There are several incidents recorded in the New Testament that may seem to indicate that Jesus Christ was intolerant with certain people. This article will consider such incidents. However, before we do, we will define the term intolerant. Webster’s Dictionary defines intolerant as “unwilling to tolerate others’ opinions, beliefs, etc. or persons of other races, background, etc.”
The following are four incidents that some people may think indicate that Jesus Christ was intolerant sometimes.
[Note: When we quote Scripture in this article, we use the wording in the New King James Version of the Bible, except when we are quoting a source that uses a different translation.]
Incident #1 – Driving Profiteers Out of the Temple
John 2:13-16 says,
Now the Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. And He found in the temple those who sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the moneychangers doing business. When He had made a whip of cords, He drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen, and poured out the changers’ money and overturned the tables. And He said to those who sold doves, “Take these things away! Do not make My Father’s house a house of merchandise!”
The Wycliffe Bible Commentary states the following with regard to this incident:
The Sanhedrin was permitting, and probably controlling its own financial interest, a traffic in sacrificial animals and money changing. This traffic . . . was to the advantage of the pilgrim, since he could acquire his sacrifice here rather than bring it with him. . . . Various kinds of coinage could be changed at the tables for the Palestinian half shekel required for the annual temple tax. This traffic turned the Temple into a mart of trade.
Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible provides further perspective regarding this incident, as follows:
Here is a reason why they should not profane the temple, because it was the house of God, and not to be made a house of merchandise. Merchandise is a good thing in the exchange, but not in the temple. . . . Here is a reason why he [i.e., Jesus] was concerned to purge it, because it was his Father’s house. And (a.) Therefore he had authority to purge it, for he was faithful, as a Son over his own house. . . . In calling God his Father, he intimates that he was the Messiah, of whom it was said, He shall build a house for my name, and I will be his Father. . . . (b.) Therefore he had a zeal for the purging of it: “It is my Father’s house, and therefore I cannot bear to see it profaned, and him dishonoured.”
Our assessment of this incident is that Jesus Christ was not intolerant of either the people who were transacting business in the temple or what they were doing, but instead He was angry about where they were doing business. The temple was supposed to be a place to worship God, not a place to transact business, even if that business was to facilitate animal sacrifices to God. Therefore, Jesus was not intolerant in this situation.
Incident #2 – Referring to Scribes and Pharisees As Hypocrites
In Matthew 23:13-15, 23-28, Jesus Christdeclares,
[W]oe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour widows’ houses, and for a pretense make long prayers. Therefore you will receive greater condemnation. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves.
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone. Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel! Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you cleanse the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of extortion and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee, first cleanse the inside of the cup and dish, that the outside of them may be clean also. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness. Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness. [Note: Luke 11:42-44 provides a similar account.]
With specific regard to verses 13-14, John Gill’s Exposition of the Bible explains,
[Jesus Christ] had detected them [the scribes and Pharisees] already before the people, in several instances of hypocrisy; and gives sufficient reasons, in the following part of this chapter, to support the character, he gives of them, and his charge against them; . . . [T]he Gospel dispensation is here meant, . . which the Scribes and Pharisees did all they could to shut. . . . [T]hey, by their office, ought to have opened and explained the Scriptures, the prophecies of the Old Testament relating to the Messiah, and led the people into a knowledge of the mysteries of his kingdom, and encouraged them to enter into this new state of things; . . . but instead of this, they shut up the Scriptures, took away the key of knowledge, and laid it aside; and darkened the Scriptures by their false glosses, and obliged the people to observe the traditions of the elders . . . .
The same character is given as before, and the same woe denounced, and a fresh reason given of it: that is, the goods in the houses of such [i.e., widows] as were left with fatherless children, and but little to support them; who being left alone, and none to advise them, and being weak, and prone to superstition; these greedy dogs, as Isaiah calls them, who could never have enough, easily imposed upon them, wormed them out of all their substance, stripped them bare of the necessaries of life, prevailed on them to sell their houses and goods, and bestow them on them; or got their little estates into their hands, pretending to take care, and dispose of them for them, to their advantage: as if they were very holy, good men; or pretended that the substance of these widows, which they got into their hands, was for their long prayers for them; or they made long prayers for them in return for their substance.
Likewise, in reference to verses 13-14, Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible states,
[The scribes and Pharisees] did all they could to keep people from believing in Christ, and so entering into his kingdom. Christ came to open the kingdom of heaven, that is, to lay open for us a new and living way into it, to bring men to be subjects of that kingdom. Now the scribes and Pharisees, who sat in Moses’s seat, and pretended to the key of knowledge, ought to have contributed their assistance herein, by opening those scriptures of the Old Testament which pointed at the Messiah and his kingdom, in their true and proper sense; they that undertook to expound Moses and the prophets should have showed the people how they testified of Christ. . . . Thus they might have . . . have helped thousands to heaven; but, instead of this, they shut up the kingdom of heaven; they made it their business to press the ceremonial law, which was now in the vanishing, to suppress the prophecies, which were now in the accomplishing, and to beget and nourish up in the minds of the people prejudices against Christ and his doctrine. . . . What their wicked practices were; they devoured widows’ houses, either by quartering themselves and their attendants upon them for entertainment, which must be of the best for men of their figure; or by insinuating themselves into their affections, and so getting to be the trustees of their estates, which they could make an easy prey of; for who could presume to call such as they were to an account? The thing they aimed at was to enrich themselves; and, this being their chief and highest end, all considerations of justice and equity were laid aside, and even widows’ houses were sacrificed to this. . . . They devoured those whom, by the law of God, they were particularly obliged to protect, patronise, and relieve. . . .
