#STRask - Did Jesus Prove He Wasn’t Sinless When He Overturned the Tables?

Episode Date: December 29, 2025

Questions about whether Jesus proved he wasn’t sinless when he overturned the tables, whether Jesus’ response to the Pharisees in Mark 3:22–26 was a bad argument, why Jesus was known for associating with sinners, and to what extent we should follow his example.   How would you respond to someone who said Jesus lacked self-control, got angry, and had a violent temper tantrum when he overturned the tables in Matthew 21:12–13, proving he wasn’t sinless? Is Jesus’ response to the Pharisees in Mark 3:22–26 a bad argument? Why was Jesus known for associating with sinners, and to what extent should Christians follow his example?

Welcome to the last hashtag STR Ask podcast of the year. Oh, my goodness. We made it all the way to the end, Greg. We did. Congratulations, Amy. All right. We're going to start with a question from Abby. Okay.

Witnessing about Jesus being sinless. response from school principal was that Jesus lacked self-control, got angry, and chucked a violent temper tantrum when he overthrew the tables in Matthew 21, 12, and 13. I tried to explain he had a right to act, but they just insisted throwing tables rules out sinlessness. What kind of, what teacher is that? She says that was the response from the school principal. Oh, public school. I would assume. It sounds like that to me.

Well, just advanced notice, a person like that's not going to be persuaded by any argument, okay, because they don't have a charitable attitude to begin with. So, shooting a person in the head with a bullet, is that wrong or not? I can't answer that, great. Well, the reason you can't answer is because you don't have context. Right. Okay. Probably the immediate response would be, of course, that's bad. Well, wait a minute.

What if you are shooting somebody who's killing a bunch of people? other people with their own weapon in a schoolyard, for example, and we've had plenty of instances like that, and you happen to be armed and used to that person ahead, and that's it. That's the end of it. By the way, that happened in a church, what, two years ago, you know, a guy came in and wasted a couple of people, and then finally, one of the security guards armed, a former police officer, took one, finally got a clear shot, took him out by shooting him in the head. So, in some circumstances, shooting somebody in the head is not wrong. It's the right thing to do. It's appropriate. So you need context. And in this particular case, when you read the account in, what is it, Matthew 21, is that

it? Yeah. And Jesus entered the temple, verse 12 and following, drove out all those who were buying and selling in the temple, overturned the tables of the money changers, and the seats of those who are selling doves. Now, it's interesting here. Notice it says, of the money changers. What a money changer is is like a combio, you know, like a, you see the sign in the airport. That's where you go change money. So if you have one kind of currency, you have to change it into another kind of currency. And my understanding is, and I can't give you a footnote on this, is that what was going on in part was a distortion or extortion that there were exorbitant fees that were being charged for the exchange of money. When people are

coming for the Holy Days, and they're going to pay for their sacrificial animal, and the current, the local currency has to have to change from some foreign currency, and they're getting ripped off. They're getting ripped off right there in the temple, and I think this was in the court of the Gentiles, too, and so this was what the Gentiles were experiencing when they're coming to worship the God of the Jews. They're getting stolen from. And this infuriated Jesus.

Now, those are more details, all right. And like I said, I can't footnote that, but this, my recollection from my own studies, is that was one of the factors here. And then verse 13, and he said to them, it is written, my house shall be called a house of prayer, but you are making it a robber's den. So it wasn't just a matter of selling stuff. They were stealing. And so I think that is this the place where it says zeal for the father's house will consume you?

There's a, or maybe that's a different one. But in any event, so now you get the background a little bit. And the background seems to indicate, just like in many other circumstances, an act taken in isolation, would seem to be bad or wrong. When you see the background, what you don't have is a temper tantrum. Notice the uncharitable way that the principal or whatever at the school has characterized Jesus' actions. I do think that that phrase zeal for thy father's house, his father's house has consumed him or something to that effect, applied to the cleansing of the temple. That's as I recollected. But in any event, and if that's the case, that means that the text is identifying a zeal for God.

and God's holiness, and the way God is characterized to Gentiles by the Jews, and not as a hissy fit. So you could stand back and characterize it in the most in uncharitable terms, but that doesn't mean that it's wrong. It wasn't a temper tantrum. He was destroying a illicit enterprise that was passing off as religion. You know, I bet you, one could imagine maybe a parallel in modern religious enterprises where there is clear, there are charlatans that are ripping people off, all right, and nonbelievers will look at that, see that guy's passing as a Christian, look at these, he's stealing from people essentially, he's ripping them off, what a charlatan. And so had somebody gone in and busted that whole enterprise up, that same person aware of those details would have said, well, they should have busted that up. Oh, those religious people are always trying to take your money from it. And then would have seen it in a positive light, not as a temper tantrum. So one has to look at the details of what's going on there.

