Why did I call my website and this blog "Who Would Jesus Whip"? Why do I use the appellation "Who Would Jesus Whip" on all social media accounts associated with the website? My intention for the first post (excepting the intro, obviously) was to introduce the idea behind it, but when I got the following message, I really felt the need to make it happen sooner rather than later:
A friend of mine also has a "favorite July 4th t-shirt" which is a play on the WWJD idea, and communicates an anti-war message that I enjoy, and got some inspiration for when coming up with the name and theme of my website -- "Who would Jesus bomb?"
So, combined with my visceral reaction (after the laughter subsided) to the meme at the top of this post, we arrive at "Who Would Jesus Whip?"
The answer is the same answer to the question posed by my friend's shirt: no one.
The meme is funny, and -- if meant purely for chuckles -- is fine. Unfortunately, I see MANY people use it as a humorous way to introduce an argument in favor of violence in certain circumstances -- in favor of righteous violence (we will discuss the difference between "righteousness" and "justification" in a later post) and that simply is an incorrect interpretation.
The meme is funny, and -- if meant purely for chuckles -- is fine. Unfortunately, I see MANY people use it as a humorous way to introduce an argument in favor of violence in certain circumstances -- in favor of righteous violence (we will discuss the difference between "righteousness" and "justification" in a later post) and that simply is an incorrect interpretation.
Let's dive right in!
Before we get to the meat and potatoes, lets get some housekeeping out of the way: The size of the area in question is far larger than traditional art leads us to believe -- a single man, especially one held in contempt by a large portion of the leadership of the Jews (the men who are in charge in part, among other things, of the goings on in the temple) would not have been able to clear the entire area, especially had He resorted to violent means.
Before we get to the meat and potatoes, lets get some housekeeping out of the way: The size of the area in question is far larger than traditional art leads us to believe -- a single man, especially one held in contempt by a large portion of the leadership of the Jews (the men who are in charge in part, among other things, of the goings on in the temple) would not have been able to clear the entire area, especially had He resorted to violent means.
Jesus contended verbally with many who did far worse, so why would He have resorted to violence here?
Similarly, in other instances when Jesus simply spoke words people would try to stone Him, but here, if He ostensibly accosted people in the temple, why'd the Jews simply inquire after His authority to do it?
Not to mention the reaction of Temple guards and Roman soldiers had He been violent during a High Holy Day. "If Jesus had used the kind of weapon that Romans used to punish people, the temple guards and the Roman garrison stationed nearby would have acted swiftly. Throughout the Roman Empire, the military’s function was to suppress riots and rebellions. Anything resembling a riot would have called out the military garrison as happened in Acts 21 when worshippers dragged Paul out of the temple in Jerusalem. Moreover, unrest during Jewish festivals was so commonplace that the Roman authorities prepared for it by sending in extra soldiers to 'quell any uprising that might occur'." (1)
Not to mention the reaction of Temple guards and Roman soldiers had He been violent during a High Holy Day. "If Jesus had used the kind of weapon that Romans used to punish people, the temple guards and the Roman garrison stationed nearby would have acted swiftly. Throughout the Roman Empire, the military’s function was to suppress riots and rebellions. Anything resembling a riot would have called out the military garrison as happened in Acts 21 when worshippers dragged Paul out of the temple in Jerusalem. Moreover, unrest during Jewish festivals was so commonplace that the Roman authorities prepared for it by sending in extra soldiers to 'quell any uprising that might occur'." (1)
For the first three centuries CE, almost no Christian writers addressed the whipping in John 2:15. However, the predominant attitude among them was one of pacifism -- both in personal conduct as well as a prohibition to joining with the militaries of the various nations.
Here is an inexhaustive list of early Christian Fathers who rejected Jesus whipping people:
Origen
Chrysostom
Comas
Theodore, Bishop of Mopsuestia
Petilian
It was in opposition to this last Father, Petilian, whom Augustine addressed his comments when, in the 4th Century CE, Augustine pulled a fast one on all of us by re-interpreting John 2:15, being one of the first prominent and influential individuals who asserted that Jesus whipped people.
Medieval writers in the 11th century began using Augustine's writing to justify violently enforcing certain rules and prohibitions (for example, those engaging in Simony). Medieval Christianity is not something to emulate, especially as a Restorationist faith.
