was Jesus turning the other cheek when He made a whip, and kicked over the money changers tables?

Drich · Aug 20, 2026

Mem said:
Jesus' reference to Jeremiah's Message at the Temple Gate in Jeremiah 7 provides insight into why Jesus considered those you have addressed in the outer court as having made the temple a 'den of robbers.' The LORD tells Jeremiah to say to those "who enter through these gates to worship the LORD (Jeremiah 7:2)..."Do not trust in deceptive words, saying, 'This is the temple of the LORD... (Jeremiah 7:4)...'But look, you keep trusting in deceptive words to no avail (Jer 7:8)." And then poses the rhetorical question that leads to the aforementioned conclusion (Jer 7:9-11). So, the question isn't whether the court had become a den of robbers, that's pretty much established. But a better question might be what is considered a den and how had it become one?

No one would willingly come to a lion's den unless, of course, he or she was a lion, right? So, if a robber would feel as at home in his or her den of robbers as a lion might in a den of lions, that leaves the question of who were they robbing where the generally accepted understanding is the patrons, because they would, initially, seem to be the most logical assumption. However, in Jeremiah 7, the prophet was to address, not the treatment of those "who enter through the gates to worship the LORD," but to address their treatment of the temple as "a den..." So, giving it a second glance, it appears, to me at least, that it is God that is being robbed of genuine repentance if you consider the witness of Jer 7:9-11. It seems to me these were just, there's a phrase for it, buying or selling indulgences? Which is basically idolatry, isn't it, since that's not the character of God to either will nor do?

And that brings us to your interrelation to "..if someone takes your cloak, do not withhold your tunic" and the underlying suggestion that, if God was being robbed of a worshipper's genuine repentance, then he should not withhold his forgiveness. I mean, insults and tunics have no particular substance in the kingdom of God*, but repentance is the only way to enter into the gate.

*noting that offering the other cheek, and offering the tunic does, at the least, not let the first go without acknowledged for what it is.

I'm not asking why He did what He did. I have no problem with what He did or why.

I'm asking does what He did conflict with his other teachings as you pointed them out.

I personally have no issue with Jesus saying do as I say not as I do. as He is sovereign and know what every action He takes will result in. Meaning if he took a baby and smashed him into a rock, because He knew this baby would be the anti-christ/New hitler and it was not time for the anti-christ/hitler I would be ok with Him taking that action, at the same time making a rule that it is never ok for us to do the same. Why? because we would never be able to fully account for our actions.

God Knows more/Is responsible for more. This means He has freedom. Or rather we should not expect God to be tied to the same rules He ties us to.

Drich · Aug 20, 2026

Roger316 said:
The text tells us why he did it The money changers turned the temple into a den of thieves. And this made Jesus angry. Jesus overturned the tables because the Temple leadership had allowed the one place meant for prayer—especially for Gentiles—to become a commercial, exploitative marketplace, violating the very purpose of God’s house. That is the explicit reason given in the text. Mark 11:17

Roger316 said:
No. As we said before, turning the other cheek is meant to demonstrate that a follower of Jesus will not return evil for evil. Jesus was not returning evil for evil, he was defending God's house.

No. Jesus dealt with the problem in the appropriate way — and the text itself shows why His response was not impulsive anger but prophetic, measured, covenant‑anchored action.

The cleansing of the Temple is one of those moments where Jesus acts with precision, not rage. He does exactly what the situation required, nothing more, nothing less.

ok

Drich · Aug 20, 2026

Roger316 said:
A lexical definition is only a starting point, because most Greek words carry a wide semantic range that includes multiple possible nuances.

Those nuances are referenced in the cited definition. In this case with this particular word/words the text Jesus is accredited in saying would indicate more than a slap. Perhapse this is why the king James translates this word into smite/strike.
smite
/smīt/
To smite means to strike or hit hard, usually with a hand, weapon, or heavy force. It also means to attack, kill, or affect someone suddenly and very badly with disease, divine punishment, or a powerful emotion like love or fear. [1, 2, 3]

Which is in line with how the greek word in mat 5:39 is defined.

