was Jesus turning the other cheek when He made a whip, and kicked over the money changers tables?
- Thread starter Drich
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
you are twisting the meaning there of what is being said. Jesus’ act was unique, prophetic, and tied to His identity as Messiah, Judge, and Lord of the Temple. You nor me or anyone else can make that claim.
Nor do we have a temple, for we are told in the New Testament that we, as Christians, are God's temple:
NKJV 2Co 6:16 And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God. As God has said: "I WILL DWELL IN THEM AND WALK AMONG THEM. I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE."
WWJD if instead of money changers, the priests where running the temple with porn, sex, drugs, food etc? Do you think his reaction would be more severe or less severe than his reaction with the money changers?
Paul absolutely “cleaned house” in 1 Corinthians 5, because Christ commands His Church to remove unrepentant, scandalous sin from the fellowship; Paul told them plainly, “put away from among yourselves that wicked person,” which is not cruelty but obedience, not vengeance but holiness, and not optional but required for the purity of Christ’s body. Paul cast out the immoral brother, because Christ commands His Church to remove unrepentant sin from the fellowship; this is not harshness but holiness, not cruelty but love, not human authority but obedience to the Shepherd who protects His flock.
if the priests had filled God’s house with porn, sex, drugs, and corruption instead of money‑changing, His response would not be less severe — it would be infinitely more severe, because the greater the desecration, the greater the judgment; and Scripture shows that when God’s sanctuary is defiled with sexual immorality and idolatry, He does not merely overturn tables — He removes lampstands, destroys institutions, and brings catastrophic judgment. He would judge it as God judged Shiloh, as He judged Jerusalem in Ezekiel’s day, and as He warns the churches in Revelation; the greater the desecration, the greater the severity of His holy response.
I acknowledge that Jesus cleansing the physical temple and Paul commanding the removal of unrepentant sinners from the church are both acts of purification, but I confess that Scripture never presents them as parallel forms of physical force or as interchangeable models. Jesus acted with unique Messianic authority as the Lord of the Temple, fulfilling prophecy and exercising divine judgment; I cannot imitate that act because I am not the Messiah, nor am I authorized to use physical confrontation in the house of God. Paul, by contrast, commanded the church to “put away from among yourselves that wicked person” through spiritual discipline, not violence—through sorrow, admonition, and removal from fellowship, never through physical expulsion or force. I therefore reject the idea that kicking over tables in the temple corresponds to kicking people out of the church; one is a prophetic act of divine judgment, the other is a pastoral act of spiritual correction. I submit to Scripture’s pattern: Jesus cleanses the temple as Judge, and I practice church discipline as a servant, in meekness and truth.
Greetings, I don't see any contradiction. I see God teaching us that there may at times be limitations to what can be tolerated and since His Father was offended and He is the Son of God he has this liberty to decide when to apply a teaching through example and when to teach by example. Again, the commandments are for Men but God has a higher standard. He can see the heart and mind, He knows who are his sheep and who the wolves are. He made a statement that day to teach everyone that His Fathers house is not a house of merchandise and should not be disrespected. Jesus the Son of Man, the Son of God endured the sufferings of death so we don't have to and He also taught us how to recognize pharisees and wolves in sheeps clothing,not always easy to do.
“If we are God’s temple, shouldn’t we flip tables to stop sin?”—is exactly the kind of instinct Scripture both understands and restrains. I acknowledge that if we are the temple of God, then every sin we commit is a defilement of that temple, and Paul says plainly, “If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him,” so the seriousness is real; but I confess that Scripture never authorizes me to imitate Jesus’ physical cleansing of the Temple, because He acted as Messiah, Judge, and Lord of the sanctuary, not as a model for Christian violence or coercion. Instead, Paul tells me that my “whip” is the Word, my “table‑flipping” is rebuke, my “cleansing” is restoration in gentleness, and my “turning” of the sinner is done through warning, pleading, and discipline, not force. So I reject the idea that zeal for holiness gives me permission to act violently or coercively, but I stand firmly on this: because we are God’s temple, we must confront sin boldly, warn of wrath honestly, and call people to repentance urgently—but always with the weapons of the Spirit, never the weapons of the flesh.
So, can it then be said Jesus' cleansing of the temple was not consistent with the directive to turn the other cheek, and is a case of do as I say, not as i do?
Is it not ok to have power and authority over us that He does not share with us?
