Biblical Interpretation 20 (2012) 73-96

Biblical
Interpretation

brill.nl/bi

Violence, Nonviolence and the Temple Incident in

John 2:13-15
Andy Alexis-Baker
Marquette University

Abstract
e temple incident has been a popular episode in Jesus ministry from which Christians
since Augustine have drawn to justify Christian violence ranging from punishing
schismatics and heretics to justifying war and the death penalty. However, another
tradition of reading this passage nonviolently began well before Augustine. Whether
contextualizing the passage in a narrative reading so that it would have spiritual
meaning or seeing the Greek grammar as disallowing that Jesus hit people with the
whip, these nonviolent strategies eectively undercut any notion that Jesus action
could provide a model for Christian violence. A close reading of the Greek text, I
believe, supports these nonviolent strategies for reading the text, which simply denies
based on Greek grammar that Jesus used his whip on any person.
Keywords
temple cleansing, violence, nonviolence

e incident in which Jesus made a whip and cleared the temple has
been one of the most popular episodes of Jesus life, inspiring Christians
from across the centuries to reect on the scene. In his painting Christ
Driving e Money Changers From e Temple (1626), Rembrandt
depicted an angry Jesus, whip raised, while an old lady scampers out
of his way and some money changers try to protect their faces from
the whip. Lorenzo Ghibertis sculpture of the scene on the baptistery
doors of San Giovanni in Florence Italy (1403-24) shows a mixed
gender crowd eeing as a man lays on the ground, presumably after
falling under the force of Jesus upraised whip. Since antiquity, theologians and church leaders have cited the temple incident for many
Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2012

DOI: 10.1163/156851511X595549

74

A. Alexis-Baker / Biblical Interpretation 20 (2012) 73-96

purposes, including condemning usury and greed, critiquing merchants,

promoting anti-Semitism, and calling for inner conversion. Perhaps
the most ubiquitous use of the temple incident, however, has been to
justify Christian violence. From just war to Crusades to executing heretics, Jesus action in the temple has provided fuel for righteous violence
and killing. Since the Synoptic Gospels do not include an account of
Jesus using a whip, John 2:13-25 has been central to these projects.
Despite the prevailing view that Jesus action in the temple allows
Christians to participate in violence, many Christians have interpreted
the scene dierently. Indeed, the tradition that interprets Jesus activity as nonviolent is older than that which uses it to justify violence.
While the debate between those traditions might seem like a trivial one,
there is much at stake in how we interpret this passage. Far from a
pedantic, obscure verse, John 2:13-25 has played and continues to play
a role in Christianizing violence of all sorts. Although recent scholars
have recovered a nonviolent sense of the text, very few have examined
the history of interpreting John 2:13-25 and its Synoptic counterparts.
erefore, I will begin by outlining and analyzing how authors from
the patristic era through the Reformation have interpreted and used
the passage. After this historical survey, I will examine the Greek text
to highlight interpretive issues that challenge the now mainstream belief
that Jesus took up a whip and beat both people and animals in a t of
righteous anger. My contention is that the Greek text does not sustain
that Jesus used a whip on people.
Interpretation History
Patristic Era
Prior to the fourth century, patristic authors primarily cited John 2:16
and 19 to prove Jesus divinity, the resurrection of the body, and to
condemn charging money for ministry.1 During this three hundred
1)

Pre-Constantine authors who cite John 2:16 are: Commodianus, Instructiones, 2;

Cyprian, Ad Quirinum, 3.100; Tertullian, Aduersus Praxean, 21; Hippolytus, Contra
Noetum, 18; Clement of Alexandria, Paedagogus, 9; Origen, De principiis, 2.4. e
pre-Constantine citations of John 2:19 are: Pseudo Cyprian, De montibus Sina et Sion,

A. Alexis-Baker / Biblical Interpretation 20 (2012) 73-96

75

year period, Origen was the only one to comment on John 2:15.2 In
his Commentary on the Gospel according to John, Origen notes that the
Gospels vary in their accounts of the temple action and states that if
we only interpret the passage historically, it is impossible to show
that the apparent disagreements are in harmony.3 Instead of a historical approach, Origen interpreted the passage spiritually so as to
harmonize the Gospels. In response to those who objected to a spiritual
interpretation and who insisted that Jesus made a whip and drove out
actual animals and people, Origen argued that a historical reading is
not plausible because there were a great number of animals in the
temple for Jesus to drive out and because the people he whipped would
have fought back and overpowered him. Furthermore, Origen argued
that a literal reading portrays Jesus behaving uncharacteristically:

4; Tertullian, Aduersus Marcionem, 3.21, 24; De pudicitia, 16; Lactantius, Diuinae

Institutiones, 4.18, 25; Clement of Alexandria, Canon ecclesiasticus; Origen, Contra
Celsum, 3.32; 8.19; Irenaeus, Aduersus haereses, 5.6; Novatian, De Trinitate, 21; Hippolytus, Demonstratio de Christo et Antichristo, 6.
2)
ere is one other possible allusion to John 2:15. In Paedagogus, 3.11.79, Clement
of Alexandria says of silver-lovers, liars, hypocrites, and those who peddle the truth
( , , ,
) that the Lord cast them out ( )
because he did not want the holy house of God to be a home of unjust trade, words
or goods for sale (
). Clement does not deal with the issue of
Jesus using a whip or whether it was in character for Jesus to use what might be violence. All translations from Greek, Latin, German or French texts are mine unless
otherwise noted.
3)
Origin, Commentarire sur Saint Jean, 10.22.130:

. Greek text from Origne, Commen-

taire sur saint Jean, ed. Ccile Blanc, vol. 157, Sources chrtiennes (Paris: ditions du
Cerf, 1970), p. 464. e dierences between the Gospels accounts which Origen
highlights include chronology (beginning vs. the end of Jesus ministry), reason for
travel (going to Jerusalem for Passover vs. triumphal entry), animals involved (cattle,
sheep and doves vs. only sheep and doves), Jesus exact words (you shall not make my
house a house of trade vs. you have made it a den of thieves), and whether Jesus
used a whip or not.

