complete books on Philemon by Larry J. Kreitzer and Harry O. Meir

 Philemon (Readings - by [Larry J. Kreitzer]   embedded below

(University of Oxford, Theology Faculty | Dr Larry Kreitzer)

Amazon Blurb:

This latest volume in the Readings series offers a helpful guide to the shortest, and arguably the most personal, as well as enigmatic, of Paul's letters. It surveys the range of interpretations put forward over the years, and identifies the strengths and weaknesses in the traditional reading of Philemon as addressing the estrangement that has arisen between Paul's friend Philemon and his runaway slave Onesimus. Recent alternatives to this reading are assessed, with particular attention to the light they shed on Paul's own attitude to slavery and his understanding of reconciliation. Historically, the Letter to Philemon has been the focus of much debate between abolitionists and pro-slavery advocates, and the use made of the Letter in the 18th and 19th centuries is here uniquely chronicled. In addition, the story of Onesimus and Philemon, as traditionally conceived, had a great appeal to writers of historical fiction, and a number of examples of that genre are summarized. The book also highlights the way in which Philemon has featured in filmic treatments of Paul's life, including a new and fascinating film in Arabic entitled The Runaway (2006). The volume offers an excellent introduction, not only to the main historical and critical issues raised by Philemon, but also to the rich legacy that the Letter has created for subsequent generations of readers who remain fascinated by the subtlety of its depiction of human relationships.

Note also this from Harry O. Meir (whose commentary on Philemon is also a free read, link at bottom):

The Reception of Philemon in Art and LiteratureThe place of Philemon in the visual arts and literature has been magnificently charted by Larry Kreizer.[81] He takes up the over one dozen fictional treatments of Philemon that have appeared in the last 350 years. His study offers a thorough discussion of the letter in poetry, novels, film, and even Christian video games. Of particular interest are especially evidence of Philemon’s influence on fiction related to debates over slavery, as well as popular uses of the letter in fictional biographies of Paul as well as Philemon and Onesimus themselves. Onesimus the slave occupied nineteenth century abolitionist poets and novelists.[82] At the end of the nineteenth century full-fledged novels dedicated to the lives and relationship of Philemon and Onesimus began to appear, often with a view to a hagiographically inspired reinforcement of moral values of love and compassion.[83] From the 1950s a number of novels in the same genre of romantic historical-fiction also appeared.[84] Several late twentieth-century playwrights also brought Philemon to the stage.[85] Historical fiction also became the means of New Testament scholars to tease out social and cultural questions of communal identity the letter could well have presented to its audience and listeners. Stephen Barton has Philemon pose and Paul answer questions that arise as a result of Paul’s letter.[86] Cinematic versions either dedicated to Philemon or in which the dramatis personae of Philemon and Colossians appear as part of a larger biographical treatment of Paul were produced in the 20^th century as a means of religious education.[87] In 2006 The Runaway, directed by Yassen Esmail Yassen, on behalf of the Arab Vision, an Arab Christian trust, offered a 120 minute dramatization of the Philemon which was later serialized into 12 episodes for television under the title, Onesimus: From Slavery to Freedom.[88] Research will also explore its presence and influence on hymnody, specifically as it relates to celebrations of Christians as freed or as slaves of Christ. In visual represenation there are a number of interesting appearances of Philemon and its characters. Onesimus for example appears as a young man in a ninth-century fresco on  the vault of the Yilanli “Snake” Church in Cappadocia.[89] The depiction of imprisoned Paul writing a letter to Philemon in prison is a favoured topos. From the Medieval period onward another commonplace is the representation of Onesimus returning to Philemon with Paul’s letter, or the reconciliation of Onesimus with his master.[90] “Bible Visuals International” offers a cartoon strip of Philemon to illustrate the many vices of Onesimus who, once converted, becomes a righteous Christian.[91] Most recently, a Christian video game entitled Onesimus: A Quest for Freedom has been created that features Onesimus as a fugitive fleeing from Philemon. The player seeks to lead Onesimus through 30 levels and is rewarded by texts from Paul’s letter that appear on the screen as levels are successfully reached.[92]  

           Link and full commentary

 

---------------------

two more takes on Philemon and Onesimus as literal (half) brothers

In Philemon 16:




no longer    as a slave,
but more than a slave,
                     as a dear brother.
 He is very dear to me
        but even dearer to you,
                    both in the flesh
                    and  in the Lord


Most see
                                                             "brother" as metaphorical 
and    
                                      "slave" as literal.