Again this word is:

τύπτω týptō, toop'-to; a primary verb (in a strengthened form); to "thump", i.e. cudgel or pummel (properly, with a stick or bastinado), but in any case by repeated blows; thus differing from G3817 and G3960, which denote a (usually single) blow with the hand or any instrument, or G4141 with the fist (or a hammer), or G4474 with the palm; as well as from G5177, an accidental collision); by implication, to punish; figuratively, to offend (the conscience):—beat, smite, strike, wound.

And the word for slap is:

ῥαπίζω rhapízō, hrap-id'-zo; from a derivative of a primary ῥέπω rhépō (to let fall, "rap"); to slap:—smite (with the palm of the hand). Compare G5180.

Roger316 said:
The real question in exegesis is never “What can this word mean in general?” but “What does this author mean by this word in this context?” A dictionary lists potential meanings; the context selects the actual one. That is why responsible interpretation does not treat lexicons as final authorities but as tools—useful for mapping possibilities, yet always subordinate to the author’s flow of thought, setting, and rhetorical purpose.

indeed. with the avaiblity of having a word for strike/Hard with hand weapon or heavy force; and a word that means a open palm strike The use of the verb dictates context. Not the other way around.

Aaron56 · Aug 20, 2026

Drich said:
I personally have no issue with Jesus saying do as I say not as I do. as He is sovereign and know what every action He takes will result in. Meaning if he took a baby and smashed him into a rock, because He knew this baby would be the anti-christ/New hitler and it was not time for the anti-christ/hitler I would be ok with Him taking that action, at the same time making a rule that it is never ok for us to do the same. Why? because we would never be able to fully account for our actions.

Oof. Dude.

You need to go back to Biblical basics. If God was okay with "do as I say not as I do" then we would have no Savior and no Father in Heaven. We could not have been made in His image and likeness.

God is not like the volatile Greek and Roman gods given to fits of abuse and morose nor like the god of the Arabs of Islam. He came in our form to demonstrate the life of a son of God as THE Son of God.

Drich · Aug 20, 2026

DavidLamb said:
But the difference is that at the cross and just before, He was being attacked personally. That was not the case in the temple. The "turn the other cheek" teaching applies to situations where others are attacking us. Passions? When Jesus was angry, it wasn't a matter of losing His temper, or passions taking over, as so often happens when we become angry.

So again (other have made this argument) If someone insults God, or turns the church into a big flea market a few times a year, does this mean you as a christian can fashion a whip out of cords and swing it at them and kick over and stomp their stuff?

Is it ok for your 'passions' to take over at a perceived offense like the muslims did with Charlie Hebdo?

Charlie Hebdo shooting - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

DavidLamb said:
Forgive me if I am misunderstanding you, but are you really saying that Jesus was doing wrong when He drove the money-changers and sellers of animals out of the temple?

Nope.

I stated pretty clearly that it was ok for Jesus to be righteously angry.

What i did say is that maybe Jesus Himself could not live up to our pharisaical version of christianity. That we have taken what Christ taught, and twisted it into an impossible to follow religion. That what He did by loosing his cool was not wrong at all.

DavidLamb said:
I would say it was to indicate the holiness of God.

Roger316 · Aug 20, 2026

Drich said:
ok

Many young, college‑age readers are never taught how to approach Scripture properly. So when they encounter an apparent contradiction—either from critics or on their own—it often comes from lifting two verses out of their contexts and assuming they are addressing the same issue. On the surface the passages may look related, but once you read each one within its own argument, setting, and purpose, the supposed contradiction dissolves. Most “gotcha” objections collapse simply by letting each text speak on its own terms.

We also need to be firm on this point, because once someone is allowed to pull verses out of their contexts, they can make Scripture say virtually anything. Context is the God‑given safeguard against distortion. If we surrender that safeguard—even a little—we open the door for critics to twist a text, detach it from its argument, and weaponize it against the rest of the Bible. Encouraging young believers to insist on context is not optional; it is the first line of defense in faithful interpretation.

Roger316 · Aug 20, 2026

Drich said:
Those nuances are referenced in the cited definition. In this case with this particular word/words the text Jesus is accredited in saying would indicate more than a slap. Perhapse this is why the king James translates this word into smite/strike.
smite
/smīt/
To smite means to strike or hit hard, usually with a hand, weapon, or heavy force. It also means to attack, kill, or affect someone suddenly and very badly with disease, divine punishment, or a powerful emotion like love or fear. [1, 2, 3]

Which is in line with how the greek word in mat 5:39 is defined.