76

A. Alexis-Baker / Biblical Interpretation 20 (2012) 73-96

Let us consider whether [the fact that] the Son of God takes cords, [makes] a whip
for himself and expelled them from the temple does not reveal one who is selfwilled, reckless and undisciplined.4

In addition to being problematic on a factual level, Origen believed

that the story imports a bad character to Jesus, whom Origen would
otherwise consider nonviolent.5 So he reverses what a surface reading
would suggest and interprets the passage in such a way that the temple
signies either a persons soul or the church from which Jesus drives
out earthly things (cattle), irrationality (sheep), and vanity (doves) with
a whip that is a symbol of his powerful words. us in Origens reading
the violent whip becomes nonviolent speech.6
Because the passage seemed to impute a violent character on Jesus
who taught and lived nonviolence, Christians after Origen continued
to question whether the story could be factually correct. For example,
around 391 ce John Chrysostom addressed some Christians who had
reservations about the historicity of the account. ey maintained that
since Jesus argued with people who did far worse things elsewhere, it
seemed out of character that in this passage he is not satised with
words only but also took up a whip and cast them out.7 Moreover,
people saw a discrepancy between peoples reactions in previous conicts with Jesus and their reactions to the action in the temple. Oddly,
when Jesus used only words in his encounters with the Jewish leaders,
4)
Ibid., 10.22.147:

.
5)

For example, see Origen, Contra Celsum, 5.33.

Origen moves the violence to a spiritual plain in which the battle is not between
physical actors but between principalities and power as well as with ones proclivities
toward sin. is spiritual interpretation is the literal interpretation because in Origens
hermeneutics, the less likely a historical or surface grammar reading is, the more likely
the text wants to convey a spiritual meaning.
7)
John Chrysostom, In Joannem, 23: ,
, . Greek text from John Chrysostom,
Homiliae in Joannem, in Patrologia Graecae, ed. J.P. Migne vol. 59 (Paris: J.P.
Migne, 1862), p. 139. For the dating of Chrysostoms homilies on the Gospel of John
see Johannes Quasten, Patrology: e Golden Age of Greek Patristic Literature, vol. 3
(Westminster, MD: Christian Classics, 1983), p. 464.
6)

A. Alexis-Baker / Biblical Interpretation 20 (2012) 73-96

77

they reacted with ire. Yet in the temple incident Jesus apparent victims did not react angrily to being hit with a whip. In defense of the
accounts historicity Chrysostom responded that Jesus was a poor person from a poor family, and Jesus challenge to the powerful business
elites was a personally risky action that helped reveal his divinity. However, Chrysostom apparently did not see Jesus temple action as one for
his congregants to imitate. Instead, he exhorted his hearers to imitate
the disciples who gave alms instead of using whips.
Writing around 550 ce, Cosmas Indicopleustes addressed the same
question that Origen and John Chrysostom had dealt with, namely,
Since he had performed not even one sign with a view to the punishment of people, how then did he, as has been said, take the whip and
strike those that were selling in the temple and drive them out of the
temple?8 Whereas Origen spiritualized the text and Chrysostom basically ignored the heart of the question, Cosmas dealt with the text headon:
Answer: What is alleged is false, for he did not in any way strike a human being,
but he adopted an admirable and becoming and appropriate course, for he struck
the brute beasts only, as it is written: And having made a whip of cords he
expelled all from the temple, both the sheep and the cattle. at is to say: He
struck these as living but irrational creatures, driving also out of the temple even
the things that were brought for sacrice according to the law, But things that
had neither life nor sensation he pushed away and overthrew, as it is written: And
he poured out the moneychangers money and overthrew their tables. But the
rational beings he neither struck nor pushed away, but chastised with speech, as it
is written: And to those who sold doves he said, Take these things hence, and do
not make my Fathers house a marketplace.9
8)

Cosmas Indicopleusts, Topographie Chrtienne, ed. Wanda Wolska-Conus, vol.

141, Sources Chrtiennes (Paris: Cerf, 1968), 3.22 (p. 459):

,
, ,

9)
Ibid., 3.22-23 (p. 456-60):
,
, ,
, ,
, , ,
,

78

A. Alexis-Baker / Biblical Interpretation 20 (2012) 73-96

us Cosmas found a basis in the text itself to see the action as both
historical and nonviolent.
Just a few decades later in 598 ce, writing from southeastern Turkey, Barhadbesabba related a story about eodore of Mopsuestia who
rebuked Rabbula at a synod held in Constantinople (394 ce).10
Rabbula previously showed much aection for the famous Interpreter (eodore)
and studied his works. But when, having gone to Constantinople to attend the
Council of the Fathers, he was accused of hitting priests, he replied that our Lord
also struck [people] when he entered the temple. e Interpreter (eodore)
stood up and rebuked him, saying: Our Lord did not do that; he only spoke
words to the people, saying, Take that from here, and overturned the tables. But
he drove out the bulls and sheep with the blows of his whip.11
. ,
.
, , ,
,
.
10)
On the date of Barhadbesabbas Cause de la fondation des ecoles see G.J. Reinink,
Edessa Grew Dim and Nisibis Shone Forth: e School of Nisibis at the Transition
of the Sixth-Seventh Century, in Centres of Learning: Learning and Location in PreModern Europe and the Near East, ed. Jan Willem Drijvers et al. (Leiden: E.J. Brill,
1995), p. 81 n. 13.
11)
Barhadbesabba, Cause de la fondation des ecoles, Syriac with French translation by
Adda Scher in Patrologia Orientalis 4 (1908), pp. 380-81: Rabbula montrait auparavant beaucoup damiti pour le clbre Interprte et tudiait ses ouvrages. Mais tant all
Constantinople pour assister au concile des Pres (381), il fut accuse de frapper les clercs;
ayant respond que Notre Seigneur frappa lui aussi, quand il entra au temple, lInterprte
se leva et le rprimanda en disant: Notre Seigneur ne t pas cela; aux hommes il adressa
seulement la parole disant: Otez cela dici, et renversa les tables. Mais il t sortir coups de
fouet les taureaux et les moutons. Wanda Wolska cited this in Wenda Wolska, La
Topographie Chrtienne de Cosmas Indicopleusts (Paris: Presses Universitaires Francaises, 1962), p. 91. Jean Lasserre quoted Wolskas translation to French in Jean
Lasserre, Un contresens tenace, Cahiers de la Rconciliation (October 1967), pp. 3-21
(7). Wolska added 381 as a date after Constantinople pour assister au concile des Pres.
However, eodore of Mopsuestia did not attend the Second Ecumenical Council in
Constantinople in 381, but a synod that met there in 394. at must be the council
to which Barhadbesabba refers. John Howard Yoder translated the French (including
the date) as found in Lasserre to English in John Howard Yoder, e Politics of Jesus,
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2nd ed., 1994), p. 42 n. 37. I have modied Yoders translation.

