Jesus whipping the money changers in the temple (John 2.14-15)

[Olympiada]

Dear Monachos.net,

Somebody wrote somewhere that Jesus actually whipped the moneychangers in the temple. As this person told me not to write to them many times, I have to look elsewhere for the answer. What edition of the Bible is this written in? Is there an icon of this? What kind of whip would He have used. Where did He whip these moneychangers on their body? Are the Scriptures that explicit? Any answers would be helpful. If there is not an icon of this, I would like to draw one.

In Christ
Olympiada

[Antonios]

In John 2:14-15, he writes: "And He found in the temple those who sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the money changers doing business. When He had made a whip of cords, He drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen, and poured out the changers’ money and overturned the tables."

The Scriptures do not provide any details on where he struck the money changers nor does it really matter (in fact, I don't think it is a healthy thing to sit and contemplate about). He is their Lord and God and they had desecrated His temple. They are lucky he simply whipped them rather than striking them dead on the spot! Glory to our merciful God!

It is certainly the most 'violent' act of Jesus in the New Testament and shows the courage and lordship of Christ. In my humble opinion, you may find drawing the Tranfiguration of Christ or His Ascension a more spiritually fulfilling experience.

Here are some images I found on the internet

[Olympiada]

Dear Antonios,


Why not meditate on Jesus cleansing the temple? The second time He did it led Him to His death. This scriptures has proved to be my door into Christ. I greatly admire Him for cleansing the temple. Now that is the kind of God I can worship, a violent God. Enough of this pacifist stuff. It says in the Psalms that His zeal for the temple will cause His death. This is a very significant scripture.


Thank you for the icon. I received an easel this week and I asked for a canvas for my birthday so I would like to paint it myself.


Olympiada

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Antonios,

I enjoyed very much the images, especially that by 'El Greco' -- it is a scene he painted several times, each time slightly differently (I cannot remember where in the sequence this one stands; it strikes me as perhaps the middle of the three in his series?). At an exhibition of his work in London a few years ago, they had all three assembled side by side. It was a sight.

In your post, you wrote:


It is certainly the most 'violent' act of Jesus in the New Testament and shows the courage and lordship of Christ. In my humble opinion, you may find drawing the Tranfiguration of Christ or His Ascension a more spiritually fulfilling experience.

This seems a very astute thought. Contemplation of 'violence' in a healthy way is something that requires a great deal more spiritual maturity than contemplating peace. As so many of the fathers say, vengeance is a gripping power. It can be used for good, yes; but it can too easily turn itself on the one who would try to do so. Better to leave such matters to God.

Thank you for your thoughtful words.

INXC, Matthew

[Antonios]

Contemplation of 'violence' in a healthy way is something that requires a great deal more spiritual maturity than contemplating peace. As so many of the fathers say, vengeance is a gripping power. It can be used for good, yes; but it can too easily turn itself on the one who would try to do so. Better to leave such matters to God.


Well said, Matthew. Thank you.

[Antonios]

Why not meditate on Jesus cleansing the temple? The second time He did it led Him to His death. This scriptures has proved to be my door into Christ. I greatly admire Him for cleansing the temple. Now that is the kind of God I can worship, a violent God. Enough of this pacifist stuff. It says in the Psalms that His zeal for the temple will cause His death. This is a very significant scripture.

I think meditating on Jesus cleansing the temple is not only an important thing to do, but a necessary one at that. It is when we carnally fixate on the superficial aspect of it which can do us harm and cause us to form our own distorted understanding. This scene may involve the wrath of God, but it speaks more on the economy of the Logos of God and on our own sinfulness. As Matthew nicely stated, it takes great spiritual maturity and discernment in separating the 'violence' with the message. In the point of view of our created and fallen selves, we should meditate on how we desecrate the temple of God (our flesh, creation, etc.) daily. We are the moneychangers and the sinners. In the painting by El Greco, you could see in the upper left hand corner Adam and Eve being kicked out of the Garden of Eden. Jesus cleansing the temple again reminds us of our fallen selves and the need to be corrected, even with a whip of cords, like the carnal wild animals we imitate. This is not the act of a violent God, but of a God who comes to correct us, to save us.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

For some reason the posts on this thread are spaced so wide on my screen it's impossible to read them without dramatic use of the slide bar at the bottom of the screen.

Help!

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[John C.]

Images will stretch the screen if they're large.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Images will stretch the screen if they're large.