Again this word is:

τύπτω týptō, toop'-to; a primary verb (in a strengthened form); to "thump", i.e. cudgel or pummel (properly, with a stick or bastinado), but in any case by repeated blows; thus differing from G3817 and G3960, which denote a (usually single) blow with the hand or any instrument, or G4141 with the fist (or a hammer), or G4474 with the palm; as well as from G5177, an accidental collision); by implication, to punish; figuratively, to offend (the conscience):—beat, smite, strike, wound.

And the word for slap is:

ῥαπίζω rhapízō, hrap-id'-zo; from a derivative of a primary ῥέπω rhépō (to let fall, "rap"); to slap:—smite (with the palm of the hand). Compare G5180.

I agree but the reason why someone would strike/slap someone is important to what Jesus means to say in this context. He is not suggesting that a Christian allow someone else to injure them. How do I know this?

Remember when Jesus was about to be arrested. He told his disciples to bring swords. When Peter mentioned that he had one, Jesus said that would be good enough. In other words, to avoid injury, Jesus required that his disciples prepare to defend themselves.

Jesus would not, for instance, advise a woman to remain in the household of a wire-beater. He wouldn't tell her to turn the other cheek.

Drich said:
indeed. with the avaiblity of having a word for strike/Hard with hand weapon or heavy force; and a word that means a open palm strike The use of the verb dictates context. Not the other way around.

“Greek verbs have a range of possible meanings, and context determines which one is intended. The verb doesn’t dictate the context; the context dictates the meaning of the verb. That’s why Jesus’ reference to the right cheek—a backhanded slap of insult—clarifies the sense of the verb. Your claim reverses the actual grammatical relationship.”

DavidLamb · Aug 20, 2026

Drich said:
So again (other have made this argument) If someone insults God, or turns the church into a big flea market a few times a year, does this mean you as a christian can fashion a whip out of cords and swing it at them and kick over and stomp their stuff?

Is it ok for your 'passions' to take over at a perceived offense like the muslims did with Charlie Hebdo?

Charlie Hebdo shooting - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Nope.

I agree, and I have already said that. For a start, our church buildings are not temples. I spent some years as a member of a church which did not own a building, but rented the hall of the local primary school for services. Obviously that was used for secular (educational) purposes at other times.

Drich said:
I stated pretty clearly that it was ok for Jesus to be righteously angry.

What i did say is that maybe Jesus Himself could not live up to our pharisaical version of christianity. That we have taken what Christ taught, and twisted it into an impossible to follow religion. That what He did by loosing his cool was not wrong at all.

He did not "loose his cool." Righteous anger is not losing one's cool.

Drich · Aug 20, 2026

Aaron56 said:
Oh I see: You're making some assumptions that are not in the text. It's a bad habit.

Brother I am using the parmeters of Y_O_U_R_ Analogy. Those assumptions came from you, not me.

Aaron56 said:
The money changers were exploiting the people to whom Jesus was sent, and using the urgency of godly worship to do so.

Irrelevant. The question is not why he did what He did. For the 100th time I have NO issue in what He did or why He did it.

I'm asking did this violate the eddict to turn the other cheek?

Aaron56 said:
Given this scripture: "A bruised reed shall He not break, and the smoking flax shall He not quench; He shall bring forth judgment unto truth."
and this one: “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.”

We should conclude that the whip He made was for the animals not the people.

12 Jesus entered the temple courts and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. 13 “It is written,” he said to them, “‘My house will be called a house of prayer,’but you are making it ‘a den of robbers.’

Two things of note.
1. the only animal listed being sold in the temple was doves.
This is also recorded in John 2 (Doves being the only animal listed.)

2. The passage says "drove out the money changers."

When one drives out cattle, a whip or a cattle Prod is needed.

Since Doves do not need to be whipped to leave an area, and because the doves are the only other animals mentioned besides people, we can conclude that the whip was used to drive people out of the temple just like scripture says.

"Jesus entered the temple courts and drove out all who were buying and selling there."

Aaron56 · Aug 20, 2026

Drich said:
Brother I am using the parmeters of Y_O_U_R_ Analogy. Those assumptions came from you, not me.