A. Alexis-Baker / Biblical Interpretation 20 (2012) 73-96

79

us from Origen in 250 ce to Barhadbesabba in 598 ce, several reading strategies emerged to interpret Jesus action in the temple as physically nonviolent. For Origen, a surface reading of the Greek seemed
to suggest Jesus used violence. However, a narrative reading of the text
would preclude such a surface reading because it makes the rest of Jesus
life and teachings incoherent. us the narrative reading was superior,
making a spiritual interpretation justied. For Cosmas and for Barhadbesabba, on the other hand, a close reading of the Greek grammar shows
that Jesus did not hit people and thus at the very least could not be
accused of doing violence to them. Yet both strategies were attempts
to show how the disciple could faithfully follow Jesus who taught nonviolence.
At the beginning of the fth century, Augustine nally broke with
these nonviolent interpretive strategies for John 2:13-25. Finding spiritual meaning in Jesus historical action, Augustine turned to Jesus use
of a whip to nd ethical guidance on how to deal with heretics and
schismatics, which he rst detailed in his arguments against Donatists.
In Contra litteras Petiliani,12 Augustine provided a point by point rebuttal to the Donatist Petilians arguments against the Catholics. One of
the primary recurring charges from Petilian was that Catholics transgressed Christs teachings on nonviolence:
Did the apostles persecute any one? Or did Christ betray any one? But I
answer you, on the contrary that Jesus Christ never persecuted any one . Where
is the saying of the Lord Christ, If you receive a slap on one cheek, prepare the
other cheek? Where is the law of God? Where is your Christianity, if you not
only do violence and put to death, but also order these things to be done?13
12)

Augustine wrote Contra litteras Petiliani between 398 and 401 ce. See Johannes
Quasten, Patrology, ed. Angelo Di Berardino, vol. 4 (Westminster, MD: Christian
Classics, 1986), p. 384.
13)
Augustine, Contra litteras Petiliani, CSEL 2.10.23: Petilianus dixit: si apostoli persecuti sunt aliquem aut aliquem tradidit christus. 2.81.177: Petilianus dixit: ego uero e
contra respondeo iesum christum neminem persecutum. 2:92.200: ubi est quod dicit dominus christus: si acceperis alapam, praepara et alteram maxillam? and 94.214: ubi lex dei,
ubi christianitas uestra est, si caedes et mortes facitis ac iubetis? e Donatist movement
as a whole was not pacist. Donatist peasants called Circumcellions used violence to
overthrow landlords in the countryside, to liberate slaves and to warn creditors to
release debtors from their obligations. See W.H.C. Frend, e Donatist Church:

80

A. Alexis-Baker / Biblical Interpretation 20 (2012) 73-96

In reply Augustine reinterpreted the temple incident to justify Christian

violence.
e Lord Christ drove out the shameless merchants from the temple with
whippings; in which connection is also the testimony of Scripture, stating, e
zeal of your house has consumed me. So we nd Christ a persecutor .
Christ even bodily persecuted those whom He expelled from the temple with
whippings.14

Augustine expressed similar sentiments in his prolonged homiletic series

on the Gospel of John. Speaking extemporaneously to his congregation,
A Movement of Protest in Roman North Africa (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1952), pp.
172-3. However, many Donatist leaders did not support the Circumcellions. A rigorously pacist group called the Rogatists, named after their leader Rogatus, saw the
Circumcellions as a complete disgrace and broke away from Donatists who stayed in
communion with the Circumcellions. e Donatist Tyconius said that the Circumcellions were superstitious brethren, and narrated a typical North African ecclesiology,
complete with pacism saying that there were two cities and two kingdoms, one in
the world, one desiring to serve Christ; one desiring to hold sway in this world, the
other eeing the world [ ] One kills, the other is killed (see W.H.C. Frend, Donatus paene totam Africam decepit How?, Journal of Ecclesiastical History 48, no. 4
(1997), pp. 611-27 (618, 622). Even Augustine acknowledged that many Donatists
did not approve of the Circumcellions stating, ere are certain among you who cry
out that these things are, and have ever been displeasing to them. See Augustine,
Contra Pet., Book 1:24.26; cf. Book 1:25.27.
14)
Augustine, Contra litteras Petiliani, CSEL 2.10.24: Et dominus christus agellatos
expulit de templo improbos mercatores, ubi etiam conexum est testimonium scripturae
dicentis: zelus domus tuae comedit me. Ecce inuenimus apostolum traditorem, christum
persecutorem. 2.81.178: Quod autem christus etiam corporaliter fuerit persecutus eos quos
de templo expulit agellando. Augustine continued along these lines stating that a boy
is beaten contrary to his inclination, and that often by the very man that is most
dear to him. And this, indeed, is what the kings would desire to say to you if they were
to strike you, for to this end their power has been ordained of God. (Book 2:95.216)
Petilian, however, was not impressed by appeal to legal authorities stating, e Apostle Paul says, e law is good, if people use it lawfully. What then does the law say?
ou shalt not kill. (Book 2:56.127) Petilian also accused Augustine and the Catholics of using their power of persuasion to instigate the state to use violence against the
Donatists, e hand of the butcher does not move except at your instigation. When
Petilian pointed to Jesus disarming Peter at Gethsemane, Augustine countered by
spiritualizing the passage and claiming that Catholics have the same motives of defending Christ as Peter did (Book 2:89.194-95).