T_H_E_Y S_U_R_E W_I_L_L


In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Matthew,

I was watching a video on the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese website and was very surprised to hear 'El Greco' aka Domenikos Theotokpoulos started out painting Byzantine Icons before migrating to the West.

It's a real good series if anyone is interested it can be viewed online.

http://www.goarch.org/en/multimedia/video/


Part 1: Windows into Heaven
Real Media Format


Part 2: Theology in Colors
Real Media Format


In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Olympiada]

This seems a very astute thought. Contemplation of 'violence' in a healthy way is something that requires a great deal more spiritual maturity than contemplating peace. As so many of the fathers say, vengeance is a gripping power. It can be used for good, yes; but it can too easily turn itself on the one who would try to do so. Better to leave such matters to God.

I disagree entirely. I am fascinated by violence and thank God I found a scriptural outlet for it! Much better than say, contemplation of Kali, which I used to do and draw.

By the way, I found out that the forty stripes that were delivered up in Deuteronomy came from the Egyptian tradition and can be found depicted on their pottery. This seems like an even deeper image to draw. I remember days at the De Young Art Museum as a youth. Perhaps they have some of these images on their website.

You see, this ties in to Ancient Near East studies. Very interesting.

Olympiada

[Antonios]

I am fascinated by violence and thank God I found a scriptural outlet for it!

This is a very troubling statement.

[M.C. Steenberg]

I was watching a video on the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese website and was very surprised to hear 'El Greco' aka Domenikos Theotokpoulos started out painting Byzantine Icons before migrating to the West.

Indeed. One of the things I find very interesting about 'el Greco' is the manner in which his aims always remained the same in his art: to convey the spiritual through the means of the artistic (painted) medium. His original training was in classical iconography, and there are some good examples of his icons remaining, including some that are still used in churches in Greece. But later in life his interest as a painter changed from iconographic painting to artistic renditions, though, again, his aim was to use different functions and styles to convey the same realities. Thus his ventures into 'western' art explored stylistic oddities (strangely elongated figures, sweeping motion, etc.) in order to try to convey spiritual realities through a 'deforming' of classical perspective, etc. Very intriguing work.

INXC, Matthew

[Mary]

Dear Antonios,

God is violent. Why can I not be? He granted us the incensive power of our soul to fight off the demons. Violence is a part of our nature. I think you are in denial.

In Christ,
Olympiada

God may be violent. But He is also Holy, and Righteous, and All-knowing, and Merciful, and Just and He is Love. If we practice our natural tendency to be violent, and leave out all the rest, we're not living like God wants us to. I think our focus should be on imitating the qualities of God that aren't destructive, because we just don't know enough to be destructive constructively. Just my two cents.

Mary.

[Antonios]

Well some might say I am a very troubled girl, nevertheless, I stand by my statement. Olympiada

Please forgive me if you took what I wrote personally. I did not mean to suggest that you are a troubled person, but rather that I was very troubled when you wrote:
I am fascinated by violence and thank God I found a scriptural outlet for it!
not so much because you are fascinated by violence, which is unfortunately a passion many of us have to struggle against, but rather that you thank God that you have 'found a scriptural outlet' to justify this passion when it is quite clear that the message of Christ is one of love and peace. The new covenant involves love for our neighbors and enemies and to turn the other cheek. The only 'violence' we are commanded is upon our own passions and sinfulness so that we may enter the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 11:12).


Tonight I challenged the scriptures and an archpriest didn't like that. I wanted to know why God blessed the stoning of a woman who fornicated before her marriage and who commited adultery in Leviticus.
Faith is what saves us, and this faith does not involve challenging the Scritpures, but rather to trust in and learn from the Word of God like a child trusts and learns from their parent. "Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it.” (Mark 10:15)

Whom God, our Creator, Sustainer, and Giver of Life decides to bless or not is not for us to judge, even when our human sense of justice and understanding cannot comprehend it. Who can know the mind of God?


God is violent. Why can I not be? He granted us the incensive power of our soul to fight off the demons. Violence is a part of our nature. I think you are in denial.

I do not deny that we have an incensive aspect to our soul which has been God-given in order to repel demonic attacks or to intensify our desire towards God; however, being a passible aspect to the soul and very vulnerable to passions, if not controlled and transformed by positive spiritual influences, it can easily lead to self-indulgent and destructive thoughts and actions. The fruit of this is malice and violence towards others. This is not part of our nature, but rather, how we corrupt our nature. This is not of the Spirit of God, but of our own selfish and self-serving desires, contrary to the likeness of God. So you ask "Why can I not be?", it is because by being violent, we defile ourselfs not unlike the moneychangers defiled the temple. Thus, let us, by the Grace of God, cleanse our own temples with the whip of prayer and ascetic practice, lest we lose whats most important, that is, the Holy Spirit within us.