And Jesus' character was impeccable. So to accuse him here, when his character is impeccable in so many ways, And he could even say, who accuses me of sin to those who are opposing him, why would we then take this and uncharitably say, well, look at he's sitting here? Instead of thinking, well, maybe he's not sitting here. Maybe he had an appropriate reason to do what he did. And when you read the Matthew passage, we see money changers and den of robbers instead of a religious place where a holy enterprise was supposed to be taking place. You know, Greg, you touched exactly on what my thought was. A lot of people who object to Christianity, one of the big things they always bring up is how they think pastors just want to take your money. They just want to cheat you out of your money. They just want to get you to give them money. That's a huge problem. So I would wonder if this principle has an issue with that. So maybe what you could do, because I agree, Greg, one of the things I have written down here is do you want an answer for them, or do you want an explanation for yourself?

That's good. That's good. I think those are two different things. Because as you said, I think if you're going to read this uncharitably, a lot of times people will just insist on continuing to do that no matter how you explain. But you could say, oh, you're okay with people who, with pastors who go and like try and take people's money, and that's what they're just hypocrites, that's all they want. That's all they want is people's money. You're okay with that?

Yeah. I don't, that doesn't make sense to me. Yeah. Because think about it. If that is a huge issue now, something that, you know, leaving aside whether or not it's a fair characterization, I don't think most pastors are trying to get people's money. No, my brother, it's a pastor 35 years. He is poor as a church mouse. So leaving that aside, if someone is caught doing that, what that does to God's reputation is terrible.

So what you're doing is not only are you completely blaspheming God by using him to try and get people's money, but you're also turning people away from him. You're making it harder to reach him. You're making people assume that it's all bunk. You're causing great damage to the one thing that will bring people peace and joy and reconciliation with God. You're turning people away from. from the one place that they need to be in order to find God. And you're making God look bad. These are hugely terrible, terrible things. And again, we see the evidence of that because we see people complain about that all the time. So I guess I would just say I would ask him if he's okay with that. And then if he's not okay with that, then maybe you could just say, well, it seems to me that if people like that bring God into disrepute, that is a terrible, terrible thing that Jesus would have wanted to

stop if you really cared about people finding God. Right. I guess that's the simplest way I could explain it. Yeah, that's lastly done. And notice the point in the text, you're making it a robber's den. See, that's the complaint. That's the complaint. There's a serious fault that's going on here.

Yeah. And if they don't like the turning over the tables, wait till they find out about revelation. Turns the whole world over. And this is where it comes back to your explanation, Greg, of how the context matters. If Jesus is going to judge the world and it's going to involve some punishment and violence. And we see that in revelation. So it's not something that's that's unexpected. or wrong. Justice is a good thing. And removing the people that bring God into disrepute, that is

also a good thing. Okay, Greg, we're going to go on to another objection to Jesus here. This one comes from James. Is Jesus response to the Pharisees in Mark 322 through 26 a bad argument? Couldn't Satan strategically make it look like an exorcism was taking place in order to deceive people without his house being divided. Am I misunderstanding Jesus' point? Well... Maybe we should read through it first. Yeah, okay. This is in Mark 3, and what was the verse again? 22 through 26.

All right. Scribes who came down for Jerusalem were saying, he is possessed, Jesus is possessed by Bielasible, and he cast out the demons by the ruler of the demons. Now, Jesus responded, how can Satan cast out Satan? If a kingdom is divided against itself, then the kingdom cannot stand. If a house divided against itself, the house will not stand. If Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand. But he is finished.

Now, I think that there is a common sense logic that Jesus is offering. You can always offer, like, you know, speculations. Well, couldn't it be this? Or couldn't it be that? And, you know, I guess you could always offer a speculation. Does that speculation seem reasonable? Well, maybe Satan is just trying to deceive people, and therefore he's defeating himself in front of other people

to deceive them of what, is the question. What is the deception that's accomplished if Satan is the one who's casting out himself? I don't, I'm not sure what he gets out of it. I guess if Jesus were a false Messiah, I guess trying to give evidence for him. Yeah. Well, all I can say is in a situation like this, and maybe you have more to add, this line of thinking either makes sense to you or it doesn't. And I think it makes perfect sense.

It's a strong argument. And just because one can think of, you know, a speculative alternative. doesn't mean the alternative is a reasonable or a realistic one, I think. What do you think? I think I agree with that, Greg. I don't know if I have any more to add to that. I think the evidence from what they were seeing looked like he was banishing these demons and exercising them and they were against him. So, yeah, I think that is the reasonable.

conclusion to come to, despite, you know, things you can think of. Think of some of the other things that are going on, too, because they are crying out, are you here to torment us before our time? In one case, like Mark V, at least send us into the pigs, you know, and then the pigs charged down into the Sea of Galilee and thousands of them are all drowned, you know, or this one afflicted by the demon is frothed. and throwing himself into the fire and into the water and all these different characterizations that we see of the demons possess people that are being released by Jesus.