Others see it exactly the other way around:

                                       "slave" as metaphorical 
and                                        
                                                                     "brother" as literal.

Usually you hear that Onesimus couldn't be both Philemon's literal slave
                                      and                                                         literal brother..
                                                                ...as no one would have their brother
                                                                                                         as a slave..

But what if a wrench/fuzzy set is thrown into all this? A half-brother...and somewhat a slave,,

1)Paul Welton:

There’s an even bigger complication, if that’s possible! Listen again to what Paul writes in verses 15 and 16:

Perhaps this is the reason he [Onesimus] was separated from you for a while, so that you might have him back for ever, no longer as a slave but as more than a slave, a beloved brother—especially to me but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.

“A beloved brother…both in the flesh and in the Lord.” Onesimus was Philemon’s slave; how could he also be his ‘brother in the flesh’?
The most convincing answer to that question is really quite distressing to me. It is this: a slave was the slaveowner’s property, and had to do whatever the owner wanted. That included a slave submitting to the owner’s sexual demands. If the master wanted sex, the slave had no choice but to submit. It is likely that Onesimus was Philemon’s brother in the flesh because while his mother was a slave, Philemon’s father was also his father. In other words, Philemon and Onesimus were most probably half-brothers.
If that is true, they had a complicated relationship. They were master and slave, and shared the same father. One was a person, a citizen; one was property. But now they were brothers in Christ, and Paul wanted Philemon to welcome Onesimus as he would welcome Paul.
Paul wants Philemon to receive Onesimus as a brother, a fellow Christian, and a human being. No longer could Onesimus be merely ‘useful’ property.  link

2)D. Edmond Hiebert (one of the coolest guys I ever met):

:In the flesh Philemon has the brother as a slave, and in the Lord the slave as a brother; how greatly, therefore, must he, in view of the mutual connection and interpenetratiion of the two relations, have him as a beloved brother!" (Meyer)

The reference to Onesismus as Philemon's brother "in the flesh"  has raised the conjecture that Philemon and Onesimus are physically  related, the latter being born of a slave mother, hence having the status of a slave.  But Paul's use of the word "brother" affords no proof of such a natural relationship..

Paul does not say a word against the institution of slavery.  He does not intefere with the civil relationships, but he does deal with the moral and spiritual relationships.  He does not say "no longer a servant," but "no longer as a servant."  He does not make a frontal attack on the inhuman institution; he rather injects the dynamic of Christian love and allows it to transform the conditions of temporal servitude into a holy brotherhood.  It was this principle which effected the eventual abolition of slavery as a legal institution
p, 116, Titus and Philemon, emphasis mine

Related:

Philemon: alternative interpretations

Philemon and Onesimus as literal brothers

 

"There’s Something Heartbreaking About an Old Brassiere"

Yes, it's a safe click(:

and a great post by a genius friend of mine:

There’s Something Heartbreaking About an Old Brassiere

Washington Post article on Nadia Bolz-Weber

photo credit

It has a great slideshow (here),
but it's not a fantastic article:Bolz-Weber’s liberal, foulmouthed articulation of Christianity speaks to fed-up believers
..and (inevitably) as Happy has noted, 
                                                                                   bad comments.

Amazingly, it never directly mentions that Nadia Bolz-Weber (the Sarcastic Luthersn) was a stand-up comic; that would help to know when interpreting comments like these without video/context:

I never experience God in camping or trees or nature. I hate nature,” she told the Austin crowd as she paced the stage. “God invented takeout and duvets for a reason.