A. Alexis-Baker / Biblical Interpretation 20 (2012) 73-96

81

he stated, He who was scourged by them rst showed us a certain sign

because he made a scourge of ropes and with it he scourged the undisciplined who were doing business in the temple of God.15
e debate between Augustine and Petilian demonstrates that several ways to read the passage had emerged by the end of the patristic
era. e reading of John 2:13-25 that asserted that Jesus did not literally hit anyone and that whipping people would have been out of his
character continued to hold a powerful sway on many Christians. Some
Christians such as Cosmas Indicopleustes and Barhadbesabba used the
Greek text itself to show that Jesus did not hit any person with a whip.
Yet it was Augustines interpretation and use of John 2:15 which gradually won theological ascendance. Indeed, scholar Michael Gormans
extensive research on early medieval commentaries on the Bible indicates that nearly all commentaries on John compiled in this period
tend to be indistinguishable from reworkings of Augustines treatise, a
masterpiece which dominated studies of the fourth Gospel for centuries.16
Following Augustines lead, later Christians would use the passage to
justify even greater violence.
Medieval Period
e temple incident, particularly as portrayed in John 2, was an important scene for medieval reformers who were concerned that simony
buying and selling res spirituales such as the sacraments, holy order and
ecclesiastical ocesbe eradicated. For instance, Princeton Universitys Index of Christian Art lists seventy-seven dierent examples in
which artists depict the temple incident from the sixth to the fteenth
century. In particular, the eleventh-century reforms of Pope Gregory
VII generated a lot of commentaries and some art on this theme.
15)
Augustine, Tractatus in Euangelium Ioannis, ed. R. Willems, Corpus Christianorum, series Latina (CCL), vol. 36 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1954), 10.5; CCL 278.10-11:
qui agellandus erat ab eis, prior illos agellauit), signum quoddam nobis ostendit, quod
fecit agellum de resticulis, et inde indisciplinatos, negotiationem de dei templo facientes,
agellauit.
16)
Michael Gorman, e Oldest Epitome of Augustines Tractatus in Euangelium
Ioannis and Commentaries on the Gospel of John in the Early Middle Ages, Revue
des tudes Augustiniennes 43 (1997), pp. 63-103 (74).

82

A. Alexis-Baker / Biblical Interpretation 20 (2012) 73-96

At the Roman Council of 1075, Gregory VII referred to the temple

incident, quoting Gregory the Great: e seats of the dove sellers were
overturned because they sold spiritual grace and before the eyes of men
and the eyes of God the priesthood and virtue were debased.17 e
dove sellers in Gregorys context were simoniac clergy. Since he dened
simony as heresy, it should be eradicated through violence if other
means failed: You prevent such persons, to the best of your ability,
even by force if that be necessary, from serving at the sacred mysteries.18
us the Gregorian reforms took on a militant character and one of
the key texts was the temple cleansing.
Other medieval writers, including Peter Damian, Anselm of Lucca,
Humbert of Silva Candida and Bruno of Segni also cited the temple
cleansing numerous times.19 Of these, Bruno of Segni exemplies how
the Gregorians interpreted and put the passage to contemporary use.
In his Commentaria in Lucam, he quotes Luke 19:45 and Matthew
21:12 and then directly addresses the simoniac clergy:
Listen to this, Simoniacs! Listen, wicked merchants. Either cease from your
business, or leave the temple. For the Lord ejected from the temple not one or
two, but all the sellers and the buyers indiscriminately. He himself overturned the

17)

Concilium Romanum, Patrologia Latina, vol. 148 (Paris: J.P. Migne, 1853), p. 760:
Cathedra ergo vendentium columbas evertitur, quando hi qui spiritualem gratiam vendunt, et ante humanos oculos, et ante Dei oculos, sacerdotio privantur; et merito.
18)
Gregory VII, To Rudolph of Swabia and Berthold of Carnthia, Against Simony
and Concubinage, Jan. 11, 1075, in e Correspondence of Pope Gregory VII: Selected
Letters from the Registrum (New York: Octogon Books, 1966), p. 63. Gregory VII was
described even by his contemporary supporters as a person prone to violence. For
instance, Peter Damian, a Gregorian reformer, called him my Holy Satan (sanctum
Satanam meum) because of his inclination. Pope Gregory VII led his own private army
and commanded it as a general before becoming pope and afterwards. See Peter
Damian, Epistola XVI, Ad Eumdem Alexandrum II, Romanum Ponticem, et Hildebrandum, S.R.E. Cardinalem Archidiaconum, Patrologia Latina, vol. 143 (Paris: J.P. Migne,
1853), col. 236A.
19)
Peter Damian, Epistola 241, Ad Eumdem Henricum II Imperatorem, Patrologia
Latina, vol. 144 (Paris: J.P. Migne, 1853), col. 436; Anselm of Lucca, Albinus in libro
secundo super Matthaeum, Patrologia Latina, vol. 149 (Paris: J.P. Migne, 1853), cols.
475-78; Humbert of Silva Candida, Adversus Simoniacos Libri Tres, Patrologia Latina,
vol. 143 (Paris: J.P. Migne, 1853), 1005-212.

A. Alexis-Baker / Biblical Interpretation 20 (2012) 73-96

83

money changers tables and the seats [cathedras] of those selling doves. You-all are
the moneychangers, you-all sell doves, you-all do nothing without money and a
price . You-all are thieves erefore leave the house of prayer, which since
you-all have lived in it, has been made into a den of thieves.20

After this, Bruno concluded by calling the faithful to action: erefore,

if we want to imitate him in this as well, if we cannot do otherwise,
then we must violently evict simoniacs from the church.21
Internal reform was not the only use to which the medieval clergy
and authors put the temple incident. In the Middle Ages, bishops sought
to address increasing social disorder caused by the Carolingian empires
collapse. ey eventually proclaimed the Peace or Truce of God, which
prohibited violence during certain times and places. Initially, the bishops enforced the Peace and Truce through spiritual sanctions such as
denying the Eucharist or excommunication. However, they eventually
advocated stronger measures, calling upon groups of knights to enforce
the rules. Although most confraternities of knights rarely lasted beyond
their specic assignmentwhich prevented them from becoming standing armies or long-term institutionsthe one that continued was the
Knights Templar, the Order of the Temple.
e Knights Templar formed to escort people on pilgrimages along
the Palestinian coastline to Jerusalem. Before long, the knights used
their skills in the Second Crusade. In 1127, a church council formally

20)

Bruno of Segnis, Commentaria in Lucam, Patrologia Latina, vol. 165 (Paris: J.P.
Migne, 1854), col. 440: Audite haec, Simoniaci; audite, nefandi negotiatores: aut cessate
a negotiis, aut exite de templo. Non enim unum vel duos, sed indierenter omnes et vendentes et ementes Dominus templi ejecit de templo. Ipse et mensas nummulariorum et
cathedras vendentium columbas evertit. Vos nummularii estis, vos columbas venditis, vos
sine nummo et pretio nihil agitis. Latrones enim vos estis. Exite igitur de domo orationis, quae, quoniam vos in ea habitatis, facta est spelunca latronum. See also Bruno of
Segnis, Commentaria in Matthaeum, Patrologia Latina, vol. 165 (Paris: J.P. Migne,
1854), col. 244-45 where he says exactly the same thing but adds some additional
words against simony. In his Commentaria in Joannem Bruno simply points back to
his previous commentary on the temple cleansing, apparently not wanting to repeat
himself a third time. He conated the passages into one story of cleansing, which was
a common way of viewing the story.
21)
Bruno of Segnis, Commentaria in Lucam, col. 440: Si igitur eum in hoc quoque
imitari velimus, si aliter non possumus, violenter Simoniacos ab Ecclesia pellere debemus.