Bernard of Clairvaux defended Knights Templar and the Crusades as a whole with John 2:15.
Calvin defended lethal force against those he had doctrinal disagreements with, including burning people alive, with John 2:15, concluding, heretically, that "Jesus’ meekness was not intended for the obstinate and evil."
So why were Augustine and his ilk mistaken? Here is the promised Meat and Potatoes. We will be focusing entirely on the second chapter of the Gospel of John, as the Synoptics unanimously are mute on the presence of any "whips".
Let's look at the verses in question as they are rendered in the King James Version (KJV):
So why were Augustine and his ilk mistaken? Here is the promised Meat and Potatoes. We will be focusing entirely on the second chapter of the Gospel of John, as the Synoptics unanimously are mute on the presence of any "whips".
Let's look at the verses in question as they are rendered in the King James Version (KJV):
13 And the Jews' Passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.14 And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting:15 And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;16 And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise.
First, let's be clear: Jesus did not have a whip, cat o' nine tails, or other traditional tool of punishment or torture. The Greek (we're going to spend a lot of time in the Greek) for "cords" is the same word, σχοινίων, used in Acts 27 to describe ropes on a boat. Weapons weren't allowed in the temple -- walking sticks weren't even permitted. He used what he found lying around to piece together something John 2 says He made the whip "ἐκ σχοινίων, from reeds" -- but the question is what did He use it for?
First hint that Jesus didn't whip people is that in verse 16 there are still vendors present to be addressed. If Jesus drove them ALL out, then how were there some still present to receive His instructions?
Here is the full Greek for verse 15 (emphasis added):
Καὶ ποιήσας φραγέλλιον ἐκ σχοινίων πάντας ἐξέβαλεν ἐκ τοῦ ἱεροῦ τά τε πρόβατα καὶ τοὺς βόας, καὶ τῶν κολλυβιστῶν ἐξέχεεν τὸ κέρμα καὶ τὰς τραπέζας ανέτρεψεν.
In the KJV of John 2:15, 'τε...καὶ' in the Greek are both translated as "and" which implies that the scourge was used to expel the money changers along with the livestock. But τε is, in this context, more correctly translated as "both" (which it is most often translated as "both" throughout most translations of the Bible, and is even most often translated as "both" even within the KJV), which grammatically implies the scourge was used on the sheep and oxen only as "both the sheep and oxen" is a clarifying sentence giving more information on who was driven out, not additional information adding "livestock" to "people" on a list of who was driven out.
Additionally, 'ἐξέβαλεν' -- which is translated as "drove" (as in what cattle DRIVERS do to motivate their livestock) -- is actually more correctly rendered as "cast out" and is most often used in instances where the Lord is *SPEAKING* words of power (such as when expelling demons and other undesirables or healing people of afflictions).
So, Jesus used a scourge to cast out livestock, and then spoke words of power, which motivated the money changers to leave, while allegedly tipping over their tables and money (I'd argue the livestock fleeing a whip could easily have knocked the tables over, which may have appeared to be the work of the Lord, or an uncharitable person might just attribute it to Him since He wielded the whip, but that's a conversation for another time).
The point being, of course, that we believe the Bible to be the word of God only as far as it is translated correctly, NOT the inerrant word of God. This proper understanding of the Greek, at a minimum, puts the "Jesus whipped people" narrative in doubt (if not outright disproves it), and cannot be blithely dismissed by honest seekers of truth.
What you should be asking yourself is why the various translators of certain editions of the Bible wanted so badly to keep physical violence on the table as acceptable Christian behavior, and why the vast majority of Christians (you, dear reader, may be among them) seem all too willing to buy it without critical thought or exploration. This will not be a fun exercise in self-reflection (I speak from experience), but it absolutely is an essential step in turning our hearts to Christ.
How much of what you assume is meant by things the Master says and does throughout His ministry is colored by your interpretation that "breaking out whips is a possibility"?
How much of what you assume is meant by things the Master says and does throughout His ministry is colored by your interpretation that "breaking out whips is a possibility"?
1. Violence, Nonviolence and the Temple Incident in John 2:13-15, Andy Alexis-Baker, Marquette University
