Violence in the Temple

 

Gabrielson, Paul's Non-Violent Gospel: The Theological Politics of Peace in Paul s Life and Letters, pp 52-54.

Whenever the subject of Jesus' peaceableness is discussed, questions about the incident at the temple invariably arise. Does this scene not, at minimum, put a question mark by Jesus' commitment to non-violence?

To begin with, Matthew's characters appear to be unimpressed by the “violent" part of Jesus' actions. Jesus entered the temple, drove out traders (both sellers and buyers) and upended tables and chairs. What kindles the ire of the chief priests and scribes, however, is not this series of actions, but that Jesus heals the blind and the lame, and receives public acclamation because of it. Jesus' “violent” behavior in the temple merits no more attention in Matthew's narrative, so that Luz can claim his action “has no importance of its own in the Gospel of Matthew?[1] The account reads as though the chief priests and scribes were unaware of his “violent" actions, otherwise it is difficult to explain why they asked Jesus about the cries of children rather than about his authority to drive out the people who carried out what was, ostensibly, a legitimate service to the temple.[2]

Matthew evidently sees no (intractable) tension between the actions of Jesus in the temple and his teaching in 5:38-41. In a variety of scenarios in Matthew's gospel, the gentle Jesus (11:29; 21:5) demonstrates “forcible behaviour”[3] To evacuate Jesus of all forceful speech and action would be to denude him of his prophetic role, a role which many interpreters see to be at play in just this passage where he engages in a bit of prophetic “street theater.”[4] Rather than serving as a warrant for “violent” behavior, the temple demonstration serves to highlight Jesus' alignment with the prophets who aggressively opposed the social and economic injustices that were rife even among God's people (e.g., Jer 7:1-15).[5]

In sum, the Gospel of Matthew, composed in a culture steeped in the ubiquity of violence, preserves the unmistakable fingerprints of violence in the stories its author recorded or composed. From beginning to end and across all levels of socio-economic relationships, Matthew's gospel reflects the acceptance of violent conflict as part of the status quo of human life. Invading our violent human history, Matthew's Immanuel, arriving as a vulnerable infant, interrupts the norms of human conflict by teaching and demonstrating that returning good for evil, loving enemies, forgiving, and welcoming strangers are the God of Israel's strategies for engaging enemies and conquering evil. God's empire comes humbly, not resisting Caesar's empire on Caesar's terms (like the zealots of the middle decades of the first century), but equally not blessing the politics of violence that uphold Caesar's rule and by which the nations “lord over” their subjects. Matthew's gospel consistently records the non-violent ethos of Jesus' teaching, and Jesus' actions cohere with his sayings. Despite the apparent difficulties created by the violent eschatological judgment recorded in Matthew's gospel, I submit that this eschatological assurance of judgment serves to preserve the non-violent witness of Jesus' first disciples. To borrow and extend James Dunn's phrase, what is clear is not just that Jesus was remembered, but that he was remembered as one who chose non-violent resistance instead of violent resistance, even when it cost him his life.

---

[1] Luz, Matthew, 3:10.

[2] Ibid., 3:11, finds it historically “plausible that only a relatively obscure event would explain why neither the temple police nor the Roman garrison intervened” On the legitimate role of sellers and money changers (and agreement with Luz on the minor role of the incident), see Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:136-37; and Catchpole, “Triumphal entry, 333.

[3] Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:137.

[4] Cf. Jer 27:1-22 for one instance of symbolic “street theatre” by a Hebrew prophet. The term comes from Hays, Moral Vision, 334. See Hengel, Was Jesus a Revolutionist?, 16-17; Wright, Jesus and the Victory, 413-28; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:133-34; Catchpole, “Triumphal entry,” 334.

[5] On the economic advantages of the priestly class in Jerusalem, see Josephus Ant. 20:181, 205-6, and As. Mos. 7.6.

Saturday study 12/6/25

 The final chapter of the book of Acts, and the last 2 of what AB calls the 8 Kingdom texts in Acts (see Merryl TheoCon prez). 