84

A. Alexis-Baker / Biblical Interpretation 20 (2012) 73-96

endorsed the knights when master of the order Hugh of Payens visited
the West to raise funds and recruits. In addition, Bernard of Clairvaux
wrote an inuential pamphlet to help publicize the order called De
laude novae militiae. Using his rhetorical skills, Bernard argued that
there is a way of salvation by which a person wages physical battle with
Gods enemies. With the souls protected by the armor of faith and
their bodies protected by the armor of steel, he exhorted the knights
to go forth condently and repel the foes of Christ. In taking up
this cause and decorating their house in Jerusalem with armaments,
Bernard said that the knights:
clearly show that they are animated by the same zeal for the house of God which
of old passionately inamed their leader himself when he armed his most holy
hands, not indeed with a sword, but with a whip. Having fashioned this from
some lengths of cord, he entered the temple and expelled the merchants, scattered
the coins of the money changers, and overturned the chairs of the pigeon venders,
considering it most untting to dele this house of prayer by such trac.22

Bernard then argued that the Templars should be more indignant that
the holy place be polluted by pagans than to be crowded with
merchants.23 In one of his letters, Bernard also encouraged the knights
not to make truces with Gods enemies, until such time as, by Gods
help, they shall be either converted or wiped out.24

22)

Bernard, De laude novae militia, 5: Plane his omnibus liquido demonstrantibus eodem
pro domo Dei fervere milites zelo, quo ipse quondam militum Dux, vehementissime inammatus, armata illa sanctissima manu, non tamen ferro, sed agello, quod fecerat de resticulis, introivit in templum, negotiantes expulit, nummulariorum eudit aes et cathedras
vendentium columbas evertit. Bernard of Clairvaux, Liber ad Milites Templi: de laude
novae militiae, in Sancti Bernardi Opera, ed. J. LeClercq and H.M. Rochais vol. 3
(Rome: Editiones Cistercienses, 1963), 3:222.
23)
Ibid.: Talis proinde sui Regis permotus exemplo devotus exercitus, multo sane indignius
longe que intolerabilius arbitrans sancta pollui ab indelibus quam a mercatoribus infestari.
24)
Bernard, Ep. 394. Translation from Bernard of Clairvaux, e Letters of St. Bernard
of Clairvaux (trans. Bruno Scott James, New York: AMS Press, 1980), p. 467.

A. Alexis-Baker / Biblical Interpretation 20 (2012) 73-96

85

Reformation
More than four hundred years after Bernard, the belief that Jesus action
in the temple was a violent act that sanctioned Christian violence in
service of God was entrenched. Like Augustine and the Gregorian
reformers, John Calvin saw the temple action as a model for how to
deal with certain heresies. In Defensio Orthodoxae Fidei (1554), Calvin
defended his role in burning Michael Servetus at the stake. Calvin
argued that Servetus modalist view of God and denial of infant baptism
had to be purged from the community to prevent its spread. To justify
his actions, Calvin relied primarily on Acts 4-5, arguing that when
Ananias and Sapphira dishonored the Holy Spirit, God killed them.
us if judges should protect the people, then pious magistrates should
not allow Gods honor to be sullied. Calvin then answered his critics,
who argued that the meek and mild Jesus of the Gospels would not
have burned somebody alive. Calvin turned to Johns account of Jesus
with a whip in the temple: Jesus meekness was not intended for the
obstinate and evil.
is overview from the patristic era through the Reformation demonstrates how the nonviolent strategies for reading the passage have been
eclipsed by readings that see Jesus as using violence and are unconcerned
with that image. Jesus action was violent and provides a model for
Christian behavior toward heretics and those who threaten Christian
security. is reading persists into the present. Jennifer Glancy, for
example, quips in a 2009 article that when Jesus picks up a whip and
drives out cattle and sheep and merchants and moneychangers, he is
not an exemplar of non-violence.25 Likewise, in defending just war
25)

Jennifer A. Glancy, Violence as Sign in the Fourth Gospel, p. 108. Others who
agree with her that Jesus used the whip on people include C. K. Barrett, e Gospel
according to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text,
(Philadelphia: Westminster, 2nd ed., 1978), pp. 197-98; George Beasley-Murray,
John, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, TX: Word, 1987), p. 38; Raymond Brown,
e Gospel according to John, IXII, e Anchor Bible (Garden City, NY: Doubleday,
1966), p. 115; Barnabas Lindars, e Gospel of John, New Century Bible Commentary
(London: Oliphants, 1972), p. 138; Mark Matson, e Temple Incident: An Integral
Element in the Fourth Gospels Narrative, in Jesus in Johannine Tradition, ed. Robert
Fortna et al. vol. 145-53 (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), p. 146;

86

A. Alexis-Baker / Biblical Interpretation 20 (2012) 73-96

theory as a Christian option, Daryl Charles and Timothy Demy assert

that since Jesus used a whip it neither matters what the whip was made
from, nor whether Jesus used it on people or only animals: is most
assuredly does not t the prole of the ideological pacist, for in truth
it qualies as forceful, even violent, resistance.26
Greek Exegesis
Although earlier nonviolent reading strategies for interpreting John
2:13-25 were eclipsed in the literature for several centuries, recent scholarship has looked anew at the story and came to similar conclusions as
those nonviolent readings. For example, without examining it any further Ernst Haenchen states that: Since one cannot drive animals with
hands alone, Jesus made a kind of whip (read with
P66 and P75) out of the ropes with which the animals had been tied
up. He did not use it against people, but he drove out the animals with
it.27 In his book, Rooted in Jesus Christ, Daniel Izuzquiza argues that
the temple action was a nonviolent, countercultural parody of the

John McHugh, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on John 1-4, ed. Graham Stanton, e International Critical Commentary (New York: T & T Clark, 2009), p. 205;
Francis Moloney, e Gospel of John, Sacra Pagina, vol. 4 (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical
Press, 1998), p. 81. Karl Barth called it a unique picture of actual aggression on
Jesus part. See Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, vol. III/4 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,
1961), p. 433.
26)
Daryl Charles and Timothy Demy, War, Peace, and Christianity: Questions and
Answers from a Just-War Perspective (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2010), p. 370.
27)
Ernst Haenchen, Das Johannesevangelium: ein Kommentar, p. 200: Da man Tiere
nicht mit den bloen Hnden treiben kann, macht sich Jesus eine Art Geiel (lies mit
P66 und P75 ) aus Stricken, mit denen die Tiere angebunden gewesen
waren. Er verwendert sie nicht gegen Menschen, sondern treibt damit die Tiere hinaus.
Some other modern commentators who agree with Haenchen are: Craig Keener, e
Gospel of John: A Commentary, p. 522; R. Alan Culpepper, e Gospel and letters of
John, p. 132; Mark R. Bredin, Johns Account of Jesus Demonstration in the Temple: Violent or Nonviolent?, p. 46; N. Clayton Croy, e Messianic Whippersnapper: Did Jesus Use a Whip on People in the Temple (John 2:15)?, Journal of Biblical
Literature 128, no. 3 (2009): 3-21.