Irrelevant. The question is not why he did what He did. For the 100th time I have NO issue in what He did or why He did it.

I'm asking did this violate the eddict to turn the other cheek?

12 Jesus entered the temple courts and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. 13 “It is written,” he said to them, “‘My house will be called a house of prayer,’but you are making it ‘a den of robbers.’

Two things of note.
1. the only animal listed being sold in the temple was doves.
This is also recorded in John 2 (Doves being the only animal listed.)

2. The passage says "drove out the money changers."

When one drives out cattle, a whip or a cattle Prod is needed.

Since Doves do not need to be whipped to leave an area, and because the doves are the only other animals mentioned besides people, we can conclude that the whip was used to drive people out of the temple just like scripture says.

"Jesus entered the temple courts and drove out all who were buying and selling there."

You've only had 34 minutes to remediate your Biblical understanding about the nature of God. That's not nearly enough time. I conclude that you're not serious about the topic at hand nor about any other Biblical topic.

Aaron56 · Aug 20, 2026

For those still serious about this topic:

Now the Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14And He found in the temple those who sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the money changers doing business. 15When 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. 16And He said to those who sold doves, “Take these things away! Do not make My Father’s house a house of merchandise!”

Drich · Aug 20, 2026

Aaron56 said:
You've only had 34 minutes to remediate your Biblical understanding about the nature of God. That's not nearly enough time. I conclude that you're not serious about the topic at hand nor about any other Biblical topic.

wow.. This attitude is exactly what I spoke of earlier. It the whole arrogant holier than thou, if you do not believe in 'my' version of Jesus you can not be a christian. This attitude that many of us have is exactly what is Now driving our children out of our churches in droves.

Drich · Aug 20, 2026

Aaron56 said:
For those still serious about this topic:

Now the Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14And He found in the temple those who sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the money changers doing business. 15When 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. 16And He said to those who sold doves, “Take these things away! Do not make My Father’s house a house of merchandise!”

I'm saying the passage does not mention any animals in the court yard other than doves and people. The underline portion that you underlined also says this. And He found in the temple those who sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the money changers doing business.

So what was driven out of the temple was people with the whip He fashioned. not oxen and sheep.

pinebeach · Aug 20, 2026

My conclusion as to the purpose of the op

..............................................................

Drich · Aug 20, 2026

pinebeach said:
My conclusion as to the purpose of the op

..............................................................View attachment 294450

Are you not familiar with the logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum (appeal to the people) is a logical error claiming that something is true or good simply because many people believe or do it. It relies on emotion and social pressure rather than facts.

That said there are several who have posted that i agree with, and said as much.

JimiSurvivor · Aug 20, 2026

Drich said:
I get why He did what He did and I personally have no issue with it. I'm simply asking what do you think about his actions here in relation to what was actually done.

Remember while on temple grounds the money changers where in the court yard of the gentiles. Meaning because of the gentile taint, this courtyard would have been considered the least holy of all of the temple grounds and or spaces. Why was Jesus putting so much emphasis on where they where, when He told us previously to not pray and carry on (Holier than thou) in public, but rather go into your closet and pray.

thoughts?

I think the way most of us have learned to visualize this incident is based on a misconception. Whenever my father described Jesus whipping the money-changers he told me Jesus used a Roman scourge in which were tied bits of sharp metal and bone. While this suited him it did not ring true for me. Looking back at the scriptures, I reached other conclusions:

14 In the temple courts He found men selling cattle, sheep, while money changers were seated at their tables.
15 So He made a whip out of cords and drove all from the temple courts, both SHEEP and CATTLE.
(John 2:14-15)
The way the list of animals immediately follows the verb DROVE suggests that they were the recipients of that punishment rather than the merchants. Jesus expressed his contempt for them and their business in the following ways:
by pouring out their coins
overturning their tables and ordering the dove sellers
“Get these out of here! How dare you turn My Father’s house into a marketplace!”…

God-fearing · Aug 20, 2026

Drich said:
Again, I personally have no issue with what Jesus did. I am 100% ok with a do as I say and not as I do, as God/Jesus is in a position to truly know how his actions will play out, while we do not. This fact alone is reason enough to do as He says, and not everything He does.