But here are two excerpts I'll note..

1)I love the description of the flow of the gatherings at her church:

Seating is arranged around an unelevated circle, lay people can pick up a card and help run the service, and sermons by Bolz-Weber are usually 12 minutes tops. Singing is all a capella and every service has a creative, congregant-run, interactive program.

Isn't every church like that?(:

2)Helpful to join the struggle as she becomes a celebrity:

“It was awful,” Bolz-Weber writes. It seemed as if her “precious little indie boutique of a church” might be overrun by bankers and doctors. She called her pastor friends to ask, “Have you ever had normal people take over your church?”

These days, about 180 people show up each Sunday, an eclectic mix of homeless and corporate types, punk teens and suburban baby boomers sitting on stacking chairs in the rented hall. Bolz-Weber’s growing popularity has forced the questions: How deeply into convention can she stand going? Can she stomach the idea of hiring staff? Of being mega?
The congregation is “becoming big and it’s freaking her out, because that’s not her gift,” said Harotunian. “It gets to her identity — what kind of pastor does she want to be? A lot of people think she’s going to climb the ladder. but I don’t think she can do that. It’s very precarious.”

Structure of Matthew's Gospel: not too much Bacon, and some crazy charts

photo credit

I have been  intrigued (summoned?) by the structure of Matthew's gospel ever since I took a class from the master; the man who wrote the book on it (No, not THAT Master, I mean David Bauer of Asbury Seminary, his book The Structure of Matthew's Gospel: A Study in Literary Design  is still  the benchmark)..

Basically, I like his take  (inspired by his teacher,

Jack Dean Kingsbury ) on the 1:23 and

2 28:20 inclusio as being the key

 template (I hate what Leonard 

Sweet calls "alien templates"(see

 "the greatest song ever sung"), 

 It literally keeps the Kingdom central

(see this and this, 

and I believe it

 sets the famous five teaching

 blocks in perspective.  It is too

 tempting too read too much

Bacon into the gospel..

Here's an excerpt of a helpful article,  giving an overview...and since you asked, explaining the bacon reference:

Matthew follows the broad ‘geographical’ layout of Mark, which is really the fundamental structure of each of the Synoptic Gospels:

1. Prologue: Introducing Jesus (1:1 – 4:11, cf. Mark 1:1-15)

1. Jesus’ Journeys through Galilee, Neighbouring Regions and to Jerusalem (4:12 – 20:34, cf. Mark 1:16 – 10:52).

1. Jesus’ Ministry in Jerusalem (21:1 – 25:46, cf. Mark 11:1 – 13:37)

1. Jesus’ Passion and Resurrection (26:1 – 28:20, cf. Mark 14:1 – 16:8)

However, Matthew is distinctive in alternating large blocks of discourse and narrative material. Each discourse is concluded with a similar formula, which acts as a literary link and gives continuity to the whole (a variation of καὶ ἐγένετο ͑ότε ἐτέλεσεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς τοὺς λόγους τούτους at 7:28, 11:1, 13:53, 19:1 and 26:1).

Bacon gave the classical presentation of the theory that the five-fold formula concluding the discourses marked the conclusion also of five major sections of the work, so that the whole Gospel constituted ‘The Five Books of Matthew Against the Jews’.[1] He went so far as to suggest that the Evangelist was a converted Rabbi—a Christian legalist—who, as a member of a church threatened by lawlessness, met this heresy by providing a systematic collection of the words and deeds of Jesus in five parts,after the fashion of the Mosaic Pentateuch.  His structure was:

The Preamble (1 – 2)
Book I        Concerning Discipleshipa. Introductory narrative, 3-4
b. Discourse, 5-7
Book II        Concerning Apostleshipa. Introductory narrative, 8:1 – 9:35
b. Discourse, 9:36 – 10:42
Book III        Concerning the Hiding of the Revelationa. Israel is stumbled, 11-12
b. Teaching parables, 13:1-53
Book IV        Concerning Church Administrationa. Jesus and the brotherhood, 14:1 – 17:21
b. Discourse, 17:22 – 18:35
Book V        Concerning the Judgementa.        Jesus in Judea, 19-22
b.        Discourse, 23-25

The influence of Bacon’s hypothesis on Matthean studies has been immense, leading some to conclude that the Gospel was structured to provide a lectionary for church services (Kilpatrick, 1946), or a manual for teaching and administration in the church (Stendahl 1968), or to convey sermons mediated by the risen Jesus (Marxsen 1968).

However, while agreeing with the notion of a five-fold structure, many have argued that there are reasons for doubting that this Gospel was meant to be a new Pentateuch, a counterpart to the five books of Moses.[2] Kingsbury argues as follows:

a. It is inadequate to designate the birth narratives as ‘preamble’ and the death-resurrection narratives as ‘epilogue’—they are much more central to Matthew’s presentation than that.

b. There may be six discourses (if we note the change of setting between ch. 23 and chs. 24-25).[3]

c. How real is the similarity to the Pentateuch in contents and structure?

d. If there is a ‘new Moses’ typology, it is ‘not so dominant a trait as to render Bacon’s proposal credible.’

For all that, the formula ‘when Jesus finished these sayings’ is significant literarily —indicating the end of five particular discourses and the beginning of narrative sections—and theologically—indicating that Jesus is the one who presents these discourses and that they have the status of divine revelation. They seem to indicate significant stages in the ‘history’ of Jesus, as Matthew presents it.

Kingsbury has taken a new approach to the structure of Matthew by focusing on its Christology and arguing that any attempt to describe the document as liturgical, apologetic, catechetical, or didactic, does not do justice to Matthew’s own summary of the contents of his work as ‘the gospel of the Kingdom’ (26:13; 24:14 cf. also 4:23; 9:35).

In response to this it should be noted that:
a. These verses do not refer to Matthew’s work per se, but to the content of Jesus’ preaching.b. But Kingsbury rightly re-emphasizes the gospel nature of Matthew, both with respect to structure and contents.With regard to structure, Kingsbury observes the structural significance of the formula ἀπὸ τότε ͗ήρξατο ὁ Ἰησοῦς. At 4:17, Jesus is shown from that time on publicly presenting himself to Israel and ‘summoning it to the Kingdom of heaven’. At 16:21, after the rejection of Jesus by so many in Israel, comes the revelation to disciples that it is God’s will that he go to Jerusalem to suffer, to the and be raised.Thus, Kingsbury argues that Matthew broadly divides as follows:

The Person of Jesus Messiah (1:1 – 4:16)The Proclamation of Jesus Messiah (4:17 – 16:20)The Suffering, Death and Resurrection of Jesus Messiah (16:21 – 28:20)

With regard to content, Kingsbury argues that:

a. Of all the titles given to Jesus in the first main section 1:1 – 4:16, the most important one is Son of God.  Matthew permits that title to ‘surpass all others’ (Son of Abraham, Son of David, Servant-Messiah, King of the Jews).

b. In the second main section (4:17 – 16:20), the presentation is controlled by the central thought expressed in 4:17. Jesus publicly presents himself to Israel and summons it to the Kingdom (offering salvation in word and deed). But rejection by Israel leads to more and more concentration on ministry to disciples.

c. In the third main section (16:21 – 28:20) the focus is on the necessity for Jesus’ death and its consequences: ‘because Israel rejects him, the direction the ministry of Jesus Messiah, the Son of God, takes is toward death (16:21).’

d. Son of God is ‘the one christological predication that extends to every phase of the “life” of Jesus: conception, birth and infancy; baptism and temptation; public ministry; death; and resurrection and exaltation’ in this Gospel. This christological title expresses for Matthew ‘the deepest mystery of the person of Jesus Messiah’; it represents ‘the most exalted confession of his Christian community’ and ‘can be uttered by people only by ‘revelation of God’ if such utterance is not to be accounted as blasphemy’ (Kingsbury, 82).[4]With regard to the purpose of Matthew, Kingsbury argues that: ‘regardless of the weighty ecclesiological concerns that surface in the Gospel, it is primarily a christological document and has as its central purpose to inform the members of Matthew’s community against their present situation, of Jesus Messiah and of his relationship to the Father and of what it means to be his disciple’ (962).In response to Kingsbury it should be noted that he rightly re-emphasizes the gospel character of Matthew—a document designed to proclaim the ultimate significance of the person, ministry and death and resurrection of Jesus Messiah for all people, whether Israelite or Gentile.

Although he asserts that the document has the members of a particular community specifically in view, he tends to undervalue the apologetic and catechetical characteristics of Matthew.[5] Luke-Acts appears to have been written for the edification of believers, but also to help them in their apologetic-evangelistic engagement with unbelievers in the Greco-Roman world.  Matthew could have the same aim, but with particular reference to the world of Judaism.

Kingsbury’s outline breaks up the prime Peter passage in an unacceptable way (cf. Carson on 16:13-16), and at both transitionsMatthew may have been more influenced by the order of Mark than by ‘structural’ considerations. Furthermore, his topical headings are artificial: e.g. ‘the person of Jesus’ is still a focal point in Sections 2 and 3 and ‘the proclamation of Jesus’ cannot rightly be restricted to section 2. (Carson, 50).

Combrink 1983, 70-3, combines the insights of Bacon and Kingsbury to propose a structure in which narrative and discourse are sometimes combined.  LINK

See also a PDF of Wren's The Macrostructure of Matthew’s Gospel: A New Proposal here.

Some of these literary structures I once charted out are based on Bauer, some on the outlines of others.

Have fun trying to figure out everything I mean:

Though it can be seen as (also) the other way, I think seeing the sections preceding the five teaching blocks

as embedding/previewing their themes has merit:

An internal inclusio:

Twice, Matthew makes almost identical statements, which might lead us to draw an inclusio around them:

And he went throughout all Galilee,
teaching            in their synagogues and
preaching         the gospel of the kingdom and
healing             every disease and every affliction among the people. 
(Matt. 4:23)


AND

And Jesus went through all the towns and villages,
teaching            in their synagogues,
preaching          the good news of the kingdom and
healing              every disease and sickness.  
(Matt 9:35)

Maybe Jesus only did three things in this section.
 Q Who is Jesus in Matthew?  
               The one who teaches, preaches and heals.



Since this threefold ministry is so intentionally signaled, might it not mean that in other places in Matthew
that when one or two of the three is mentioned, the third is implied, hidden somewhere, or conspicuous by its absence?

How about 11:1?:

"After Jesus had finished instructing his twelve disciples, he went on from there to
teach and

preach

in the towns of Galilee "

Where is the healing?
-
How about  15: 29-30:
Jesus left there and went along the Sea of Galilee. Then he
went up on a mountainside and sat down (implies teaching ).
Great crowds came to him (so now you expect to see him teaching, but he is healing instead...or is healing a firm of teaching here?)
bringing the lame, the blind, the crippled, the mute and many others, and laid them at his feet; and he healed them.
--

For some helpful commentary on the "literary world" (Hauer and Young) implications of Jesus' three activities...

teaching
preaching    
healing 

.....click to read these sections of David Bauer's commentary.
--------
One writer comments:

• These three activities were his chief occupations in public ministry. Think of what Jesus did:
• He was teaching in their synagogues. What was a synagogue service like? We have some insight in two New Testament passages: Luke 4:16-21, where Jesus began to teach about his own ministry. We also have Acts 13:15ff, where Paul used the invitation to speak as an opportunity to preach the gospel based upon the history of Israel. In the service, a reading from the Law and the Prophets, which followed prayers, would be followed by a distinguished Rabbi, either resident or visiting, being invited to teach concerning a point of the Law or the Prophets. He would read a text and explain and apply it. This is what Jesus evidently did. And the traditions of the synagogue required that the teacher be attractive in his appearance and presentation, as well as intelligent and godly. Interestingly enough, such a teacher did not have to be ordained. And his message was to be tactful and not too personal. That Jesus taught often in the synagogues of the land, tells us that he was a welcome teacher and respected. No wonder he was referred to as "Rabbi."
• The text tells us that he also was actively preaching the Gospel/good news of the Kingdom. You are of course aware that the word, gospel, means good news. And the substance of the gospel is given in verse 22, to wit that the Kingdom of Heaven was near. It is referred to elsewhere as the gospel of peace (Rom 10:15), the gospel of Jesus Christ (2 Cor 9:13), and its message was simply that the Kingdom of Heaven had come. To the Jews this would be good news, as it would mean that the Lord was announcing the reign of Messiah (Isa 9:6,7) and peace between Himself and Israel (Isa 52:7). God had come to rule and thus to show his love and concern for his people. And that is the essence of the gospel.
• We want to be careful not to distinguish too closely between teaching and preaching, though, because he did both at the same time, cf. the next three chapters. Teaching would emphasize a systematic presentation of the truth. Preaching or proclamation would emphasize declaration of the truth, as opposed to giving a systematic presentation of it. In his teaching he gave the details of what the Kingdom of Heaven is like.
• Finally, and this is what usually catches our attention most in this passage, he healedthe sick. The text says, he healed (literally) all chronic diseases and all occasional sicknesses among the people. The word, all, would place him in different category from other healers that were also going about the land. Perhaps the word would best be translated as the NIV does, every, because not all in the nation were healed. These other healers did not heal every case. They had their successes and their failures, but Jesus healed every disease he came into contact with, with no failures. The question needs to be asked, though, why? ..
• Notice how these three ministries are tied together. What ties them together is the Kingdom of Heaven. The public teaching of Jesus focused upon the grace of God in coming to rule over his people and show his love and concern for them as their King. The healings were a tangible, easy to understand demonstration of the truth and power of the Kingdom. Jesus did not simply heal for the sake of making people feel better or improve their quality of life. Rather, those who were healed had an obligation to worship and serve the Lord, even to repent-cf. John 5:1-14. That is why, when Jesus preached he proclaimed the message that he did, Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is near. This is an important point, one that is missed by some in the healing movement in Pentecostal Church circles. We are mistaken if we separate healing from the gospel's message and focus on it or any other miraculous part of the gospel instead of on the Kingdom of God.  -Link

---
Titles

 some  titles really kick in in this chapters 8-10 section: Son of Man and Son of God particularly.   It would seem obvious that these two titles are opposite in meaning: Jesus as human and God, respectively....but a study of the literary/historical world reveals that "Son of Man" was often used as a messianic connotations (and in a sense could mean "God"..see especially Daniel 7:

NT Wright 

Check out this chart ,and note re: each title:

• where in the gospel 
• how often  
• and on whose lips
• where they cluster
• inclusios etc.

click chart(and then click again once on a new page) to enlarge

-Son of God                         (7x..or 8, if you count 3:17)

-Son of the Living God         (once, hmm)

-Son of Man                         (29x.....and all by one person!)

-Son of David                      (9x)

>>Click to read the context of each time each title occurs:

• Son of God
• Son of the Living God
• Son of Man
• Son of David
• Son of Abraham
• Son of Adam

To get more info on the titles, and a sense of how they are used in other biblical books, see this.

More?  see posts tagged "structure of matthew" below

Kraybill on Jesus' upside-down fumigating of the temple

Due to Kraybill's "The Upside Down Kingdom" being (for now) readable online and Google-able  here on ISSUU (along with several theological book en espanol here),  it is nice to be able post the key sections on the temple tantrum here in one place. (see what you think about this publishing model here).
Note: a previous edition of the book is complete  and downloadable here on Scribd..

1)Page 53:

Purging the temple of moneychangers wasn't a mandate for violence..Had a major riot erupted the 600 Roman soldiers in Fort Antonia, overlooking the temple, would have quickly intervened. The temple drama was a prophetic  condemnation of profiteering by money and a sign that the temple should be opened for Gentile worship The prophetic Word--not action--stood at the center of the temple purge  

2)In a section "Fumigating the Temple,"  that is pp 150-152 in the current edition, here is the text in the older edition (161-63):

(Scribd: the upside-down kingdom)  

3)Page 202:

The Gentile vision  flashes through the Gospels in other places as well.  Jesus sends out seventy missionaries, a number symbolizing the wholeness and completeness of his mission (luke 10:1)  He instructs the disciples to be light and salt, not just within Judaism but in the whole world (Matt. 5:13-14.  He chases the money changers from the temple's outer court so it can be a house of prayer for all nations (Mark 11:17) Jesus' earthly sojourn begins and ends in “Galilee of the Gentiles” where his  disciples receive a final mandate to go and make disciples of all nations (Matt. 28:19)

4) page 275 footnote 15:

Kelber expands the traditional interpretation that the temple  cleansing was done primarily to open up the outer court to the Gentiles.   He also suggests that the prohibition to carry vessels had more religious significance than stopping people who were taking a shortcut through the temple.  Sanders contends that the temple incident was not merrly chasing out moneychangers  or“cleansing” the temple for the purpose of restoring it to routine operation.  It was rather a defiant public act directed against the temple itself, and it was and it was this provocative act that more than any other led to Jesus' death.  Myers argues that the temple was fundamentally an economic institution  and sees Jesus taking symbolic direct action against the temple operation.

Here below is the current edition embedded:

anabaptist readings in the temple cleansing

Tim Foley, from A Stubborn Misinterpretation: Jesus and the Whip:

Perhaps the most common objection to the claim that Jesus rejected violence is the story of Jesus cleansing the temple (Matt. 21:12-17 and parallels). The last time I heard a sermon from that passage I was treated to a drama which portrayed Jesus not only whipping people, but kicking and punching them as well. This makes for exciting preaching, but is it an accurate picture of what really happened in the temple? If it is, how does this fit in with the otherwise nonviolent picture of Jesus?
The temple-cleansing incident seems to persist in popular Christian folklore as an example of acceptable violence by Jesus. Bruce Milne comments that John 2 "has been frequently used as evidence of Jesus' support for the use of physical and military force to liberate the victims of oppressive political structures".¹ One example of this can be found in the book Unyoung, Uncoloured, Unpoor by Colin Morris. He supports S. G. F. Brandon's thesis that Jesus actually condoned the use of violence, but the early church whitewashed this in order to save their own skins. This thesis suffers from the old problem of assuming what it tries to prove² and has been discredited as an accurate picture of Jesus.³

Little comment from Anabaptists
It is surprising that Anabaptist sources scarcely refer to the temple demonstration (I consulted only English translations). Menno Simons, Dirk Philips, Pilgrim Marpeck, Balthasar Hubmaier and Conrad Grebel do not mention it, although there is a reference in The Chronicle of the Hutterian Brethren where it is used to support community: "Christ does not want any trading of goods in his house; he wants Christian community. This buying and selling is a sign by which one shall recognise the false church, discerning the evil that Christ drove out on two occasions with a good whip."⁴ Thomas Muntzer refers to the incident as an example of the "sternness of Christ" as he faces the roots of idolatry.⁵ However Muntzer used the story in a sermon which invited his hearers to help the godly destroy the wicked and establish the kingdom of God on earth. This interpretation would not have been supported by the majority of Anabaptists and was used at a time when his movement was passing into its violent phase.

..it may have been that the Anabaptists paid little attention to the temple demonstration simply because they did not understand it, but knew that it could not teach a discipleship of violence. Stuart Murray points out that the failure to acknowledge difficulties in Scripture seemed to be a feature of hermeneutics both for the Anabaptists and the Reformers,⁹ but perhaps the availability today of other sources can shed some light. A brilliant example of this is found in the writings of Richard Bauckham, who interprets the action of Jesus as a prophetic act of protest against economic exploitation in the temple courts.¹⁰ He argues convincingly that the priestly aristocracy were plundering the people of God, particularly the poor. In so doing they represented God not as a Father who provides, but as a King like any other who demands tax. Bauckham uses Matthew 17:24-27 (Jesus' conversation with Peter about the temple tax) as background for the temple-cleansing to show Jesus' opposition to the temple tax (which was presented by Jerusalem religious authorities as theocratic taxation). In Matthew 17 Jesus gives the father-son relationship precedence over the king-subject relationship for the children of God. The sons are exempt, and "God does not rule his people in the way that earthly kings do".¹¹ God does not treat them as subjects who owe him taxes, but rather he provides for them. Even today in the local church the Old Testament concept of the tithe is often used to persuade people into a strict ten percent giving, under a thinly veiled threat of "robbing God" (Mal. 3:9). This is not a Jesus-centred handling of the Old' Testament, and only results in the well-off keeping more than they need and the poor giving away more than they can afford - all in the name of God's rule over his people, just as with the temple tax.

A social justice reading of the temple episode

The connection between Matthew 17 and the temple demonstration is clearly seen when Jesus overturns the tables of the moneychangers. By doing this he "attacked the most visible manifestation of the tax operations", and so directly criticised the very existence of the tax and aimed it at the highest level of the economic hierarchy - the priestly aristocracy - who claimed to operate in the name of God himself. Bauckham's thesis is strengthened by the reference to the selling of doves. He uses a variety of Jewish sources to show that the temple treasury had a monopoly on the selling of doves because of the strict requirements on fitness and rearing which they imposed. This probably created a monopoly where the treasury could charge prices as high as it liked, making the most common sacrifice of the poor a burden to them in the same way as the tax itself. The idea is not that Jesus objected to the sacrificial system, but rather sought to fulfill its real purpose: "The scandal of the temple trade in these days was that the laws specifically intended to make worship possible for the poor were being so applied as to make them a financial burden on the poor." Bauckham uses the sources to make a similar case for the "merchandise" being carried through the temple courts, which were probably vessels used to deliver the other materials used in offerings (flour, oil, wine) which were also monopolised by the treasury.¹²

When Jesus drove out those buying and selling in the temple courts, it is reasonable to interpret his actions with reference to the commercial transactions of the temple, rather than the worshippers themselves. Those selling were not necessarily profit-keeping themselves, but were the custodians of a vast economic enterprise with huge reserves of money which made the temple comparable to a bank. This made the temple an important employer and resource for Jerusalem, but one with little benefit for the many Jews outside the city. Tom Wright tells us of the temple that "its importance at every level can hardly be overestimated."¹³ This was the place where God lived, ruled and restored Israel by grace through the sacrificial system so that she could continue to be his people. The temple also combined in itself the functions of national figurehead, government and financial institution. Wright points out that it occupied around one quarter of Jerusalem city, symbolising its central place for every aspect of existence for the Jew. Thus at the very heart of Jewish life God was being misrepresented and his real relation to his people obscured, obstructing the very purpose of the temple and its worship. It seems most likely then that it was commercialism rather than corruption that provoked the prophetic demonstration of Jesus.

Alan Kreider notes a second purpose in the protest of Jesus, to do with the location of the transactions. That the place of worship for the outsider (the Court of the Gentiles) was taken over by commercialism was a powerful illustration of Jewish nationalism and exclusivism which by this time probably pervaded Israel. Jesus demonstrates that the purpose of God was to include the outsider, "The enemies were to be loved, the nations were to be brought in."¹⁴.....

...James Dunn is broadly representative of New Testament scholarship when he concludes that Jesus was not a violent revolutionary: ". . . we can be fairly confident that the revolutionary option was open to Jesus in one form or another.
But it is also sufficiently clear that Jesus did not commend or accept that option."¹⁹ Jesus did not condone violence, either by example or by words, and so his disciples are called to follow him in this area as in every other. This is both a crucial demonstration of God's active presence in the world, and a precious realisation of our status as peacemaking children of God (Matt. 5:9, 45). Tim Foley