Cleansing of the Temple – Does Jesus Sanction Violence: 'Is His Behavior a Norm for Human Relationships?'

Cleansing of the Temple Gospel Narrative

Cleansing of the Temple

In today’s climate of heightened political rancor, some believers use the cleansing of the temple gospel narrative to justify all manner of egregious and even violent behavior toward others–“After all, Jesus whipped people.”—sic. The cleansing of the temple account is one of the favorite proof texts of those who want to try to deflect the potency of Christ’s clear ethical commands to overcome evil with good and to love one’s enemies. Those who proof text this passage to justify their behavior are betraying the scriptures and the Lord they profess to serve.

The NEB version translates Psalm 69:9 as: The zeal for your house shall destroy me. According to the Synoptic Gospels, within one week of the cleansing of the temple, Jesus is dead.[1] The Synoptic gospels make it clear that this event sealed his fate.  His first (and last!) public sermon in the synagogue (Luke 4) and the cleansing of the temple stirred visceral human hatred unto murder. Why? What was it about both events that stirred such deep hatred among “normally decent” people? What was going on? How should we understand the cleansing of the temple narrative in the light of illegitimate attempts by so many to justify their violence and hatred by claiming Jesus as their model?


At the time of Christ, the institutions of religion, commerce/finance, and politics were not separate entities as they are in our day. They were embedded in each other in the Temple and operations associated with it: touch one and you touch them all. The cleansing of the temple was not just a dust-up over religious ritual. It was a confrontation with principalities associated with the order of their world: religious, commercial, and political. It was a cosmological statement. We know it was not just about zealotry for religious reform because there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that anything permanently changed. It was: “back to business as usual” the next day. Something else was going on.

The cleansing of the temple is a bit of a misnomer. It occurred in the outer court. This is the space that was specifically dedicated for the Gentiles. Gentiles could gather in the outer court for prayer, but they were not allowed elsewhere. Imagine a Gentile trying to pray in a space crowded with animals and their sellers! Hear the noise! Smell the odors! Be sure to watch your watch your step! At the very least we see here Jewish indifference, if not outright hostility, toward the Gentiles–“It is okay to defile your space, but not ours”– us versus them.

The phrase “den of robbers,” is not merely rhetorical flourish. The English “robbers” is the Greek lestes. The term refers to those who in their zeal for holiness had become freedom fighters for God (or terrorists if you will).[2] There is an inferred association with violence that “thief” does not connote. In other words, not just thievery as in breaking and entering, but thievery plus violence against persons. Robbers stored their ill-gotten gain in their “den.” Jesus made a declarative and evaluative statement of who they were as people, and what they were doing. (So much for typical understanding of “do not judge others!”). Jesus accused the Temple authorities of being thieving zealots and specifically mentions poor widows as their victims. They had enriched themselves in exclusionary zealotry at the expense of the least among them. This is not “seeker sensitive” language and behavior!

Jesus specifically quotes Isaiah 56 regarding Yahweh’s concern for the ethnoi – the nations, the Gentiles. Where it was occurring (outer court of the Gentiles) was as significant as what was occurring (commerce associated with sacrifice): Just as when he quoted Isaiah 61 in the synagogue in a way that showed compassion for the non-Jewish world (God was not going to “even the score” with the Gentiles), so here, his concern for the welfare of those whom the religious establishment considered “less than,” precipitated his death.

Not only was Jesus dealing with the exclusionary practices of the sacrificial system and the rapacious greed associated with it, but he also suspended the sacrificial system itself. He forbade anyone to carry a “vessel” (skeuos) through the Temple courts. The NIV translates this term as “merchandise” as though he were stopping shoppers in a modern mall, but the term refers to vessels used in the sacrificial process.[3] The entire sacrificial machinery temporarily ground to a stop. It is difficult for modern people to get our heads around how cosmically significant that act would have been. For Americans it would be like saying the Constitution and Declaration of Independence were frauds and we have been living a delusion for over 200 years. It was a foretaste of a cosmically altering act that would find its fulfillment at Calvary. 