A. Alexis-Baker / Biblical Interpretation 20 (2012) 73-96

87

dominant imperial political power.28 Izuzquiza places the action in a

larger context in which Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a small donkey,
signaling his humility and meekness. Furthermore, Izuzquiza notes that
Mark clearly indicates Jesus disciples were not with him, so the expulsion was not a violent and uncontrolled explosion, fruit of sudden
indignation; rather it was a foreseen, planned, organized nonviolent
action.29 He then claims that Jesus only used the whipwhich was
the same kind that shepherds and cowherds used to guide their livestockto drive out the animals.30 us a closer look at the Greek text
is in order.

Borrowed from the Latin term agellum, the which Jesus

used could refer to an instrument consisting of a thong or thongs,
frequently with metal tips to increase the severity of the punishment.31
As an instrument of torture, its primary use can be seen in its verb form
, which appears in the passion narratives (Mark 15:15; Matt.
27:26), and was a punishment inicted on slaves and provincials after
a sentence of death had been pronounced on them.32 It is unlikely,
however, that Jesus had this kind of weapon or inicted that kind of
punishment on those in the temple. First, weapons were forbidden in
the temple area. e Mishnah states that, One should not enter the
Temple mount with his walking stick, his overshoes, his money bag,
or with dust on his feet.33 Jesus did not bring the instrument into the
temple; he fashioned an ad hoc instrument from whatever materials
28)

Daniel Izuzquiza, Rooted in Jesus Christ: Toward a Radical Ecclesiology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), p. 233.
29)
Ibid.
30)
Ibid. However, Izuzquiza also claims that most commentators agree that Jesus
only used the whip on animals. He clearly exaggerated this claim.
31)
Frederick W. Danker et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and
Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed., (BDAG) (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 2000), p. 1064.
32)
Ibid.
33)
Jacob Neusner, e Mishnah: A New Translation (New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1988), p. 14. Raymond Brown also picks up on this. See Brown, e Gospel
according to John, I-XII, p. 115.

88

A. Alexis-Baker / Biblical Interpretation 20 (2012) 73-96

were available, which was not likely to include metal shards or leather
for thongs. us, the narrative depicts him fashioning the tool (from reeds), a word Josephus used to describe some of the garb
used when mourning with sackcloth and ashes.34 e type of material
available would have been animal bedding35 or fodder and ropes with
which animals were tied up. An ad hoc whip of this sort hardly rises
to the level of a Roman instrument of torture.36
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. roughout the Roman Empire, the militarys 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.37
On Whom or What Did Jesus Use the Makeshift Instrument?
Given that Jesus likely fashioned an instrument out of materials available for tying up or bedding the animals in the temple, the question
arises whether Jesus used that whip to hit people. Whereas several English Bibles translate John 2:15 as including the people and the animals,
34)

See Josephus, Antiquities, 8.385. See also Acts 27:32 where it is used to describe the
rope attached to a ships anchor.
35)
Brown, e Gospel according to John, IXII, p. 115: Jesus may have fashioned his
whip from the rushes used as bedding for the animals.
36)
Moreover, N. Clayton Croy has argued that the modern critical Greek edition
which views as a secondary later reading may not be correct: e reading with
has better extrinsic and intrinsic support than is often acknowledged. In addition to
the manuscript support and the possibility of parablepsis mentioned above, I would
note that the evangelist himself had good reason to mollify the image with , given
that he juxtaposed the words and , a combination that nearly
demands a qualication. See Croy, e Messianic Whippersnapper, p. 557 n. 9.
Others also see as the better reading. See Brown, e Gospel according to John, I-XII,
p. 115 and Ernst Haenchen, Das Johannesevangelium: ein Kommentar, p. 200.
37)
Josephus, Antiquities, 20.106. Translation is from the Loeb edition.

A. Alexis-Baker / Biblical Interpretation 20 (2012) 73-96

89

the Greek text is more complicated:38

,
. At issue is what refers to. In his recent commentary
for e International Commentary Series, John McHugh argues that the
term refers to the merchants mentioned in verse 14. In his view, the
primary targets of Jesus whip are the sellers in verse 14, and only secondarily the sheep and cattle of verse 15. McHugh and others note that
is a masculine pronoun, which suggests that if John had meant
that Jesus had only driven out the animals John would have used the
neuter .39 us takes its gender from the masculine
(those selling) and (money-changers)
in verse 14. Moreover, there is a parallelism between the main verbs in
each verse, which indicate that Jesus found the merchants and moneychangers, and in verse 15, he drove them out from the temple. If this
were correct, the phrase should be translated with McHugh, he drove
them all out of the Temple (the sheep and the cattle as well).40
Several grammatical problems arise from this view however. First,
verse 14 contains all three possible antecedent genders for
those selling (m); cattle (m); sheep (n); doves (f); and money changers
(m)and they could all provide the pronouns gender. If John had
used the neuter , this would suggest Jesus only drove out the
sheep ( ). Yet since it was the Passover festival, the sacricial sheep had to be male (Exod. 12:5). us the masculine pronoun
could cover both the sheep and the cattle. If John had used the femi38)

For English translations that make people as well as animals the target of Jesus
whip see: New Jerusalem Bible; New American Standard; New King James; Good
News Translation; e Message; Contemporary English Version; e Living Bible;
New English Translation; e New Living Translation; Revised Standard Version;
and Youngs Literal Translation.
39)
See McHugh, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on John 1-4, p. 205; Barrett,
e Gospel according to St. John, p. 198; Beasley-Murray, John, p. 38; Rudolph
Schnackenburg, e Gospel according to St. John (trans. Kevin Smyth, New York:
Herder and Herder, 1968), p. 346; and Ben Witherington, Johns Wisdom: A Commentary on the Fourth Gospel (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995),
p. 87.
40)
McHugh, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on John 1-4, p. 203.