2025 Theological Conference: Merryl DeMott on 8 Kingdom Texts in Acts

Acts 28:23 footnote:

The grand climax and conclusion of Luke’s marvelous account is to inform us that Paul was following exactly the same Gospel of the Kingdom preaching as Jesus. This is the task of all believers, until the end of the age (Mt. 28:19-20).

This chapter shows the greatest refutation of so-called Dispensationalism.

1. Define dispensationalism

New 19th-century theological system (formalized by John Nelson Darby around the 1830s) that divides biblical history into a series of separate ages or “dispensations” in which God supposedly:

• works differently,

• reveals different truths,

• gives different hopes for Jews and gentiles.

This means Jesus’ Kingdom gospel (Matt. 4:17; Mark 1:14–15) was for Jews only.

Paul later preached a different or "new" gospel for the Church Age.

1. Hyper aka Ultra-Dispensationalism 

This is an even more extreme form that goes far beyond classical Darby. 

It is associated with E.W. Bullinger and propagated by modern-day BUs like The Way International and offshoots like STF. 

Read from One God & One Lord book: 

The Four Gospels are actually a part of and the conclusion of the "Old Testament.” 

According to 2 Timothy 3:16, the text of Scripture is " God- breathed. "

However, it has been "man-handled," that is, man has added things to the Bible that often cause confusion. 

Perhaps one of the most confusing of these additions has been the page in the Bible between Malachi and Matthew that says "The New Testament." 

Our experience among Christians is that almost all of them believe that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are a part of the "New Testament." 

This error has many significant and harmful ramifications.

Dispensationalists seek to correct the following:

• The church did not begin in Acts 2 but later—Acts 13 or Acts 28.
• Therefore, Paul allegedly had two different ministries:
• A “Jewish Kingdom gospel” early.
• A “Gentile grace gospel” later.
• Baptism is not for the church today.
• The teachings of Jesus in the Gospels are not for the church, see LaPrade article https://focusonthekingdom.org/283.pdf

Ken describes how he spent over 40 years avoiding water baptism because he bought into water baptism was outdated and replaced by “spirit baptism.” After re-examining every biblical passage on baptism, he concluded that this teaching was mistaken. He argues that dispensational theology has led many Christians to treat Jesus’ commands—especially baptism—as optional or merely symbolic, which he believes is a serious misunderstanding.

• The Sermon on the Mount is “Jewish only.”
• Only Paul’s prison epistles apply to the Church.

Read: Acts 28

• This is not some dispensational shift, not a change in gospel or theology.
• It is a Spirit-inspired summary—of the one and the same gospel Jesus and his apostles preached, and that Paul preached from the first day of his conversion.
• For both Jews and Gentiles: 28:23, 30-31; cp. 8:12.

Context

• Acts 28:17–22, Paul explains why he is in chains: “I am wearing this chain for the hope of Israel.”
• What is the hope of Israel? Paul has already told us:

The resurrection of the dead (Acts 23:6; 24:15).

The coming Kingdom promised to the patriarchs.

• In his letters repeatedly describes this same hope using other wording:

1. The promises made to the fathers, Romans 15:8–12 “Messiah became a servant to the circumcision to confirm the promises made to the fathers…”
2. The coming Kingdom, Colossians 1:5, 12–13 the hope is stored with God, but inherited in the Kingdom (cf. Dan. 7:27).
3. the fulfillment of Israel’s covenants in the Messiah, Ephesians 2:12–14

“You Gentiles were… strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope…But now… you have been brought near.” Cp. Ephesians 4:4 

“There is one hope of your calling.”

Dispensational theology insists:

• Israel has an earthly hope.
• The Church has a heavenly hope.

But Paul does not say, “Israel is now set aside,” or “God has switched programs,” or “The old gospel is over,” or “The Church starts only now.”