And you see all of this magnificent good stuff that's taking place, and the demons themselves crying out in Jesus' presence, does it really make sense that this is a – is it the most reasonable option? Maybe that's what I'm asking, that this. This is a huge display of deception by the devil, casting out other devils in those ways and helping all those other people so that, what, it's still not entirely clear to me what he gains out of that. Oh, so that you can make Jesus into the Messiah?

Well, he had all kinds of credentials for that. This was just one of them. I'm also looking, he also, I try to. to see if it's here in this particular passage, but doesn't he also say, then by who are your people casting them out? It's a parallel passage, right. And if they're not objecting to them, then why are they suddenly objecting to Jesus and saying, by Beazable, he is casting them out? Because if they accept them from the other ones, so I think this is also about showing that they're out to discredit him illegitimately.

in ways that they wouldn't have discredited their own people. So I think there are a lot of things going on here. Is it possible that it was all a big ruse? Not in light of everything else. Is it plausible? Certainly, anything's possible. Is it plausible? Is that the most reasonable option?

It's not. It's clearly not. He's saying it's not really in the business of healing people. It wasn't, that's not the only thing Jesus ever did in front of them. He was doing a lot of things in front of the people. He was, in fact, I think right after this, he heals somebody. Do you have that open, Greg? I have it at Mark 3, yeah.

Let's see. He talks about forgiving sins. Soon after that, his brother, brother, and sisters come and call for him. He, verse chapter 4, he began to teach again by the sea, large crowd gathered. Okay, maybe it's not right at this spot. And then he gives a parable of the soar. But there's plenty of that in the town. He had already been, you know, showing his zeal for the temple and healing people and all these things he was doing.

And the teaching he was teaching was not demonic teaching. So it wasn't like this was in a vacuum. So all of those things have to be taken into consideration. That's perfect. Yeah. You got to look at the entire record. You can't just isolate one thing and say maybe the devil is using, you know, Jesus as a deceptive tool by casting out. other demons. It's possible, I guess. In the realm of possibility, it's not at all plausible. All

things considered, especially as you pointed out. So here's a question from Lucy. Why was Jesus known for associating with sinners? To what extent should Christians follow his example? I'm not sure I understand the question. Why was Jesus known for associated with sinners? Probably because he was associating with sinners. Now, maybe what makes this significant is because rabbis didn't characterize, characteristically do this. Jesus was a rabbi.

He was referred to, Rabonai, as the teacher, the rabbi. He had a following like rabbis have, but he was different from other rabbis because he was willing to talk to anybody. And it isn't just the, as some will characterize, at the poor and the outcasts. He was championing the poor and the outcast. This is Jesus, the social justice warrior, and it's just false.

Jesus did not champion the poor as such. He did not champion the outcast as such. He just didn't leave them as outcasts. He treated them like everybody else, which was different from the way the scribes and Pharisees treated people. The people who were sinners, the tax gatherers, prostitutes, et cetera, people that were leprous, they didn't want anything to do with those people. Jesus was willing to take anyone, whether it was the tax gatherer who he featured in one of

his parables, the cats gather at the end, back of the synagogue, beating his breast, saying, Lord, have mercy on me a sinner, and he goes away justified, as Jesus pointed out. But that just – look at Joseph Varamathia was a Pharisee. Nicodemus was a Pharisee. He was a chief Pharisee, the teacher of Israel, Jesus characterized him in John 3, yet he became a believer. And Jesus met with him. So it wasn't like Jesus is championing one particular group, sociological group, the poor, I mean financially poor.

There is reference to the poor, but there's the poor in spirit. The financially poor or the socially outcast, he focused not only, he focused not on those groups, but on a different group. Sinners, people who were repentant, willing to come clean before God, acknowledge their need, people who are poor in spirit, and beat their breast and say, Lord, have mercy on me, a sinner. So Jesus came for everyone, and so he met with everyone who was willing to meet with him in that sense, to meet him as he was. And this was unique among the leaders of the teachers and the scribes, the Pharisees, et cetera, because they were just hands off from the nasties.

We just want the holy people, the religious people. But as Jesus, as Jesus, Jesus says later on in the Gospel of Matthew, they go, they search, you know, all over to find one disciple, and then they load all kinds of burdens upon that disciple. And Jesus says, come on to me all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. I was trying to find the passage where the woman comes in and she's weeping at Jesus' feet. and the Pharisee who's with him says, I think he's saying to himself, oh, if this man were of God, he would know that she was a sinner. And the implication there is that he would have turned her away.