90

A. Alexis-Baker / Biblical Interpretation 20 (2012) 73-96

nine pronoun , this would suggest he absurdly drove out the

doves with a whip. Beyond the grammatical and logical improbability,
the narrative itself excludes the possibility that the dove sellers were
driven out of the temple with the whip. Rather than driving out the
doves or their dealers, verse 16 says that Jesus addressed the dove-sellers saying, Take these out of here! is presupposed that the vendors
continued to be present inside the temple even after he drove all out.
us Johns only real option was the masculine pronoun if he did not
want to repeat the pronoun in the relevant gender before each word in
the subsequent phrase. e question is whether the masculine pronoun
covers from verse 14 as well.41 e
construction in provides grammatical
aid to answer this question.
A construction connects concepts, usu[ally] of the same
kind or corresponding as opposites.42 When an author combines the
two terms, these two conjunctions signal a closer connection between
two sentence parts than either particle can alone, for which English has
no equivalent.43 is is common in classical Greek and also in patristic literature.44 For instance, the Nicene Creed uses it in the rst line:
,
41)

Croy comes to a more cautious conclusion that I am oering. He surveys various

grammars and examples from biblical texts to demonstrate that there are no conclusive
grammatical rules that govern gender that would force to take its gender from
the preceding verse or from the subsequent nouns in
which is masculine and could give its gender. He gives numerous examples from Greek literature of pronouns and adjectives taking their gender from a complex variety of antecedents and subsequent nouns. According to Croy, what is
important from this observation is that the masculinity of does not preclude
the subsequent phrase from providing the gender. us
though slightly more cautious than my view, his conclusion is no less damaging to the
interpretation that sees a necessary connection between and
in 2:14. See Croy, e Messianic Whippersnapper, pp. 563-66. See also Lasserre,
Un contresens tenace, pp. 13-18.
42)
Danker et al., BDAG, p. 993. See also Herbert Weir Smyth, A Greek Grammar for
Colleges (New York: American Book Company, 1920), p. 667, 2974.
43)
Karl H. Pridik, , in Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Horst Balz
et al. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), p. 339.
44)
For examples from classical literature see J. D. Denniston, e Greek Particles,
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2nd ed., 1959), pp. 511-13.

A. Alexis-Baker / Biblical Interpretation 20 (2012) 73-96

91

, .45 English versions of the

creed normally do not even translate the particle but simply say, of
all things visible and invisible, but it could just as well be translated
of all things both () visible and () invisible. here connects two words with a logical relationship. In this case, they are contrasting words.
e New Testament uses the construction 90 times.46 e
Septuagint uses it 70 times. As in the Creed, in most of these cases the
construction simply highlights the connection between two words,
whether they are verbs or nouns functioning as subjects, direct objects
or indirect objects. e construction in Acts 5:24, for example, connects two subjects of the verb:
. ere are several
cases, however, that also function appositionally. An appositive expands
or denes another term and syntactically functions the same way as its
referent. For instance, the New Testament epistles commonly contain
appositions: Paul, a servant of Christ, a called apostle, designated for
the Gospel (Romans 1:1). e three appositive phrases after Paul
are all in the same nominative case and dene further who Paul is. Both
the Septuagint and the New Testament use the construction
in appositions. A sample of these texts:
Gen. 2:25 , ,
.
Luke 22:66 ,

Acts 19:10
, .

Another type of apposition is the partitive apposition, which breaks

down the whole noun or substantive adjective into its dierent parts.
Exod. 7:19

45)

Greek text in Philip Scha, e Creeds of the Greek and Latin Churches, e Creeds
of Christendom, vol. II (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1896), p. 57.
46)
I derived this number from Lasserre, Un contresens tenace, p. 8.

92

A. Alexis-Baker / Biblical Interpretation 20 (2012) 73-96

Exod. 9:22 ,
,
.
Matt. 22:10
,
.
Acts 19:17

.
Rom. 3:9

is selective list from the Septuagint and the New Testament demonstrates examples in which the construction denes the parts
of the pronoun .47 ese along with the other constructions abundantly reveal close grammatical parallels with John 2:15, so
that the textual evidence overwhelmingly points toward the
construction in John 2:15 as a partitive appositive.
stands in apposition and claries the constituent parts of the
whole (). If this is the case, then the phrase should be translated
as he drove them all, both the sheep and the cattle, from the temple
(Good News Translation, Authorized Standard Version, Amplied
Bible, New Century Version, NIV, NRSV, TNIV). is translation
puts John 2:15 in line with how translators universally translate all of
the other 90 uses of in the New Testament. Scholars and
translators have treated the construction in John 2:15 much
dierently than all the other instances where they always translate it
with bothand, x as well as y or ignore the and translate
(and).

47)

e complete list of New Testament verses in which modies a form of

are: Matt. 22:10; Act 19:10; 19:17; 26:3; Rom. 1:16; 2:9; 2:20; 3:9; Eph. 3:10;
Heb. 2:11. See Lasserre, Un contresens tenace, p. 12. e list from the Septuagint
in which functions as a partitive appositive modifying a form of
includes: Exod. 7:19; 9:22; 22:9; Esther 8:11. John 2:15 should be added to the list
of New Testament verses. Karl Pridick does so without argument in Pridik, ,
p. 339.

A. Alexis-Baker / Biblical Interpretation 20 (2012) 73-96

93

John and the Synoptics

Although scholars still debate about whether John knew of or used the
Synoptic Gospels, Richard Bauckham has argued that John was written, not for the Johannine community, but to circulate generally among
the churches.48 is thesis stands in stark contrast to the standard
position that John wrote for his own Christian group.49 Bauckham
begins his essay, John for Readers of Mark, by pointing out that the
popular view that John wrote his Gospel independently of any knowledge of Mark has corresponded with the view that Johns Gospel was
written for a largely isolated Christian community that had little contact with the other churches. us, the question of whether Johns
Gospel is independent of the Synoptics is tied to the view that Johns
community was an isolated sectarian group. Bauckham oers a fresh
approach, arguing that Johns Gospel was written for the Christian
movement as a whole, not merely the Johannine community. us,
John must have expected his readers to have been familiar with the
Gospel of Mark, for example, which by the time of Johns Gospel was
widely circulated. So Bauckham then exhibits evidence that Johns
Gospel was designed not to exclude other Christians but to accommodate readers of Mark. With regard to the temple incident in John,
Bauckham concludes that John has to be read as a correction to Mark
with greater claims to accuracy.50
With Bauckhams thesis in mind it would be good to look at Mark
11:15-16, which says that Jesus
entered the temple and began to drive out those who were selling and those who
were buying in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money changers
and the seats of those who sold doves; and he would not allow anyone to carry
anything through the temple.