I say yes, and have no issue with the temple cleansing being an example of this.
your instinct here is actually correct—but the reason it’s correct is not the one you’re assuming. Jesus’ cleansing of the temple is not an example of “turn the other cheek,” it is not meant to be; the directive to turn the other cheek applies to personal insult, while the temple cleansing is an act of Messianic authority, prophetic judgment, and divine prerogative.
I reject the idea that this is “do as I say, not as I do,” because Jesus is not modeling human behavior in that moment—He is acting as Lord of the Temple, fulfilling Malachi 3, exercising a role He does not share with us.
And I stand firmly on this: it is absolutely right to say Jesus has powers, rights, and judicial authority He does not give to us, and the temple cleansing is a perfect example of that—He judges corruption; we endure insult.
His command for us to turn the other cheek is for our station, not His.
Enough people have addressed your issues and shown why cleansing the temple and turning the other cheek are not the same, but you do you. You're obviously here to push your already decided conclusion, so discussion seems a bit pointless.
Well, that's the thing. Scripture tells us Jesus made it personal. John 2 says “Zeal for your house will consume me.”
Zeal = passion
Consumed by zeal = to be over taken/out of control by your passions.
So if one is over taken by His passions then it can be said they are taking it personally.
Which is basically the same thing as I said. Jesus' authority precludes Him from having to follow rules He has set for the rest of us.
It's like when a judge rightly sentences a man to death. Some would argue that if a judges sentences a man to death he himself has committed murder and should also be sentenced to death. However in reality the judge because He is acting with in this authority has the power over life and death, so when he sentences a man to death he is not committing murder.
When Jesus is acting as "The Lord Of the Temple." He is acting as a literal judge and has the authority to not only judge their actions but has the authority to carry out the sentence... hence do what I say... Not what i do.
which is different from do what I say not what i do how?
You’re right to see that John 2:17 describes something intensely personal, but the text itself won’t let me equate being consumed with zeal with being out of control or acting from wounded pride.
When I read the passage, I notice that the Greek phrase ho zēlos tou oikou sou kataphagetai me (“zeal for your house will consume me”) is a quotation of Psalm 69:9, where the speaker is not overtaken by private emotion but by covenant loyalty to God’s holiness.
When I see Jesus cleansing the temple, I see a Lord whose passion is not self‑defensive but God‑defensive—His “zeal” is not uncontrolled rage but the righteous intensity of someone who loves the Father’s presence more than human approval.
So yes, He takes it personally, but only because the Father’s honor is personal to Him, not because He is overwhelmed by His own passions.
And when I apply that to myself, I cannot claim that my anger, frustration, or indignation is the same thing,
His zeal is rooted in perfect holiness, while mine must be tested against Scripture, purified by the Spirit, and restrained by the command that “the anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God.” James 1:20
zeal
/zēl/
Zeal is a noun that means great energy, enthusiasm, or passion for a person, cause, or goal. [1, 2]
AI Overview
consumed
Consumed is the past tense, past participle, or adjective form of the verb consume, meaning to use up, eat, or destroy completely. [1, 2]
Core Meanings & Examples
- To eat or drink: To ingest food or beverages.
- To use up resources: To utilize fuel, energy, time, or goods in large amounts.
- To destroy completely: To wipe out or lay waste to something, often by fire.
- To engross or obsess (as an adjective/passive verb): To be completely filled or overtaken by a powerful emotion or thought.
The Psalmist clearly states that He is consumed with emotion, and that he takes dishonor/disrespect aimed at God/the temple personally.
9 for zeal for your house consumes me,
and the insults of those who insult you fall on me.
This literally describes the situation where we are to turn the other cheek. We are personally offended and are instructed to turn the other cheek.
We've discussed this. I know.
I am not disputing that he does or does not. I'm saying it is His right to take it personally and has the authority/obligation to respond with anger. This is why I says this is a do as I say, not as I do situation.
I have to let the biblical usage, not the English dictionary, define the meaning.
The psalmist does take God’s dishonor personally, but he is describing covenant loyalty, not the situation Jesus addresses when He commands me to turn the other cheek.
Psalm 69:9 shows a heart wounded because God is insulted; Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 5 concerns insults aimed at me personally.
But I cannot call this a “do as I say, not as I do” situation, because Scripture itself makes a sharp distinction between His station and mine.
lol.. So do you think the bible usage and the english translation is different in some way?
Everything after this statement is irrelevant. Because taking insult personally is exactly the scenario that we are told to turn the other cheek
My argument uses His station for the sole reason that this is a do as I say scenario, and by admission so does yours. It would seem the only difference between my position an yours is you do not like the phrase 'do as I say and not as i do."