[Alec Lowly]

Indeed. One of the things I find very interesting about 'el Greco' is the manner in which his aims always remained the same in his art: to convey the spiritual through the means of the artistic (painted) medium. His original training was in classical iconography, and there are some good examples of his icons remaining, including some that are still used in churches in Greece. But later in life his interest as a painter changed from iconographic painting to artistic renditions, though, again, his aim was to use different functions and styles to convey the same realities. Thus his ventures into 'western' art explored stylistic oddities (strangely elongated figures, sweeping motion, etc.) in order to try to convey spiritual realities through a 'deforming' of classical perspective, etc. Very intriguing work.

INXC, Matthew

To my mind, the greatest of all painters, his supreme masterpiece being "The Burial of Count Orgaz." That one painting contains more than Michelangelo's entire design for the Sistine Chapel ... A.L.

[Ian Leyda]

God may be violent. But He is also Holy, and Righteous, and All-knowing, and Merciful, and Just and He is Love.
Mary.

Are love and violence not diametrically opposed?

Peace,

Ian

[M.C. Steenberg]

Are love and violence not diametrically opposed?


Dear Ian,

That depends on what you mean by 'love' and 'violence'.

INXC, Matthew

[Athanasius Abdullah]

Dear all,

+irini nem ehmot

Professor D.A. Carson suggests, in consideration of the socio-cultural context of the time, that the whips had the purpose of driving out the animals; they were not used against the money changers.

In IC XC
-Athanasius

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Ian,

That depends on what you mean by 'love' and 'violence'.

INXC, Matthew


That's a very good point Matthew.

God & even our spiritual fathers at times test us in love. This very often involves a physical component. If we include sickness in this (which all the Fathers do) then this is much more physically trying then Christ's clearing of the Temple.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[John Charmley]

Dear Ian,

That depends on what you mean by 'love' and 'violence'.

INXC, Matthew

Dear Matthew,

For the connoisseurs of what might be called Steenbergisms amongst us, this is a vintage sample. Now, is this one of those which pulls us up short, questions our casual causal assumptions, and makes us furiously to think; or is it one of those which does these things, and suggests there may be an interesting Steenbergian train of thought that can be teased out? Or is it one of the third variety - those which produce a self-deprecating response? Even more exciting is the prospect it may be a fourth and therefore new variety.

On the assumption it may just be the second (which may provoke the third), could I make so bold as to pose two questions:


1. What would you think is signified by such words?

2. In what contexts might they be less antithetical than a visceral reaction might lead one to suppose?

INXC

John

[Olympiada]

Are love and violence not diametrically opposed?

Peace,

Ian

Nope. In fact, in a covenant relationship, love can be expressed as violence, especially when God is involved. Try suspending your judgment for a minute. Sometimes people require violent chastizing. Jesus in the Temple was nothing compared to the OT which we do believe is the Word of God. Perhaps you might want to embark on a study of the OT. Try Exodus and Numbers for starters. Good violent material in there.

Olympiada

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Nope. In fact, in a covenant relationship, love can be expressed as violence, especially when God is involved. Try suspending your judgment for a minute. Sometimes people require violent chastizing. Jesus in the Temple was nothing compared to the OT which we do believe is the Word of God. Perhaps you might want to embark on a study of the OT. Try Exodus and Numbers for starters. Good violent material in there.

Olympiada

Chastizing is related to what are called trials & these are of different types according to the spiritual fathers:


There are the trials of those actively engaged in the struggle, so that they may make additional gains and progress in their struggle.

There are the trials of the slothful and unwilling, to make them beware of things that are harmful and dangerous.

There are the trials of those who are drowsy or sleeping, in order to wake them up.

Then again there are the trials of those who have distanced themselves and gone astray, to make them draw near to God.

Different again are the trials of the righteous and friends of God, so that they may inherit the promise.

There are also trials of the perfect, which God permits in order to bring them forward in the Church for the strengthening of the faithful and as an example to be emulated.

There is also another kind of trial, again of the perfect, such as those endured by our Lord and the Apostles, who fulfilled the law of communion with the world by taking up the trials which are ours.

Joseph the Hesychast on The Differences between the Trials


There is much which could be said about these words. But in terms of 'violence and love' we can see that most of the above is far more biting than Christ's cleansing of the Temple.