Up until Augustine, no one interpreted the cleansing of the temple account in John 2:15 to condone violence or even implied that Jesus had struck any human beings. In the first three hundred years in the life of the Church, Origen was the only person to comment on this passage, and he gave it a purely spiritual rather than literal reading.  Cosmas Indicopleustes writing ca. 550 CE argued:

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.”  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 Father’s house a marketplace.’”

Augustine was the first to use this passage to justify force, including the just use of force in war.  Was Augustine justified in doing so?  A quick look at the grammar of the passage shows that he was not.

The question is:  To what does pantas–“them all,” refer?  Is Jesus whipping people and animals, or just animals?  Without getting too technical, the writer is referring only to the sheep and oxen. The first obvious reason for this is that he clearly doesn’t drive out the doves and their owners since he tells them to leave in vs. 16.  So the “them all” doesn’t include everyone mentioned in vs. 14.

Next, the use of a te . . . kai construction is important.  Te . . . kai (used 90 times in the New Testament) always means “both . . . and.”  It is also often used when it follows a plural noun as a partitive appositive. This means it is like a further adjective to break down the meaning of its referent.  In this case, “both the sheep and the oxen” is in apposition to “all” placed there by the writer to clarify who exactly he means by “them all.”

Finally, the writer uses the masculine plural adjective pantas to refer to the sheep and oxen because he had no other option.  If he had used the neuter panta, he would be referring only to the sheep, if the feminine, only the doves (who are not asked to leave until vs. 16).  So his only option is a masculine plural, which can cover both the oxen and the sheep.  While sheep is a neuter noun, it can be covered by a masculine pronoun since all of the sheep for sacrifice were required to be male.

Nathan W. O’Halloran’s[5] reading of the Greek word pantas indicates that Jesus took some ropes he found lying around “to drive out the sheep and oxen, like any shepherd or cattle herder would do,” followed, no doubt, by their owners. He also notes that the Synoptics do not make mention of a whip; and that Mark uses the word “drove,” as it was used elsewhere for the spirit “driving” Jesus into the desert, or Jesus himself “driving” out demons. O’Halloran identifies the actions of Jesus with a calculated prophetic action evocative of the temple condemnation in Jeremiah 7:1-15.

In John’s account following the cleansing of the temple, the religious establishment challenges Jesus’s authority to do what he just did. They ask for a sign from him to validate his authority to behave the way that he did. The irony of the matter is that his actions were the sign. It is both fascinating and significant to me that in John’s account the issue the religious establishment has with Jesus is not what he did, but the authority claim he was making by doing it! It was not about what he did, but WHO was doing it, and by what authority.

John’s account then diverges into the well-known passage where Jesus makes the statement that was used against him as an insult at the cross: that he would tear down the Temple and rebuild it in three days. Of course we know that the temple he was referring to was His body, and the rebuilding of the cosmos along cruciform lines—the real power in the cosmos is a love that forgives and dies for offenders, not their corrupt collusion of money, religion, politics, power, and violence.

Therefore, we know that the cleansing of the temple is a unique, one-off, prophetic statement challenging authority structures of the cosmos: the unholiness of sacrificial religion in league with mammon, and by inevitable association in their culture, political power. In a sense, it is Jesus’s final public sermon and statement of his eternal antipathy toward the systems of this world and its values, including the practice of sacrificial religion. It is his confrontational swan song, not a passing pique of emotional irritation rooted in anger. It is thoughtful and purposeful action intended to be read by all.

In an interesting side note, in the cleansing of the temple account in John, Christ identifies the temple as his Father’s house. At the end of his ministry (Matt. 28) the pronoun has changed: “Your house is left desolate.” The establishment did not get the message—what goes on there no longer represented his Father. It’s over. Jesus is building something new.

What About Christ’s Severity Elsewhere?

We have established that the scripture doesn’t say specifically that Jesus used a whip on people. None-the-less, turning over the tables and driving out the animals and people is a severe/extreme act. When dealing with the establishment powers of His day, Jesus was often severe. He insults people, calls them names, withholds the truth from them, etc. These things were normal in interpersonal interchanges of his day, being the expression of the cultural practice known as challenge and riposte–insult and counter-insult.[6] Understanding the cultural role of insults helps us unpack what can seem to us to be not only rude and insensitive, but also unloving behavior. It is not.

