheap seats. Jesus is revolted at the social injustice around him, and so he fashions a whip. 

And here's where we lose our minds and make up all sorts of doctrines of Jesus justifying violence. Listen closely friends. 

Jesus.

Never. 

Authorizes.

Violence.

Ever.

What then are we to do with this singularity in the gospels? Let's look into what happens and see if we can shed a little light on the situation. 

First - Jesus is never recorded as touching any person during that event. Getting mad and making noise aren't the same thing as using violence. Jesus' use of the whip is likely nothing more than a noise maker used by a shepherd to move his sheep along. To think that he used this whip he fashioned to hit anyone when that is so far out of his character is really foolishness.

Second - Brad Jersak has done enough footwork and background and brought out that Jesus is performing a prophetic act by "cleansing the temple" in the style of Jeremiah¹. And anyone who studies a little history can see that other would be "messiahs" tried doing the same thing, and none were ever recorded as "violent" acts (anger and yelling, sure).

And Finally - It just doesn't fit the character or story of Jesus at all to have this one event where he suddenly abandons all his previous teaching and principles and gets violent with people over money. To use that passage to support a violent stance or a violent God is like using the passage that says women ought to keep silent in church as a means to duct tape your wife's mouth every sundaymorning. It's reading too much into it, taking what actually is there way too far, and seeking to justify something that creates hell every time it happens - violence.

We live our Christian lives wanting to save people from hell - and Jesus has told us how to do just that. It's not by leading them in a sinner's prayer - it's by living out this radical call to peace, forgiveness and love for the other. We scoff at the message of peace, but I think we need to be careful when doing so. Not because we face any judgment from God, but in scoffing at peace we begin judgment upon ourselves. The creation of hell happens the moment we insist upon violence, the moment we insist upon unbelief - and I'm not talking about the kind that says "there is no God", I'm talking about the kind that says "my violent response is better than Jesus' command to love your enemies".

If we search the scriptures seeking for justification to act violently with one another, we'll likely find proof texts littered throughout the old and new testaments. Problem is, proof texts don't prove anything, and if they contradict the message that Jesus has given us - well, we need to shelve them and stick with Jesus. Why not campaign and theologize and preach and live in a manner that is "at peace with all men" to quote Paul. Why not move and live and network in such a way that puts us in a position of peacekeeper rather than riot starter? How about some proof texts for peace instead? 

• Rom 14:17 - for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.
• Isa 9:7a - Of the increase of His government and peace There will be no end
• Luke 2:14 - “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, goodwill toward men!”
• Jn 14:27 - Peace I leave with you, My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.
• Luke 1:79 - To give light to those who sit in darkness and the shadow of death, To guide our feet into the way of peace.
• Rom 10:15 - How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace, Who bring glad tidings of good things!
• 1 Cor 7:15b - ...But God has called us to peace.
• 1 Cor 14:33 - For God is not the author of confusion but of peace…
• Gal 5:22 - But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness... etc.
• Eph 6:15 - and having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace
• Heb 12:14 - Pursue peace with all people, and holiness, without which no one will see the Lord:
• Jas 3:18 - Now the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace

I know what you're thinking "why are you using proof texts when you just said they shouldn't be used". Because if we're going to use the text incorrectly, we may as well use it incorrectly in a manner that gels with the teachings of Jesus regarding peace. Because if we're going to cherry pick verses to base our theology on, we should cherry pick verses like these.

• Want to know what the kingdom is? Peace.
• Want to know what his government looks like? Peace.
• Want to know what was pronounced at his birth? Peace.
• Want to know what he gave us? Peace.
• Want to know what the way is? Peace.
• Want to know what makes a teacher's "feet beautiful"? Peace.
• Want to know what God has "called you to"? Peace.
• Want to know what God is the author of? Peace.
• Want to know what the Spirit produces? Peace.
• Want to know what is supposed to cover our feet? Peace.
• Want to know what we are supposed to pursue with all people? Peace.
• Want to know what produces righteousness in people? Peace.

