> “Turning the tables over as he drove the vendors from the Temple would have earned Him a retraining order and creating a public disturbance charge today.....”
Um....No. Jesus was a Rabbi and the Temple was his domain. He was acting as a law enforcer not a trespasser threatening violence.
If people setup a Casino illegally inside the House of Representatives, do we call the Sargent-at-Arms ‘violent’ when he tells casino table hustlers to clear out? If he overturns their tables, do we say the Sargent-at-Arms needs a “restraining order”? I think not.
It’s not violence, it’s cleaning and enforcement.
I’m concluding your definition of “violence” is ... wanting.
The Sargent-at-Arms you refer to IS using violence. That’s his job: using, and threatening to use, violence to persuade people to comply. Per the point of this thread, violence DOES solve problems, it can & is authorized in society and law for problem-solving ends, and is legitimate behavior under some conditions. “Law enforcement” works precisely because police et al are equipped and trained in the use of violence, using the threat thereof to convince the non-compliant that the state WILL win any escalation. We don’t say your Sargent-at-Arms needs a “restraining order” because he is _authorized_ to apply such violence under conditions pursuant to eliciting compliance.
Enforcement IS violence. Hence the root word “force” therein.