• There is one hope (Eph. 4:4).
• The hope is the Kingdom of God on earth (Acts 14:22; 19:8; 20:25; 28:23, 31).
• Gentiles join Israel’s hope (Eph. 2:12–19).
• The resurrection occurs at Messiah’s return (1 Cor 15).
• No believer’s hope is “heaven,” but the age to come (Dan. 12:2; Luke 20:35).
• Dispensationalism reads into Acts 28 a change that is not there.
• Paul continues preaching the same hope, grounded in the same OT Scriptures, pointing to the same Messiah.

Acts 28:23

• This verse alone ends hyper-dispensationalism.
• Paul is still preaching the Kingdom of God.

This is the gospel Jesus preached (Mark 1:14–15).

This is the gospel Philip preached (Acts 8:12).

This is the gospel Paul preached everywhere (Acts 20:25).

• There is no new gospel in Acts 28.
• Paul is still preaching from Moses and the Prophets.

Not from a new revelation.

Not from a post-Israel gospel.

Not from a replacement theological system.

• Paul’s gospel is rooted in the Hebrew Scriptures, exactly as Jesus taught in Luke 24:

27 Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he explained to them everything in Scripture about himself.

44 “These were my words while I was still with you —that everything which is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” 

Acts 20:28

• “This salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen!”
• Paul has already said this in Acts 10; 13:46; 18:6.
• The continuation of what God promised to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed in you.” (Genesis 12:3);
• We Gentiles are listening and obeying—praise be to God! 
• But that does not create a new dispensation for us Gentiles.

To Carol or Not to Carol?

The question isn’t whether it’s right or wrong for Christians to celebrate the birth of Jesus—or anyone else in the Bible, for that matter! I’m not a Jehovah’s Witness, after all. And many Christians don’t even care about this issue and simply say, “That’s not why my family and I celebrate Christmas!”

But the deeper question—whether Christmas is truly Christian (i.e., whether it is biblical and completely free of pagan influence)—remains a serious one for the church.

It is clear from both the New Testament and historical evidence that Jesus was not born during the winter solstice. He never was “the reason for the season.”

Ultimately, the issue comes down to how much Christians are willing to participate in a religious holiday that bears the name of the one they call Teacher, Lord, and Savior, yet has very little to do with the religion he founded.

The truth is, we would do well to heed the apostolic warning and command:

“Do not participate in the fruitless works of darkness, but instead expose them, for it is shameful even to speak of the things done by them in secret. But everything that is exposed by the light becomes visible, and everything that is made visible can become light. That is why it says, “Wake up, you who are asleep, and arise from the dead, and the Messiah will shine on you.” So watch carefully how you conduct yourselves, not as unwise but as wise, making the most of your time, because the days are evil. So then do not be foolish, but become wise by understanding what the will of the Lord is. (Eph. 5:11-17)

Who Created Genesis?

The central belief of most Christians today is that Jesus was personally involved in the Genesis creation. Yet when we read Jesus’ own words, a very different picture emerges.

One of the clearest ways is to examine a common biblical idiom known as the divine or theological passive—a grammatical form that describes actions done by God without directly naming Him. Jesus often avoided directly naming God as the subject of a verb out of reverence. And instead used a passive-voice construction so that the reader would naturally supply “God” as the unspoken agent. For example, “Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted” (Matt 5:4); the comforter is clearly God, though He is not named. In other words, "for they shall be comforted," i.e., by God.

In an article titled “Jesus’ Avoidance of the Divine Name,” (by Soulen, Jesus and the Divine Name) the writer notes:

"The “divine passive” is so typical of Jesus that a full survey basically amounts to a recapitulation of his public teaching."

And Jeremias, NT Theology adds:

“The divine passive occurs around 100 times in the sayings of Jesus.”

The same is true when Jesus speaks about Genesis, he consistently uses divine passives in ways that attribute the creative act exclusively to someone other than himself, i.e., God his Father. This internal linguistic evidence—coming from Jesus’ own lips—has major implications for who Jesus was and continued claims about him.

The following is a survey of New Testament texts in which Jesus uses the divine passive for Genesis, along with an explanation of what this language communicates about his role (or non-role) in Creation.

