Nope. I refuse that path. I would rather die than give in to that kind of fatalism.
My Savior conquered the world through loving sacrifice, and I shall follow His example. Even if that seems foolish to the wise. I am very OK with being a fool.
Discussion
You don't need to be part of the army.
Just finance someone who will protect you in times of danger.
Think about it like this.
You finance.
In times of trouble, whoever helps and protects you gets your money.
Just like that.
Without getting your hands dirty.
Following the principles of his savior who walked alongside the Roman army.
And the right to choose which exercise to finance.
Whoa, hold on there, pardner. Jesus was willing to use violence to make a political point and He actively got up in the government's face and preached.
He didn't just go up to a mountain and commune with the deer, or something. That was St. Francis.
Uh, no.
He used violence to clear out what was supposed to be holy place, the place of His Father. He never even condemned WHAT they were doing (a point missed by most people), only WHERE they were doing it.
Yes. He wasn't passive, but He was not violent or coercive except to evil spirits. Why is that so hard to comprehend?
Didn't condemn what they were doing? "You have made it a den of thieves." I don't think the word thieves is morally neutral language.
Yeah. But you're still missing the point, like most people.
Do you know significance of WHERE this incident took place? Do you know what was going on? Do you know why it offended Him so much that he literally flipped tables?
Of course I do. I still don't think I am missing any points. Your claim is that he didn't condemn what they were doing, only where they were doing it. Except he literally called them thieves.
Also you have a tendency to read scripture in novel ways and then tell the rest of us that we are doing it wrong. We well might be, but have you ever wondered if you might not be just making stuff up?
No, he did not.
And no, I am not. That is not an original or novel idea, since I got it from a dude with a PhD in a bunch of biblical stuff.
To quote the relevant passage from Matthew 21 (NASB 2020):
12 And Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all those who were selling and buying on the temple grounds, and He overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who were selling doves. 13And He *said to them, “It is written: ‘My house will be called a house of prayer’; but you are making it a den of robbers.”
Notice the specificity: He did NOT call them thieves.
They were conducting business, but INSIDE the temple *where* they were not supposed to do that. THAT was the issue.
I am VERY unoriginal in everything Biblical. I don't know enough to claim any authority, but I can read pretty well, and have learned to not read into the text.
To wit:
https://www.catholic.com/audio/tjap/jesus-cleansing-the-temple-why-and-when
There's a Catholic source for you that seems to corroborate my reading.
So . . . Whatcha think?
I think I owe you an apology. I knew most of that, but not the den of robbers terminology.
No apology necessary. Really.
I am always open to learning and, again, I know I'm not an expert or anything like that. But, I am studying earnestly and do not wish to lead anyone astray. I take the admonition that teachers (which I do not consider myself...) Very, very seriously.
If nothing else, take this as an opportunity to reading scripture with fresh eyes. 💚🫂
Hmm. Older translations say "thieves", not "robbers", and both have the same negative connotation. A robber is a subset of thief, focused on stealing from particular places and who uses aggression to get your goods, such as bank robbers and highway robbers. And as opposed to a "burglar" who is a stealthy thief who breaks into buildings. It is rather consequently described, in all retellings of the scene.
[[book:: Bible | Matthew 21:12-17, Mark 11:15-19, Luke 19:45-48, John 2:13-16 | KJV]]
You say that He thought _what_ they were doing was fine, but that He was only angry about _where_ they were doing it, but they were actually notoriously shady characters, at the time, and their transactions were partly illegal and completely usurious.
https://www.ncregister.com/blog/why-jesus-opposed-the-moneychangers-in-the-temple
A. Older English translations that don't use sources corroborated by The Dead Sea scrolls are not, IMO, "good."
B. My contention is not the negative connotation of theif or robber. All translations have a negative word there.
C. I very much refuse to use The Talmud in any discussion since it is utterly, Contemptably disgusting and perverted beyond the pale. (Referring to the article you linked using the Talmud as the source of a supposition regarding what was taking place that brought Jesus to action.)
D. From the article:
Jeremiah 7:6, 9-11 . . . do not oppress the alien, the fatherless or the widow, or shed innocent blood in this place . . . [9] Will you steal, murder, commit adultery, swear falsely, burn incense to Ba’al, and go after other gods that you have not known, [10] and then come and stand before me in this house, which is called by my name, and say, `We are delivered!’ — only to go on doing all these abominations? [11] Has this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your eyes? Behold, I myself have seen it, says the LORD.
Jesus was quoting this passage. Where is the sin of usury mentioned in that passage?
Reading the sin of usury into that passage is a modern affliction. Please ask yourself "what is being robbed?" in the context of the original quote. There you will find your answers to the conundrum. Hint: in this case, it isn't about money.
So, again: no. Just plainly no.
If you want to exercise your imagination, then lets say that the money exchangers were being unlawful, and those selling doves to the poor were exploiting them. What then? Jesus could have chosen a bunch of other quotes to rebuke them as He drove them out. And yet, He didn't. So, again, we must ask ourselves why that is. And the answer (my friends, is blowing in the wind... Sorry... 🤣) revolves around the first part of the above quoted passage. What is being robbed? By whom?
I put forward that this is one of the least understood passages in the NT that I've pondered.