With regard to verse 15, Henry asserts,
[The scribes and Pharisees] shut up the kingdom of heaven against those that would turn to Christ, but at the same time compassed sea and land to make proselytes to themselves. . . . And what did they aim at? Not the glory of God, and the good of souls; but that they might have the credit of making them proselytes, and the advantage of making a prey of them when they were made. . . .
Also, with regard to verse 15, A Commentary on the New Testament From the Talmud and Hebraica, by John Lightfoot, says,
[I]n making of [proselytes] they used their utmost endeavours for the sake of their own gain, that they might some way or other drain their purses, after they had drawn them in under the show of religion, or make some use or benefit to themselves by them. The same covetousness, therefore, under a veil of hypocrisy, in devouring widows’ houses, which our Saviour had condemned in the former clause, he here also condemns in hunting after proselytes. . . . These, therefore, being so proselyted, “they made doubly more the children of hell than themselves.” For when they had drawn them into their net, having got their prey, they were no further concerned what became of them, so they got some benefit by them. They might perish in ignorance, superstition, atheism, and all kind of wickedness: this was no matter of concern to the scribes and Pharisees. . . .
In reference to verse 23, Gill states,
Christ returns to the former epithets he had very rightly given to these men, and very pertinently repeats them here; and which are confirmed by the instances of their conduct and practice here alleged, which abundantly show their hypocrisy and deceit; since they were very strict in observing some outward things, . . . whilst they neglected internal religion, and those things which were of the greatest moment and importance. . . . The things our Lord refers to . . . are as follow: “Judgment” may mean the administration of justice in courts of judicature; the putting in execution good judgments, righteous laws and statutes; protecting and relieving the injured and oppressed, and doing that which is right and equitable between man and man: but, on the contrary, these men devoured widows’ houses, and oppressed the poor and fatherless. “Mercy” includes all acts of compassion to the distressed, relieving the necessitous, distributing to their wants, and showing all kindness and beneficence to the poor and needy; which the scribes and Pharisees very little practised, being a set of cruel, hard hearted, and covetous persons. “Faith” may not only design faithfulness in a man’s keeping his word and promise, and fidelity to a trust reposed in him; but also faith in God, as the God of providence, and as the God of grace and mercy; believing in his word and promises, and worshipping him, which the law requires. . . . [T]hese men preferred the rituals of the ceremonial law, and the traditions of the elders, above the duties of the moral law. . . .
Matthew Henry explains verse 23 as follows:
[The scribes and Pharisees] were very strict and precise in the smaller matters of the law, but as careless and loose in the weightier matters. . . . They were partial in the law (Mal. 2:9 ), would pick and choose their duty, according as they were interested or stood affected. . . . The partiality of the scribes and Pharisees appears here, in two instances. . . . They observed smaller duties, but omitted greater. . . . [T]hat which Christ here condemns them for, is, that they omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith. . . . All the things of God’s law are weighty, but those are most weighty, which are most expressive of inward holiness in the heart. . . . Judgment and mercy toward men, and faith toward God, are the weightier matters of the law, the good things which the Lord our God requires (Mic. 6:8); to do justly, and love mercy, and humble ourselves by faith to walk with God. This is the obedience which is better than sacrifice or tithe. . . .
With regard to verse 24, Matthew Henry declares,
[The scribes and Pharisees] avoided lesser sins, but committed greater; . . . [H]ere he [Jesus Christ] calls them so for their corrupt living, for their example was leading as well as their doctrine; and in this also they were blind and partial. . . . In their doctrine they strained at gnats, warned people against every the least violation of the tradition of the elders. In their practice . . . they made no difficulty of those sins which, in comparison with them, were as a camel to a gnat. . . . They were more desirous and solicitous to appear pious to men than to approve themselves so toward God.
In reference to verses 25-26, Gill states,
Our Lord cannot be thought to bear too hard upon these men, nor does he continue this character of them, and denunciations of woe against them, without a reason: The allusion is to their traditions about washing their cups and pots, and brazen vessels; see (Mark 7:4) which they strictly observed. In their oral law is a whole tract, . . . which gives rules about the places where they washed, the things to be washed, and the manner of washing them; about which they were very nice, pretending to much outward cleanness, but had no regard to inward purity.