It's also important also to recognize that in the John 2 it does not say that He struck anyone during this cleansing.

13 Now the Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14 And He found in the temple those who sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the money changers doing business. 15 When He had made a whip of cords, He drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen, and poured out the changers’ money and overturned the tables. 16 And He said to those who sold doves, “Take these things away! Do not make My Father’s house a house of merchandise!” 17 Then His disciples remembered that it was written, “Zeal for Your house has eaten Me up.”


In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Andreas Moran]

In the OT, how about Elijah slaughtering the 450 priests of Baal? Not very inclusive, was it? No ecumenical dialogue and 'outreach' there!

But I think there are teachings of Christ which do show a break with the OT. The disciples had the OT attitude to the man who was casting out devils though he wasn't 'one of us'. As I remember, the disciples were all for calling down fire from heaven to consume him. Christ indicated to them that things were being done somewhat differently now.

But I think especially of the parable of the Prodigal Son. Deut. 21:17 (I think!) says that a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father and who is a glutton and a drunkard is to be brought by his parents to the elders and the men of the town are to stone him to death. Could our Lord have had this OT law in mind when He told His parable? In describing the loving, forgiving father, was He contrasting the old covenant of the law with the new covenant of love? Does not the awesome Jehovah of the OT become the loving Father of the NT? I think of this especially when I look at the famous painting by Rembrandt.

Andreas.

[Ian Leyda]

Professor D.A. Carson suggests, in consideration of the socio-cultural context of the time, that the whips had the purpose of driving out the animals; they were not used against the money changers.

-Athanasius

Dear all,

For the record, I should say that I agree with Athanasius, his professor, and Fr. Raphael on this examination of the text. This makes sense in reading the narrative. And since it doesn't say that Jesus whipped the money changers, it is best that we don't read that into the story.

I think M.C. Steenberg raises a fair question when he asks what I meant by "love and violence." Though this is not exhaustively categorized, it is important to make some distinctions in violence. There is violence in warfare, corporal and capital punishment, physical abuse, etc.

But one thing is extremely important to point out:

- Because God is justified in doing something does not mean humans are justified in doing the same thing.

-Because Jesus did it, it is not a license or call for us to do the same and claim we are justified. Actually, just the opposite is true in the case of judgment.

Though our primary moral direction is the "Imitation of God," the arena of justice is firmly distinguished. We are not to "Imitate God" in his administration of justice, punishment of the wicked, etc.

It is on the very issue of violence in which God makes this distinction: Vengeance/justice belongs to God alone.

Why is it that the first example of worldly sin and punishment in the entire Bible is that of Cain and Abel? The Bible immediately establishes the nature of sin, punishment, and its consequence in its first 4 chapters.

Cain and Abel:
-It is the first mention of sin in the Bible.
-The first sin is murder.
-God forbids the killing of Cain (4:14-15).
-God claims authority over the punishment for sin (4:15-16).
-Whoever executes judgment over Cain is subject to sevenfold judgment.

We are not to judge others because judgment is God's domain. We are not to execute vengeance, because that is God's domain. Instead, we are judged according to the manner in which we have judged others (Rom. 2:1-11). Jesus says this often (Matt. 6:12, 6:14-15, etc.)

Though we are deemed righteous and justified because we are in Christ, it does not mean that we are righteous and justified for authority in judgment. (This is part of Paul's point, I think, in Romans 2).

Is it correct for us to identify with Jesus in the cleansing of the temple, the righteous one who drives out the wicked? Or should we identify with the money-changers and the livestock, who do not belong there and have disgraced the holy place?

We should not identify with Jesus where he is executing judgment. And most importantly, it is not a license for our use of violence.

Peace,

Ian

[Matthew Panchisin]

Bright Friday - Driving Out the Money Changers

John 2:12-22

From The Explanation of the Gospel of St. John

by Blessed Theophylact, Archbishop of Ochrid and Bulgaria

12-17. After this He went down to Capernaum, He, and His mother, and His brethren, and His disciples: and they continued there not many days. And the Pascha of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem, and found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting. 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; and said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not My Father's house a house of merchandise. And His disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of Thine house hath eaten Me up. They had come to Cana for the wedding, and when the wedding was over, He takes His mother back to her home in Capernaum so that she would not be drawn to follow Him everywhere. That He went down to Capernaum for this reason only is clear from the fact that He did not remain there many days, nor work any miracles there. For the inhabitants of that city did not believe in Him, which is why the Lord, on another occasion, laments her fate. [See Lk. 10:15.] By saying that the Pascha was at hand, the Evangelist shows that the Lord was baptized not many days before Pascha. Going up to Jerusalem, the Lord performs an act of great authority, casting out the sheep and the oxen from the temple. Matthew also records this act, but it is not the same occasion. Lord drove out the money changers twice: first, at the beginning of His miracles, as recorded here, and second, near the time of His passion, as described by Matthew. [See Mt. 21:12-13.] Here the Lord spoke more gently, Make not My Father's house a house of merchandise. Because this was the beginning of His miracles, He did not speak with such boldness as He would later when He had already shown His power on many occasions. Then He would say, as Matthew relates, "Do not make it a den of thieves." There He openly named them thieves, who made their profit by unrighteous means. If a man demands a high price for something which cost him very little, and makes a profit from the poor and the widows (as most do, who buy and sell the necessities of life), how does his work differ from that of a thief, who derives his profit from the misfortunes of others? We may also ask, "Is there a reason why the Lord expelled them completely from the temple?" Indeed there is. Because He intended to heal on the Sabbath and relax the strictness of the letter of the law, from the outset He wanted to allay any suspicion that He was an adversary of God. One who showed such zeal for the house could not reject the Master of the house. Furthermore, He did not merely chase them away, but also struck them with a whip of twisted cords, overturned their tables, and dumped on the ground the coins of the money changers. These were bold and dangerous actions. A man who would throw himself into such danger for the sake of the house of God could not be an adversary of God who set aside His law. He could be none other than the Son of God, of equal authority to God the Father Who gave the law of the Sabbath. This is why He did not say, "God's house," but instead, My Father's house, showing that He has authority as the Son over the Father's possessions. The money changers [kollybistai] are those who sell coins of small denomination [kollybos]. There are also many hierarchs who sin in the same way as those profiteering money changers. They too sell cattle in the Church, meaning, they do not advance to the priesthood those who excel in teaching the word of God, but instead sell this office to the unlearned and greedy. They also sell the sheep, meaning the simple and guileless people in need of a shepherd, and the doves, which are the spiritual gifts of the sacraments. These things they sell to the highest bidder, advancing to the higher ranks of the clergy those who have given the most money. Such hierarchs the Lord casts out of the temple, judging them unworthy of the episcopacy. The pennies and coins represent words and teachings; therefore, when a teacher of the Church dares to exchange these things with monetary profit to himself, the Lord will overthrow his table, meaning, his chair of teaching. If a teacher out of greed has withheld his words and not given to all, the Lord will strip that man of his authority and place another on the chair of teaching who is worthy. Thus, in His compassion the Lord will pour out words of teaching upon the people. The disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of Thy house hath eaten me up. [Ps. 68:12] In a short time they have made progress towards the good; already they can call to mind the Scriptures and find in them testimonies which make them more sure in their knowledge of Christ.

[Paul]

He had courage. He had strength, He had authority, He had power.
He was truth, He stood up for it, was it with His whole being, His whole existence, His whole life.

He loved man, but not his wickedness, He came to save us from it.

For it did rightly anger Him.
And it should have.

How could He be called the Son of God if it didn't.

Did He deal cruelly viciously?

No courageously, truly.

He didn't harm anyone, kill anyone, but He alone has the authority to, but did what was needful, what was true, and stood up for what is true and right.
He stood up against evil, He stood up for love, He was love, is love.

I don't have such courage, such devotion for such love and truth as i would like, Jesus did.
If a Holy Church today had evolved into such ways, would one single person alone have the courage to walk in there and do as Jesus did, i think very few would have such courage, zeal, love of God.

[Paul Cowan]

If a Holy Church today had evolved into such ways, would one single person alone have the courage to walk in there and do as Jesus did, i think very few would have such courage, zeal, love of God.

Birds of a feather comes to mind. I can see people getting courageous enough in a group to stand up for what is right. But as for an individual...in the 21st century... standing up for what is right is a rare bird indeed.

How many times have I seen an injustice or flat out blasphemy and ducked my head and turned and went the other way in the hopes of not being caught in a confrontation? God have mercy on my soul

How often will I keep my mouth shut until someone else starts talking about God and then I will only say the most minimal thing to stay in the conversation. God have mercy on my soul

How many times have I had the chance to offer God's consoling love to someone who is hurting and don't. God have mercy on me

The worst of sinners
Paul