48)

Richard Bauckham, John for Readers of Mark, in Gospels for All Christians:
Rethinking the Gospel Audiences, ed. Richard Bauckham (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1998), p. 149.
49)
is position is associated with Raymond Brown, e Community of the Beloved
Disciple (New York: Paulist Press, 1979) and others.
50)
Bauckham, John for Readers of Mark, pp. 159-60.

94

A. Alexis-Baker / Biblical Interpretation 20 (2012) 73-96

If the Greek reading of John 2:13-15 above is correct, John could be

read as Bauckham suggests. For Mark, like the other Synoptics, claims
that Jesus drove out those who were selling and those who were buying ( ).
By adding the construction ,
John could be read as clarifying exactly whom Jesus drove out so that
John indeed corrects Mark to clarify that Jesus did not drive out the
money changers and vendors with violence. Instead, he drove out their
animals, and wanting to look after their property, they followed after
the cattle and sheep. If this suggestion is plausible, then Johns passage
would be even more intentionally nonviolent than the Synoptics because
John intentionally added the partitive appositive construction to clarify ambiguities in Mark and the other Gospels.
Violence and Nonviolence
e Greek text does not support a view that would see Jesus action as
a model for violent action. ere is also no need to spiritualize the text
along the lines of Origen in order to avoid such imputation onto Jesus.
Cosmas Indicopleustes and Barhadbesabba were correct to deny that
Jesus hit people with the whip. We might go further and deny that
Jesus committed violence against the sheep and cattle, since a makeshift whip of rope would hardly do much more than get them moving
out the door, their owners following after them to keep them from
running amok. In a real sense, the narrative does not depict Jesus beating the animals; but instead he saves their lives from sacricial slaughter in a monetary and religious system. e fact that he deliberately
refrains from overturning caged pigeons shows his carefulness with the
animals.51
51)
You cannot drive caged pigeons, and it would be brutal to overturn their cages; all
you can do is to order the dealers o. C.H. Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth
Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963), p. 158. See also John Phillips,
Exploring the Gospel of John, e John Phillips Commentary series (Grand Rapids:
Kregel Publications, 2001), p. 60: With dignity and restraint that marked his every
move, he ordered those that sold doves to remove their propertythus gently safeguarding the innocent birds.

A. Alexis-Baker / Biblical Interpretation 20 (2012) 73-96

95

e fact that Jesus used a makeshift instrument to move the cattle

and sheep out of the temple is logically very dierent from warfare and
capital punishment. Jesus did not kill anybody. erefore, even if we
want to see Jesus behavior as a model, and even if we think he hit somebody with the whip, to jump from that action to killing is a big leap.
Indeed, Roland Bainton has pointed out the dissimilarity between weapons of modern warfare and a makeshift whip:
Here was undeniably an instance of ery indignation against the profanation of
the sacred, but the whip of cords, if genuine, was no hand grenade and the success
of Jesus in routing the hucksters was scarcely due to physical prowess.52

To move from a little whip and overturning a table to ring machine

guns, missiles and other modern weaponry is simply absurd. From
this text we could justify acts of civil disobedience, property tampering and even acts to restrain evil, but not killing, and certainly not
warfare.
Moreover, modern interpreters who use this text as a warrant for violence and killing have generally not been so keen to align themselves
with crusading ideology or rst strike aggression. ey argue that Jesus
action provides justication for theories like the just war to become
operative in Christian life. But Jesus was not operating under just war
principles. As Origen noted, under that reading Jesus attacked people
who were doing what was probably lawful, who had done him no harm,
and who had no idea why he was acting the way he was. e merchants
were victims of assault under the standard reading since Augustine.
at is why the text could be used in such a way as to justify burning
heretics and underwriting the crusades.
A nonviolent reading undercuts all of that. It not only makes more
sense of the actual Greek text, but it also makes more sense logically of
the entire narrative sequence. If Christians want to justify war and
other forms of killing, they will need to look somewhere besides this
passage.

52)

Roland H. Bainton, Christian Attitudes Toward War and Peace (New York: Abingdon Press, 1960), p. 56.

96

A. Alexis-Baker / Biblical Interpretation 20 (2012) 73-96

Conclusion
e temple incident has been a popular episode in the life of Jesus.
Church leaders and theologians have used the incidents for many purposes, but one of the most ubiquitous has been to justify Christian
violence. Because Jesus has been thought to have used a whip on the
backs of people in a t of righteous rage, many Christians through the
centuries have seen in that action an example for Christians to follow.
us schismatics and heretics received not only whippings, but death
sentences as a result of this interpretation. Moreover, the passage continues to be used to justify Christian violence, even in western liberal
democracies. Military service and war are more acceptable for Christians
thanks to this interpretation.
However, another tradition of reading this passage nonviolently began
well before Augustine rst drew upon it to use violence against the
Donatists. Whether contextualizing the passage in a narrative reading
so that it would have spiritual meaning or seeing the Greek grammar
as disallowing that Jesus hit people with the whip, these nonviolent
strategies eectively undercut any notion that Jesus action could provide a model for Christian violence. A close reading of the Greek text,
I believe, supports Cosmas Indicopleustes strategy for reading the text,
which simply denies based on the sense of the grammar that Jesus used
his whip on any person. I think we may go even farther and question
whether violence was done to the animals given the ad hoc character of and the fact that by moving them out of the temple, Jesus at least temporarily stayed their execution on the bloody altar.
Moreover, the logic of the text precludes using it to justify killing of
any sort, since using lethal weapons is hardly comparable to a makeshift whip. Dropping bombs on cities is simply too far removed from
this incident for it to be of use for Christian justication of violence.
us, Cosmas was wise not only to read the text closely, but to deny
the logic behind a violent reading that imports an erratic behavior to
Jesus in this instance. ankfully, some newer translations such as the
NRSV and NIV have translated the text more accurately, which will
hopefully begin to counteract 1,500 years of abusing this passage.

Copyright of Biblical Interpretation is the property of Brill Academic Publishers and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.