Even the basic understanding of what constitutes “love” is different for us than at the time of Christ. For us, love is fundamentally an individual, psychological, and subjective feeling. For Jews and Mediterranean basin people at the time of Christ, love was any action that resulted in the net benefit of the group, tribe, or clan.[7] That is, love was not an individual subjective, inward feeling. It was an objective, corporate/group action. I can’t unpack all of the very significant implications here except to say that understanding the difference in the definition of love that every Jew would have taken for granted, helps explain some passages of scripture that seem difficult or “unloving” to us, the cleansing of the temple being a case in point.

So, behavior that to us may seem socially or culturally inappropriate is not necessarily unloving in the kingdom. Clearly, irritating people and making them unhappy is not outside of the love of God. Jesus made a career of it and was crucified for it. The point is that the love of God demonstrated in Jesus does not preclude stirring visceral negative emotions in others. Jesus is not Mr. Rogers with a beard!

Lastly, it helps to know that the scriptures use different words in Greek for the English: love. I can’t do a full word study here (I touch on it more thoroughly in my book on healing[8]). The “unconditional love” that so many exhort us to, is the Greek agape. Early Christian writers took a common Greek word and adapted it for their use. Short version, it is: unmerited goodwill. To the matter at hand–it has no emotive connotation. That is, having good will toward others does not require feeling lovey-dovey or chummy toward them. Affectionate feeling is a different Greek word, phileo. Phileo has the connotation of commonality, and with it the warm feelings that come from shared interest. Interestingly, the scriptures never exhort us to have phileo toward the world (cosmos and its powers) and its corrupt systems manifested through people behaving corruptly.

So, I can be fully in agape and have all kinds of legitimate negative emotions: anger, dislike, distaste, distrust, etc., especially toward evil and those who practice it. Agape does not preclude confrontation. In the big picture, this is part of the prophetic function–to confront established power structures–individual, political, religious, and cultural. It is also why religious people prefer their prophets to be dead: they can claim allegiance to them while ignoring what they said while they were alive.

Now, this can be a precipitous slope–establishing a precedent to be a bully, literally or emotionally, and to think one’s self to be the instrument of God correcting the world. That is why a one-off example from Jesus’s life is not the norm for our behavior. Our norm is the greater body of Jesus’s ethical teachings. They may at times be punctuated by confrontational, peace making, truth-telling. The practice of agape does not preclude confrontation in our human interactions.


  • Regardless of how some translations handle this passage, there is no exegetically definitive reason to believe that Jesus used a whip on people. At best, it is an inference, at worst, an illegitimate interpretation. Even if Christ did hit people with the whip (which I do not think he did), using that analogously as justification for war or other violent acts is absurd. It makes as much sense as saying because it is ok to kick a stray cat off my porch because I am tired of it peeing on my property that it is also ok for me to kill my neighbor if she upsets me. There is simply no rational comparative. Going from throwing crooks out of a building to dropping an incendiary bomb on people is not a rational leap. Ethical debates about just war theory can occur, but not with the cleansing of the temple narrative as a proof text.
  • The cleansing of the temple incident is a one-off, prophetic statement, particularly regarding Yahweh’s concern for the poor, the widow, and the Gentiles all of whom at the time would have been the “less than, other-than,” disenfranchised classes.
  • It is always an exegetical mistake to normalize a one-off and isolated passage. This passage is not normative interpersonal behavior for followers of Christ. Using it to justify outrageous and even violent behavior is exegetically lazy and interpersonally inexcusable.
  • The first century Semitic understanding of the term love is not the same as ours as and does not preclude what we would consider to be rude, offensive, and yes, even “hateful” speech—you bastard seed of snakes,[9] you empty tombs full of dead men’s bones, etc.
  • Advocating God’s care for, and inclusive goodness to those that the establishment deems unworthy stirs the deepest hatred and violence in human hearts. This is the “doctrine” that got Jesus killed. Those who would desire to emulate him can expect similar treatment from the religious establishment.