He Who created

When discussing marriage in Matt 19:4; Mar 10:6, Jesus quotes Genesis 1:27 and refers to the Creator as “He who created them”—a classic divine passive referring to God. He does not include himself in this creative action, nor does he reinterpret Genesis to include anyone else. Jesus unambiguously attributes creation to “the Creator”—language that points directly to God the Father, with no passive construction. Thus, Jesus upholds the traditional Hebrew understanding that the one Creator is God. His language explicitly places himself on the receiving end of creation, not within the acts of the original Creation.

In Mark 13:19 Jesus combines the divine passive with a fully explicit subject: “God created.” Jesus attaches Genesis creation directly to God and again does not claim any personal involvement. He affirms unitary monotheism by the Father alone. If Jesus believed he had participated in Genesis, this would have been an ideal place to say as much. Instead, he reinforces the opposite.

Similarly, in John 17:24 Jesus uses the standard divine passive idiom “before God founded the world.” Jesus’ point is not that he was with the Father creating the world, but that the Father loved him before God founded the world. Jesus portrays himself as the object of God’s love prior to creation, not as a co-Creator. The idiom highlights the Father’s creative action while assigning no such role to Jesus.

And even if Jesus claimed some kind of personal pre-existence, it is still not a claim that he himself was involved or that the world was made “by” him. The verse actually strengthens the view that Jesus never used the divine passive (or any other indirect device) to hint that he was the one doing the creating when speaking of Genesis.

Jesus uses the divine passive elsewhere, especially in parables about the kingdom that echo Genesis creation motifs:

• Matthew 13:31–32 (Mustard Seed): “when it has grown” (aorist passive)

• Matthew 13:33 (Leaven): “until the whole was leavened” (aorist passive)

God here is the unmentioned agent causing the growth and transformation. The imagery deliberately recalls Genesis themes of multiplication, fruitfulness, and divine sovereignty over creation. Yet even here, Jesus never connects the passive verbs to himself; the implied agent remains the Father.

Furthermore, the Gospel Jesus sayings match the earliest Christian preaching in the rest of the NT, where Genesis is repeatedly attributed to God alone:

• Acts 4:15; 24–25 Christians quote from Ps 2:1–2 as “the Holy Spirit spoke by the mouth of David,” but immediately before that they say:

“Sovereign Lord, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and everything in them” (a direct quote of Gen 1/Exod. 20:11, but in context treating the Genesis creation account as God’s own work and word).

• Acts 17:24–28 Paul in Athens says: “The God who made the world and everything in it… he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. And he made from one man every nation…” A direct reference to Genesis 1–2 creation and the single origin of humanity (Gen 2–3), attributed solely to God.

• Hebrews 1:5 “For to which of the angels did God ever say…” While the primary citations are Psalm 2:7 and 2 Samuel 7:14, Hebrews’ interpretive grid treats God as the speaker of all Old Testament divine speech, including Genesis material (e.g., Heb 6:13–17 makes this explicit).

• Heb. 4:4 ‘And God rested on the seventh day from all his works.’” A direct quote of Genesis 2:2 introduced as “God spoke”;

• Hebrews 11:3 “By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God…” Genesis 1 creation by divine fiat, attributed to God alone.

• Romans 4:17 Paul says “…in the presence of the God in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist.” A direct echo of Gen 1 creation language attributed to God alone.

• Revelation 4:11 “You created all things.”

Jesus’ own words challenge the widespread belief that he was the Genesis Creator or somehow, some oblique way personally involved in the Genesis creation. Instead, his words reinforce the biblical portrait of one God, the Father, and of Jesus as His anointed representative—sent to the world God had already made. And in every instance where Jesus directly cites or alludes to the original Genesis creation, he uses active-voice verbs and explicitly attributes the work to God (the Father).

Let us all learn from the one who prayed to that one single Creator saying:

Matthew 11:25 At that time Jesus said, “I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent, and have revealed them to children. 26 Yes, Father, because this was pleasing in your sight. 27 All things have been delivered to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.