I have stated many times in this thread that 70% of our christian youth going to college loose their faith and walk away from the church by their second year in school. by the end of the 4th year that number goes up to 90%. The mass exodus from the church starts with seeming inconsistent passages in scripture that when asked about (like this one) people like yourself take great offense to and often times threaten the person asking the question with their very salvation. (Calling Jesus a Hypocrite)

I am saying that many on the fence in the church, could see this as a contradiction in the key figure of Christian beliefs and if not resolved can cost a person their faith.

yes.

read a few of my responses, and the corrections I have made to some of the other commenters who where trying to set me straight.

where did I say He didn't need to deal with sin??

I am saying that many on the fence in the church, could see this as a contradiction in the key figure of Christian beliefs and if not resolved can cost a person their faith.

I really can't see any contradiction to what jesus did and preached here.
To turn the other cheek seems to be the center of this whole thread but what is being actually siad here is not to render evil with evil.
Jesus said...they will hate you because they hate me first. So expect confrontation from some even to the point of physical confrontation. In todays world we call that gaslighting. Back then it was a serious form of disrespect. The same as spitting, and you can see Jesus being confronted in this manner at his trial and walk . How did he react?

Clearly the temple event and the sermon teaching are 2 very different things.

Mem · Aug 20, 2026

Drich said:
I'm not asking why He did what He did. I have no problem with what He did or why.

I'm asking does what He did conflict with his other teachings as you pointed them out.

If I understand you correctly, your position is that, yes, what He did does conflict with his other teachings (although that is not the assertion "as I pointed them out."

Drich said:
I personally have no issue with Jesus saying do as I say not as I do. as He is sovereign and know what every action He takes will result in. Meaning if he took a baby and smashed him into a rock, because He knew this baby would be the anti-christ/New hitler and it was not time for the anti-christ/hitler I would be ok with Him taking that action, at the same time making a rule that it is never ok for us to do the same. Why? because we would never be able to fully account for our actions.

God Knows more/Is responsible for more. This means He has freedom. Or rather we should not expect God to be tied to the same rules He ties us to.

Didn't God do exactly that in regard to Jesus? Wasn't Jesus "tied to the same rules He tied us to" as born under the Law (Gal 4:4-5)?

Equivocation of Jesus' cleansing the temple with His being slapped on the cheek seems to be comparing apples to oranges. For example, there's no confusing a slap on the cheek for any sort of gesture of honor or devotion.

Drich · Aug 21, 2026

I am saying that many on the fence in the church, could see this as a contradiction in the key figure of Christian beliefs and if not resolved can cost a person their faith.

God-fearing said:
I really can't see any contradiction to what jesus did and preached here.

Are you one the fence with your faith? Are you just starting out in your spiritual walk as our children are when they go off to school?

God-fearing said:
To turn the other cheek seems to be the center of this whole thread but what is being actually siad here is not to render evil with evil.

Whipping people can be seen as rendering evil with evil by many who do not understand what a sovereign God is, and our place in this world.

God-fearing said:
Jesus said...they will hate you because they hate me first. So expect confrontation from some even to the point of physical confrontation. In todays world we call that gaslighting. Back then it was a serious form of disrespect. The same as spitting, and you can see Jesus being confronted in this manner at his trial and walk . How did he react?

what is the point of identifying when someone is following the law? You can follow the law 1000 times like I can not murder someone when every they make me mad 1,000,000 times, but the first time I do kill someone, that makes me a murderer.

If whipping money changers and kicking over their stuff is Jesus not turning the other cheek this means he is in violation of his own eddict, even if He kept it a 1,000,000 times before.

God-fearing said:
Clearly the temple event and the sermon teaching are 2 very different things.

agreed, but should they be? That's what some might see as a contradiction. Jesus actions at the temple and His teaching seem to contradict.

There is a solution to this quandary, but it has us reexamine how most christians think about themselves as christians and God/Jesus' role in this relationship.

pinebeach · Aug 21, 2026

Drich said:
Are you not familiar with the logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum (appeal to the people) is a logical error claiming that something is true or good simply because many people believe or do it. It relies on emotion and social pressure rather than facts.

That said there are several who have posted that i agree with, and said as much

right. Like finding that toy in a cereal box.

was Jesus turning the other cheek when He made a whip, and kicked over the money changers tables?

Active member

Active member

Active member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Active member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Active member

Well-known member