[1] I am aware that there there seems to be two different accounts of the cleansing of the temple in the gospels. Some scholars, normally of a more conservative persuasion, hold to two events. I am not one of them. I am of the persuasion that John positioned his account in his gospel to suit his editorial purposes. This blog is written from the perspective that there is only one cleansing of the temple event.

[2] Michael Hardin, unpublished paper and private conversation.

[3] Ibid.

[4] What follows is taken from, Andy Alexis-Baker, Biblical Interpretation Journal,

[5] O’Halloran SJ, Nathan W., “Jesus, the Whip, and Justifying Violence”, The Jesuit Post, Patheos, March 7, 2015

[6] Refer to credible social science commentaries for further explanation.

[7] Ibid. E.g. -That is one reason why they practiced “arranged marriages.” It had nothing to do with whether you had personal feelings of love or not. It had to do with what benefited the family. In our world we “fall in love and marry.” In their world, they “married and learned to love.” I am not making a superior value statement for either. I am simply pointing out very different cultural realities that affect our interpretation of scripture.


[9] That is what the sanitized KJV – “brood of vipers” really means.


Copyright 2017,  Dr. Stephen R. Crosby, Would you like to partner with us in distributing our materials and perhaps generate some income for yourself?  Please go to for details of our Affiliate program. This ministry is sustained by the freewill offerings of those believe in the message of a radical grace in a new covenant understanding. If this article has been a blessing to you, would you prayerfully consider making a contribution through our Paypal button to help? Stephanos Ministries is NOT a 501-c-3 corporation Click here to understand why. Thank you and God bless you.

21 comments on “Cleansing of the Temple – Does Jesus Sanction Violence: 'Is His Behavior a Norm for Human Relationships?'

  1. Steve,

    Great post.

    I knew the passage of Jesus cleansing the temple was linked to Jeremiah 7, but I never quite realized that it occurred in the court of the Gentiles and, therefore, Jesus making access to the temple for the Gentiles easier. And, now that we are the temple of the Holy Spirit, it makes the cleansing one of our heart and mind.

    However, I was surprised that you started the post saying that the religious, commercial, and political spheres of our day are not intertwined like they were in Jesus’s day. The two times seem almost perfectly parallel to me. Most churches have become like the temple – all about religion (not following Jesus), money (getting rich not giving to the poor, widow, orphan, and stranger), and politics (electing “our” man and worshiping the military). It seems to me that our “houses” have been made dens of thieves. I think Jesus would do almost exactly the same thing today (of course it would take a different form since we don’t have animals in churches).

    • Thanks for the read and the encouragement. My point is not that they are not connected in our ethical practice, but in our consensus cultural paradigm. Priests do not control Wall Street. You do not go to seminary to get a job on Wall Street. Bankers do not lead churches. You do not go to the temple to get a loan. They did in their day. We have in our “structure” the separation of church and state (is it mostly a fraud, 501 C3 baloney and all that . . . yes), but in our philosophical structure, we “believe” they are separate. That was not the case in first century/Second temple Judaism. By structural design and intent, they were all the same. I do not challenge that in our day that ethically it is all corrupt–power and money in ungodly collusion–no doubt. But in terms of how society was de facto structured, our world and theirs bears no similarity.

      • I see your point for sure.

        Wasn’t that true only at the Jewish culture/temple level though? The Roman Empire overarched that. I guess I was thinking that in terms of church life in the U.S. the three are controlled by a select few at the top just like in Israel’s today. Good luck being a pastor or teacher at most churches without the approved credentials from the right theological school, and without supporting the conservative movement/Republican party/Israel, and without believing in tithing. Within church life they are all tied together.

        Outside the church it’s different. But, they are all tied together secularly. I’m sure they were in Rome too.

        Either way, I’m probably splitting hairs. The point in your post still stands and is important.