Right. But instead, he is welcoming her through her repentance and accepting her love and praising her for her love and saying, her sins have been forgiven and she loves much and you love little you didn't you didn't wash my feet and she's washing my feet with her tears yeah so here we have an example of the difference that jesus had which was anyone who came to him he did not turn away and he reached out to them and he preached to everyone and i think this is the extent we ought to follow his example he wasn't out partying in ways that were unrighteous or against God or anything sinful like that. He was just reaching out to them and he was receiving them when they came to him.

There is another lesson here, and that lesson is so many people who cite Jesus in their favor have never read Jesus or have only read a couple of lines here and there that they've cherry-picked that seemed to support their view. They're not students of the Gospels. They can't tell you, for example, they're here they're carrying on about what Jesus came to do. Well, Jesus gave four major discourses. What were they? I mean, if you know anything about Jesus' life, if you're a student of Jesus that you're going to quote him, what he was all about, then tell me the discourses. And incidentally, you're not going to find in any of those discourses. That would be the sermon in the Mount, the bread of life discourse, the olive it discourse in the upper room

discourse, that from the beginning to the end of his life, you are not going to find anything. thing on this kinds of issues, the poor, the outcasts, all that other stuff in any of these major discourses of Jesus. It's totally different, the things that he emphasized. And on the sermon in mind, he talks about the poor in spirit. That means those who understand there's spiritual poverty. He's not talking about people who are penniless. He does talk about, you know, when you give to the poor, but he's not talking about giving

to the poor. He's talking about not, you know, blowing your trumpet when you give to the poor. poor, like the hypocrites do. He's just using the poor as an illustrate to something else, but he's not campaigning for them. So just as a general idea, lots of people who weigh in on Jesus haven't read Jesus, or is not carefully at all, or else they wouldn't come to these conclusions that are totally inconsistent with the man of the text. And just to point out, everyone is a sinner. In fact, Jesus makes this point. Because the Pharisees say, oh, well, we can see.

We're not blind. And he says, well, now that you say you see, your sin remains. So Jesus was acknowledging that they were sinners also. But for those sinners, he was warning. And he was saying, woe to you because you do not recognize your sin. But to the sinners who recognize their sin, those are the ones he's welcoming and comforting. So there's a repentance involved with those he welcomes. and then there's a hardness that involved with those he warns.

And he didn't avoid either one, but it wasn't just, I just want to hang out with all the people who are partying and, you know, whatever. Right. And he wasn't, you know, there's this campaign. I think it's still going on, but he gets us, many people have seen these clips here or there. He gets us, been going on a couple of years. It's so bad. I'm just saying it's so bad. That it's hard that it bothers me that people who ought to know better are campaigning on behalf of this program

because it gives such a really distorted understanding of Jesus and a distorted understanding of Christians. And you interviewed Natasha Crane. So on our website at STR.org, you can look for that. But I just want to respond to this. On this issue. On the he gets us issue. A great analysis of it. But I just want to respond to this, to what extent should Christians follow his example?

And I think the main thing is don't quarantine yourself against the world. Paul said, I think it's in First Corinthians where he says, or maybe it's Second Corinthians, I'm not sure. But he says, I didn't mean for you to not, when I said, you know, don't be. around those who are, I can't remember how I put it, sinners. I didn't mean those were in the world because otherwise you'd have to leave the world. First Corinthians five, yeah. So I think the idea here is... But rather the so-called Christians who are living like the way he's concerned.

The Christians that you need to call to account. Right. So here we see in Paul's words the two sides to this. There are those sinners that you should warn, and in particular those who are part of your fellowship. and those in your family and that you ought to call to account. And then there are the centers in the world that you ought to reach out to and not hide yourself away from. You should be reaching out.

You should be making friends. And obviously, know what your limits are, too, because when you're in the world, there is a certain amount of influence that they will have on you. So I think you do need to be careful about knowing when you're being influenced and how and avoiding that particular thing or or being careful to have other people with you or whatever it is. But I would not just quarantine yourself against everyone outside the church. Do you have anything to add to that, Greg? Before we close out this year.

I say amen. I agree. So be it. So we're, since we're coming up on the new year, I'm just going to remind you that if you have a question, please send it to us. You can go to X and just use the hashtag STR-Ask, or you can go to our website. And if you go to our website at STR.org, it's very simple. Just find our hashtag STR-ask podcast page. And you'll see a link there in the top left-hand corner, and you can send us your question. And we would love to start this year off with just all the questions you've been thinking about and have never sent in. We would love to hear from you. All right, that's it for the year. Thank you so much for listening. We appreciate you. This is Amy Hall and Greg Coco for

Stand to Reason.