Question

A lot of Jewish apologists object to the fact that Isaiah 53:9 says that "The suffering servant has done no violence," and Siegel (sp.) in his book brings this out, he says, "How can Jesus Christ be the Messiah because verse 9, specifically says He has done 'no violence' yet he went into the Temple and scourged the money changers or drove them out?"  Obviously, there was violence.  How do we answer that?

Answer

He did "no violence" in the sense that He committed no crime worthy of death.  The only thing that He did in the Temple was what should have been done--that's not violence.  God does "no violence" either.  "Violence" indicates an unjust havoc, an unrighteous act of aggression or evil.  What was done by the Lord in the temple is what should have been done.  That was not violence--what was going on in there was violence.  He put the violence out and brought it back to a place of prayer--it was "unviolence." 

So, I think that it is an easy thing to point out.  I think what the prophet is saying is that there was nothing that He had done that would make Him in any sense worthy of any execution.  I don't know if you have been with us on Sunday morning, but we are going through the trial of Christ--there is absolutely nothing--they can't come up with anything.  They didn't even—and I didn't point this out Sunday, but I should have--they didn't even bring up that argument, so Seigel (sp.) is one up one the Pharisees, they didn't even bring that up.  They didn't even make a case out of the fact that He did that in the Temple--as an act of violence, because they knew that if they started talking about that, then they were going to get it, because every one knew that it was just flat robbery--that the violence was their violence and Jesus brought it back to where it ought to be.  So they didn't even bring that up, which they would have done if they thought there was a case there.