        • I agree on your assessment of our current state of affairs, at least in conservative evangelicalism. It is all an ungodly alliance. But culturally in their day, for example, if you wanted to get a loan, you went to the temple, not a bank. In our world, if you want a loan you go to a bank, not your church. That simply did not exist in their day. If you had a political problem, you went to the Temple, not the county court house. All three: money, politics, and religion were embedded in each other. Rome and the temple establishment were enmeshed in each other, and not just for Jews and their temple, but almost any ancient city/culture. The temple was the center of society in all of three big facets: politics/power, commerce/finance, and religion. They were not separate institutions. That is all am I saying. In our culture they are separate institutionally, but corruptly collusive in operation. In their world there was no institutional separation, it was all one in the same and corruption was taken for granted. It is a fascinating study if you have appetite for that sort of thing.

  2. Wonderful assessment of 1st century culture and consolidation of religion, business, finance, and juris prudence in the Temple analogy. I studied fiercely this passage of “temple cleansing” (always think of Windex and paper towels when I hear that poor title) and the root word for money changer included “clipping” coins to achieve a desired weight. Shaving off a piece of coin to make a deal, brings a picture of how corrupt the religion had become. There were references of recycling animals as the they were brought to slaughter to they could be sold many times over. Interesting modern parallels made be applied to this practice- “and no one will eve know…” Thank for you for sharing your study with us-

  3. hey steve, as i read the passage about love not being for their culture what it is for ours, my mind hesitated. the questions that came to mind are:
    was jesus’ view of love beyond cultural? if so, why would we accept the fact that the love of the kingdom is at times unbecoming? to me, it seems circular to look at instances that aren’t loving (beyond cultural norms) and determining that they have to be loving because we are told this is what jesus said or did.

    • Kent, if the people who wrote the words had a certain understanding of what those words meant, it is illegitimate for us to import our definition of what we think it meant, if our definition does not coincide with theirs. If Jesus is the example of what it means to be perfectly human, and he is, then his actions must fit in the bandwidth of the understanding of love, not our cultural, subjective, introspective, feeling based definitions. He is the pattern human, cross-culturally, for all time. He is the first born of many brethren, he is the express image of the invisible God, we are to be conformed to his image. If our understanding of his image is influenced by OUR CULTURE’s definitions, rather than what He taught and demonstrated, we are into idolatry and false gospel territory, as much as we might deny it. He is either the ethical norm for a believer, or He is not. Christ was not a combination of Joel Osteen, Tony Robbins, and Norman Vincent Peale.

  4. wouldn’t this logic then cause us to accept god’s violence in the OT as love since we know god as love according to the NT? it seems as if we are already using our bias to say that god did not do those things attributed to him in the OT and Jesus wasn’t violent in the NT accounts because we aren’t comfortable with love doing physical violence but then accept that love will do verbal violence as long as it doesn’t cross the line into the physical. please do not think i am being argumentative…i have wanted to have this discussion for some time. i am wrestling with my own view of scripture and exactly what love looks like…

    • You are right, it does open some very important interpretive questions, too much for here. I will simply say this for now: John 1:18 – “No one, at any time, ever, has correctly perceived God with understanding, but Jesus Christ has come to openly make him understood. What are the implications for our understanding and application of the OT–when he says “no one” that means Moses, Abraham, David, all the OT saints. Why did Jesus, when quoting the OT, omit ALL references to Yahweh and violence? Plus, Jews never had a doctrine of inerrancy: not Jesus, not Paul, it simply did not exist in Second Temple Judaism–that opens up the question: Well then what the what are we doing and teaching? Where did it come from? It did not come from Jesus nor Paul. If you are interested and want some help in your own journey on these things, I strongly recommend these: “How New is the New Covenant?” and The Jesus Driven Life -

    • Also, to clarify, my point is Jesus is our standard, not OT models of Yahweh. Jesus is the express image of the invisible God. Jesus is the metric, not OT images. Jesus was clearly non-violent in both his actions and teachings. I do not accept your correlation that using insults is “verbal violence.” To me, that is importing our cultural values of what it means to “hurt people’s feelings” as if doing so, is somehow biblically prohibited. Jesus was crucified because he offended people with what he said. He obviously was not concerned about “hurting their feelings.” Jesus called his friend (Peter) “satan”. In Luke 24 he called two of his disciples on the road to Emmaeus “idiots”. He insulted his opponents. This is not “verbal violence.” Our cultural values are entirely too psychologically fragile. The point is, because Jesus is the standard, when we find our values in conflict with his, we adjust to him. We do not adjust him to us.

