What kind of whip was jesus

What is the purpose of a whip? Look at the history and function of whips. Whips were primarily used for driving animals. How else are you going to get livestock out of the temple? People want to say that Jesus talked to the animals and whipped the people?

Why would Jesus whip the people out? Do people believe that Jesus overpowered the crowd in the temple by his physical strength? It was his authority. If someone was willing to resist his words, surely they could resist a whip. He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street.

A bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench: he shall bring forth judgment unto truth. For many bare false witness against him, but their witness agreed not together.

If he had caused them any injury, it would have easy to find plenty of agreement on that point. If he somehow beat them without injury, then why do people use this text to justify hurting and killing humans?

Jesus cleaning the temple was a miracle. Since archeologists have chairs from that time we know no one could take a cord or cords and use it or them as a whip. Only the son of God could have upset those tables by himself. I think this is something that needs to be considered.

Jesus may not have directly whipped a human but the people knew he meant business. Otherwise they would not have stood around and watched as he turned over their money tables and scattered their fortunes. I believe that they felt the threat of violence.

In addition, to use the NIV as a technically precise translation in order to explain what took place is a little sketchy. The NIV is not a precise, word for word translation. Well, my comment, to my interpretation is two fold—I believe Jesus was inflamed by the thinking of a bleating lamb torn from his hysterical mother was gods way of forgiving sins. Also the priest were totally exploiting the people as ruling bodies usually do.

Now and then. One must also remember just how a whip is used. It is not necessary to actually hit an animal with it to drive them. Accustomed to the sound, they will usually begin running if one simply cracks it. Religion that denies self defense by whatever means necessary is perversion, divorce from instinct and God. You are commenting using your WordPress. You are commenting using your Google account.

You are commenting using your Twitter account. You are commenting using your Facebook account. Notify me of new comments via email. Notify me of new posts via email. Email Address:. RSS - Posts. RSS - Comments. Blog at WordPress. Skip to navigation Skip to main content Skip to primary sidebar Skip to secondary sidebar Skip to footer life. But which reading is correct? At this point we need our Greek. Thus the sentence could read either: …he drove all out of the temple, and the sheep and the oxen… or: …he drove all out of the temple, both the sheep and the oxen… The first option makes more sense of the fact that pantas is in the masculine gender so Morris, Witherington and the majority of modern Western scholars.

Dodd has argued. All things considered, however, I am far more convinced by the reading: …and making a whip out of cords he drove all out of the temple, both the sheep and the cattle and he poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned the tables… This would leave Jesus free from violent action, a picture far more consistent with his other teachings, such as Matthew Like this: Like Loading Leave a comment Trackbacks 1 Comments Josh Isaac June 22, at am.

Matt Anslow June 23, at pm. Hi Josh, Good to hear from you. How is the land of the Kiwi? Josh Isaac June 25, at am. Tabitha September 11, at pm. Before Christ was sent to be crucified, the Roman soldiers beat Him with this lead-tipped whip, called a flagrum or sometimes a flagellum. On studying the Shroud of Turin, scientists have determined that the flagrum used to whip Our Lord consisted of three seperate thongs, each ending in a set of two lead balls.

These roughly shaped balls added weight to the beating, but also would tear the flesh of the victim. It was clear to him, and he reasoned it should be clear to the crowd, that this pitiable object before them could not be taken seriously as a king.

Scourging was a brutal punishment, but it was standard practice before a crucifixion. The whip, the flagellum, had several thongs, each one of which had pieces of bone or metal attached. The Man of Sorrows, Pedro de Mena, , carved wooden statue with painted surface.

The person to be whipped was stripped of his clothing, tied to a post or pillar, and beaten until his flesh hung in shreds.

There was no maximum number of strokes: the whipping could go on as long as the soldier administering it wished. Men frequently collapsed and died as the result of a flogging. The Jewish historian Josephus says with some pride that he had whipped rebels in Galilee until their entrails showed. The following passage is interesting because it shows what Pilate may have intended when he had Jesus scourged:. In the meantime the multitude stood around the house and supposed that he was having a long discourse with those that were gone in, about what they claimed of him.

He then had the doors set open immediately, and sent the men out all bloody, which so terrified those that had before threatened him, that they threw away their arms and ran away. Some punishments were inflicted on the naked body and were more painful and humiliating than others.

As early as the fifth century BCE sources show that traitors, magicians and people who committed unique crimes, such as patricide, treason, and the violation of Vestal virgins, were flogged to death. Even in the military the rod could be used only when the soldiers did not hold citizenship.

This rule also applied to Judea. When Paul was order bound with straps by the tribune in Jerusalem for the apostle to be interrogated under the scourge, Paul objected on the grounds of his Roman citizenship and was freed. Because of its brutality flagellation was feared: it produced deep wounds and could even lead to death. Unlike Jewish law, which had a maximum of forty lashes, Roman law did not provide for limits. He also confirms that scourging was a prelude to crucifixion.

But intensity of the scourging of Jesus is unknown. The gospels dedicate almost nothing to this event and some claim it was not even significant enough to be described.

And yet despite the scarcity of information, modern commentaries on the Passion and Biblical dictionaries provide a detailed description of the scourge, and even drawings. But interest in the scourge itself has not abated. In Vincent Ferrer suggested Jesus was scourged with switches of thorns and brambles, then by whips with spiked tips, and finally by chains with hooks at the ends.

The belief that these three types of scourges were used became widespread but there is no evidence that these really existed in ancient Rome at the time of Jesus. The Shroud of Turin was critical. It bears the image of a tortured man whose lacerations clearly resemble those the crucified Jesus would have had.

From the sixteenth century onward various authors sharing the belief that the Shroud belonged to Jesus of Nazareth have tried to identify the shape of the scourge from the shape of those marks. This gave rise to a search for an artifact that could have caused wounds.

The first printed book dedicated to the marks on the Shroud of Turin dates to and was written by Alfonso Paleotti, archbishop of Bologna.