Jesus Violent in Temple?

Preamble

I will argue that Jesus' action in the temple is not only nonviolent, but that Jesus was demonstrating against violence (among other things).

Cleansing the Temple

The synoptic Gospels have Jesus driving/throwing out the ones buying and selling in the temple.  Mark and Matthew add that he overturned the tables of the money changers and the chairs of those selling doves.  Mark adds that he would not let anyone carry things through the temple.  John's Gospel has Jesus throwing everyone out, including coin dealers and those selling oxen, sheep and doves.  He does this with a whip made of rope.  He pours out the coins and overturns the tables.  He finally orders those selling doves to leave.

Why did Jesus do this?

On the assumption that Jesus was cleansing the temple, we have to conclude that Jesus' violent actions were symbolic in the sense that he did not succeed in permanently altering the temple modus operandi.  Arguments that Jesus would have needed a small army to permanently alter the temple modus operandi or that he would have been arrested if he had tried have at least some weight.  Therefore, the weight of evidence points to these actions as symbolic.

Given the prophetic precedence of symbolic action (nakedness [Isaiah 20:1-6]; smashed pot [Jeremiah 19:1-15]; brick [Ezekiel 4:1-17]) it would not be strange at all for Jesus to enact a symbolic event.  But what did Jesus' mean by this symbolism?  Was it just that he was against what was going on in the temple?

Symbol of Destruction

There is one solid fact that we have regarding Jesus' relation to the temple and that is destruction.

• The gospel of Mark sandwiches Jesus' action in the temple (Mk 11:15-19) with the fig tree incident (Mk 11:12-14 and 11:20-24).  This strongly suggests that the destruction of the fig tree is related to the incident in the temple.
• Jesus predicts the destruction of the temple (Mk 13:2//Mt 24:1-3; cf. Jn 2:19).
• Jesus is accused of claiming the intent to destroy the temple (Mk 14:58//Mt 26:61).
• Jesus is taunted for his supposed statement regarding the temple's destruction (Mk 15:29//Mt 27:40).
• Stephen is accused of mentioning Jesus' destructive statements (Acts 6:13-14).

I conclude that Jesus did say something about the destruction of the temple and this bolsters the hypothesis that what Jesus did in the temple was a symbol of destruction.

Proof Texts (Isaiah 56:7 and Jeremiah 7:11)

The question is whether we can jibe the hypothesis that Jesus was symbolizing the temple's destruction with his actions with the words he says.  To answer this we have to state the reason for the temple's destruction and that is the nations' disobedience (not just the temple merchants' corruption, though that would be included).  This of course relates directly with the fig tree incident. Seen in this way, the texts, Isaiah 56:7 and Jeremiah 7:11, fit the bill.  The Isaiah passage is close to passages critical of Israel's disobedience (Isaiah 56:9-12; 57:1-21) and the Jeremiah passage is part of the famous sermon against the temple.  In the Jeremiah passage, Israel's violence is included in the list of disobedience (murder).

The "robbers" in Jesus' quote from Jeremiah (Gk. lestes; Heb. parisim) better means those who use violence to rob (bandits/brigands).

The hypothesis thus receives ample confirmation.  Jesus was enacting a symbolic destruction of the temple and the reason was because of Jerusalem's overall condition of disobedience.  Therefore, Jesus' actions included a critique of Jerusalem's violence and perhaps militant violent stance against Rome.

Theological Upshot

Jesus' action is the temple (or his action against the fig tree) cannot be flippantly used to condone violence on the part of Christians.  Jesus was symbolizing an event that would be undertaken by Rome and not himself!  Therefore, the violence we see done by Jesus cannot by any means justify Christians using violence to punish.  Vengeance is mine says the Lord.