  5. “Advocating God’s care for, and inclusive goodness to those that the establishment deems unworthy stirs the deepest hatred and violence in human hearts.” Yeah I’ve noticed that whenever I imply God is good with Muslims (in general).

  6. Thanks, Stephen. I don’t believe I have ever read anyone’s coverage of this topic so thoroughly. Of course, I have not tried to research this before. Many people in history have used the scripture to justify their causes: sanctioning violence, extermination of the Jew, and etc. Brother, thanks again.

  7. Steve

    I have never looked at the scripture of cleansing the temple as an reason or justification for violence. When I understood the cleansing of the temple took place in place for gentiles to pray and meet God. This to me was the reason Jesus did what he did.
    Because the Hebrews were to be example A of God to the gentile world. However, the Hebrew temple became the division between Hebrews and gentiles. I take Christ action as to note that isn’t the way God view of the temple. Christ was showing them and us now, that the truth is not to our interpretation, however what God thinks is so much important.
    Therefore, what God thinks is more important than what we think. The gentile court was part of the temple, and God’s idea of the temple was more than sacrifice and a meeting place for the Hebrew people. The court of the gentiles was to proselytize or to covert gentiles to the Hebrew God.

    The Hebrews had forgotten that part of their command by God. For the Hebrews God only loved them, not the rest of humanity.

    And we as Christians should view all scripture in this way; not what we think scripture means, what God’s purpose for a particular scripture. Therefore, we must be as Christian Live a Spirit led life. Then and only then can with say what a particular scripture mean because we have God’s view of the meaning.

    • Precisely my point, and I specifically stated what you just repeated about being a place to pray for the Gentiles, so I guess I do not know what point you are trying to make. I run into scores, even hundreds of believers who DO use this passage to justify their egregious behavior and to justify doing violence to others. I have had more than one “pastor” or “teacher” tell me that he would shoot his neighbors if Jesus told him to, because, after all, God killed people in the OT and Jesus used a whip on people in the temple. I have been on the homes of “Christians” who have guard towers, like in a prison camp, and anti-tank fencing, and mounted guns on their property ready to kill anyone who they think is a threat to the American way of life. I know another “teacher” who is stock piling weapons and bought a full blown wolf, (not a hybrid) to loose on people who come to try to take away his guns. I know “Christians” whose attitude is, “If we can’t win them with the Bible, then we need to use our guns to force them to become Christians. Perhaps in your universe you do not run in to this kind of thing. If that is the case, count yourself blessed. I am surrounded by this kind of nonsense here in the conservative Bible belt. And the thing these people all have in common? They use the cleansing of the temple narrative to justify their “violence in the name of God.” It is not a lick different than Islamic Fundamentalist Jihadis. And these people claim to be followers of the Prince of peace, and they are every where.

      • Steve
        What I’m trying to say is you’re correct!

        My second point is more inclusive, that we as Christians need to have the The Spirit as our guide to understand scripture. What I said in agreeing with you did not come from exhaustive study, but came from the Holy Spirit. I do not say study is not necessary in fact we need to study. However, after we study we need God’s view.

  8. Wouldn’t driving animals out be actually more violent than whipping people? While some lashes hurt, animals are much stronger and can actually kill people by stomping on them.

    • 1) The animals involved were domesticated. They were used to being “driven.”
      2) Are you implying that whipping people is less severe than driving domesticated animals, mostly doves and sheep? Doves don’t stampede. Sheep don’t stampede. Doves don’t stomp on people. Sheep don’t stomp on people. There would have been very few bullocks/bulls as only the wealthy could afford them. Therefore there is zero threat of a “stomping stampede”. But that is beside the point. Are you seriously saying that whipping people is ok as long as you don’t cause a greater threat of a stampede? If you are, you have missed the point of the article.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *