The second chapter of John MacArthur’s The Jesus You Can’t Ignore was a struggle. Not because of his writing. He’s a fine writer of theology. Easy to understand. A clear communicator indeed.
No, the struggle was in the content itself. I believe MacArthur conceived that people who allied with the meek, soft-spoken idea of Jesus would struggle with this revelation that the Lord had a strong hand and strong voice. But, that’s not my struggle here. In chapter 1, he introduced the Sanhedrin, and in particular the Pharisees, with whom Jesus would battle with most throughout the Gospel narratives. At the end of the chapter he wrote,
I think many readers will be surprised to discover that it was Jesus who fired the first shot. And it was a shockingly powerful broadside. (pg. 21)
That first shot fired was discussed in chapter 2. But not immediately. MacArthur inserted a discussion about the childhood of Jesus, or lack thereof within the narratives, and in particular Luke’s account of the 12 year old boy chatting it up with the Pharisees. The story within the context of MacArthur’s book was unnecessary. The chapter could have been a lot shorter. As I continue through the book, will I find more extraneous accounts? It strikes me (as I saw someone else mention) as if sermons were pieced together to create the book.
He went on to the “first shot.” The shot, for MacArthur, was the story of Jesus cleansing the temple toward the beginning of John ii. The same event that he believes is repeated three years later before his arrest and ultimate crucifixion and resurrection.
Now, I’ll be honest: I have not read a lot of MacArthur works prior to this. But, it has been a while since I read an interpretation of this passage in John that either places the cleansing of the temple chronologically at the beginning of Christ’s ministry or presents a case for two cleansing events. The event happened only once, and there are significant reasons for that. The event happened at the end of his ministry years (as recorded in Matthew, Mark, and Luke), and, again, there are significant reasons for that.
This point may not have mattered so much if it wasn’t for the fact that MacArthur very specifically framed his argument—that Jesus was the instigator of the confrontations with the Pharisees—around the timing of the cleansing event. Let’s be clear: he missed it. His point fails because he misinterprets the event and the theological consequences of the cleansing event.
I will give him major props, though. And I hope maybe this can go a long way toward eliminating the very poor argumentation made by Just War or War As Needed supporters citing the cleansing of the temple as proof Jesus advocated the use of violence. Simply, John MacArthur said
It seems unlikely that He inflicted any physical injury on them.. . . There’s no suggestion that He flogged the merchants or money changers.. . .
Jesus’ complete control of the situation was such that no actual riot broke out. There’s no mention of any injury to either man or beast. The most “violent” action described here is the overturning of tables. (pp. 37-38, emphasis mine)
Maybe now I can just say, “Hey. John MacArthur doesn’t think there was any violence in there. And he’s not pacifist.”
Think that will put an end to the objections? Nah. But I can try.