In the old testament, the covenant most often referred to in the to is the covenant of peace. These people were longing for their "shalom" - peace, something promised through the messiah. Somewhere we must have missed the message though. The whole point of the messiah to the Jew was to finalize this long awaited peace. And yet we've taken the same messiah and used him to justify a violent stance? It just doesn't work that way friends...

There's one other little verse that comes up often. It's repeated in two gospels, but we'll use Matthew's rendition because it's much more "violent". 

Matt 10:34 - Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword.

Uh oh. There goes all that hard work typing in all those proof texts and list of want-to-knows. Well not really. First of all, context must be taken into account, and if we understand Jesus to be making some literal statement here of “bringing a sword” then we must continue taking the rest of the passage literally. Things like He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me (v37) andAnd whoever gives one of these little ones only a cup of cold water in the name of a disciple, assuredly, I say to you, he shall by no means lose his reward. 

So if you’re going to say Jesus literally meant he came to be violent, then what you also must say is that salvation is based on giving water to children in the name of luke or mark or matthew, and that if you ever have a moment where you think you might love your parents a little too much,  Jesus disowns you. No, Jesus is not making a literal statement about bringing war, he’s making social commentary. The word used for “sword” is the type of sword used in Jewish sacrifice, not a broadsword for war. Jesus has come to bring a small knife, one that sacrifices. Why? Because he’s our great high priest. His “sword” is peace. And he has brought us peace and used it to lay our violence down. Or in other words, he sacrificed our violence with his little knife of peace, dying us in his death. 

Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians that the last enemy to be destroyed is death. Wait, didn’t Jesus already destroy death by resurrecting and proving death does not have the final word? Yes he did (Rom 6:9). So why does Paul say this? The Greek word here provides some insight into what is actually being said. The word used for “death” is thanatos and while it can mean the death of the physical body, Christ has already overcome that death, so we need to look at what else could be being said here. The word being used for “destroyed” is interesting -katargeo - in this particular verse meaning “to abolish” - and even translated that way in multiple translations. So if Paul says the last enemy to be abolished is death in 1 Corinthians, and then the writer of 2 Timothy says later on “…but has now been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Jesus Christ, who has abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel” we are left with a bit of a conundrum. Has Christ katargeo thanatos (abolished death) or hasn’t he? This is one of those areas where I think a more open reading of the text can help us out. 

What if Jesus has abolished death, and he hasn’t abolished death? What if he has abolished what the word thanatos means - which according to BDAG meansdeath as divine punishment and about which Thayer says death with the implied idea of a future misery in hell. What if Jesus has abolished death in this manner?  

And if we treat thanatos to mean death as our means to death - i.e. violencethen the last enemy Jesus will overcome is our violence. I think this to be a more fitting (and proven to be true) reading of the text. Again, Thayer says that separation (whether natural or violent) of the soul and the body by which the life on earth is ended, and BDAG renders of the manner of death or what kind of death. While these may not be the called-for translation of the text, it is certainly within the scope of the words’ meaning and it certainly works linguistically to say that death is both the death itself as well as our means to it. And again, why not read the text in a way that is a little more faithful to the message of Jesus? 

I believe history to be faithful in proving to us that “living by the sword” only begets more sword. To use Jesus to back any stance that doesn’t look like radical peace, forgiveness and love for the other then is to ignore the rest of his ministry on one misreading of a text that reveals a heart of inclusion and love for humanity rather than a violent, vindictive madman splitting people open with his cat of nine tails. 

His kingdom is peace, from the pronunciation of his birth to the eternal reign of his divinity - that is what it remains. He is the prince of peace, and this is the kingdom so many seek to define or describe. Peace then ought to be our goal at every turn, not perpetuation of violence, and certainly not perpetuation of that violence with the one who responded to the greatest act of violence ever committed with “father, forgive them”.