Similarly, with regard to verses 25-26, Matthew Henry says,
[The scribes and Pharisees] are compared to a vessel that is clean washed on the outside, but all dirt within. . . . They were in care to eat their meat in clean cups and platters, but made no conscience of getting their meat by extortion, and using it to excess. . . . In those things which fell under the observation of their neighbours [sic], they seemed very exact, and carried on their wicked intrigues with so much artifice, that their wickedness was not suspected; people generally took them for very good men. But within, in the recesses of their hearts and the close retirements of their lives, they were full of extortion and excess; of violence and incontinence . . .; that is, of injustice and intemperance. While they would seem to be godly, they were neither sober nor righteous.
And, in reference to verses 27-28, Gill says,
[The scribes and Pharisees made] broad their phylacteries, enlarging the borders of their garments, praying long prayers, compassing sea and land to make one proselyte, paying tithes of all manner of herbs, and cleansing the outside of the cup and platter, and doing all their works, prayers, fastings, and alms deeds, to be seen of men. This is the accommodation of the above simile; by reason of these things they looked like whited sepulchres, outwardly beautiful: so these appeared outwardly righteous, they looked like righteous persons, and were not. . . .
But this outward show and appearance of righteousness, was only “unto men”, not unto God: they did not appear so to him, who is the searcher of hearts, and knows what is in man, and knew all the secret wickedness that was in them; for though they imposed upon, and deceived men, they could not deceive God; nor was their iniquity hid from Christ. . . .
In this incident, Jesus Christ was intolerant of the inappropriate behavior of the scribes and Pharisees. Not only did the scribes and Pharisees make a show of their following the least important stipulations of the Old Testament Law while they were failing to follow the most important aspects of the Law, but also they continually sought to limit Jesus’ teachings regarding the kingdom of heaven.
Incidents #3 and #4 – Rebuking Men Who Wanted to Be Disciples
Luke 9:59-62 says,
He [Jesus] said to another [man], “Follow Me.” But he said, “Lord, let me first go and bury my father.” Jesus said to him, “Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and preach the kingdom of God.” And another [man] also said, “Lord, I will follow You, but let me first go and bid them farewell who are at my house.” But Jesus said to him, “No one, having put his hand to the plow, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.” [Note: Matthew 8:21-22 provides a similar account.]
In this scripture passage, the people to whom Jesus was directing His comments seemed to have good reason to temporarily postpone following Him. So, why did Jesus respond to their requests the way He did?
Matthew Henry explains the first incident in Luke 9:59-62, as follows:
The excuse he [i.e., the first man who was mentioned] made: “Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father. I have an aged father at home, who cannot live long, and will need me while he does live; let me go and attend on him until he is dead, and I have performed my last office of love to him, and then I will do any thing.’’. . . [W]e must not make [our other responsibilities] an excuse from our duty to God. If the nearest and dearest relation we have in the world stand in our way to keep us from Christ, it is necessary that we have a zeal that will make us forget father and mother. . . . No excuses must be admitted against a present obedience to the call of Christ.
A footnote in The New International Version of the Bible (NIV) provides the following additional perspective with regard to this incident:
If his father had already died, the man would have been occupied with the burial. But evidently he wanted to wait until after his father’s death, which might have been years away. Jesus told him that the spiritually dead could bury the physically dead, and that the spiritually alive should be busy proclaiming the kingdom of God. . . .
In reference to the statement by Jesus Christ to let the dead bury their own dead, Norman Geisler, Ph.D., and Thomas Howe, M.A., provide the following explanation on page 336 of their book entitled When Critics Ask,
Jesus was not speaking of those who were physically dead, but of those who are spiritually dead. . . . Jesus requested that the man follow Him. . . . The man responded saying he wished to take care of his family first. So the issue is, who comes first – one’s family or Jesus Christ. The answer Jesus gives indicates the spiritual state of this man’s family. They were apparently not believers, and the Bible says that those who are not Christians are “dead in trespasses and sins”. . . . Jesus was telling the man that his spiritually dead family should take care of the burial. Jesus wanted this man to follow Him. Christian discipleship calls for high commitment.
Thus, in the first incident mentioned in Luke 9:59-62, Jesus was intolerant of the fact that the man was not willing to put Jesus Christ first in his priorities. If the man’s father had not yet died and might not die for quite some time, that would further explain Jesus’ intolerance of what may otherwise seem to be a reasonable request by the man.
With reference to the second incident in Luke 9:59-62, People’s New Testament says,
The Savior’s words were suggested by a request of one [the second man] to go home for a farewell before following him [Jesus Christ]. In thousands of instances it has been shown that the convert who goes to confer with unbelieving relatives before the final step is likely to part with Christ instead. Heathen, ready to be baptized, who go home for a final farewell before the step, are likely to be persuaded not to take it, so missionaries tell us.
Matthew Henry, in addition to supporting what People’s says, provides a couple of additional perspectives regarding this incident:
Here is another [man] that is willing to follow Christ, but he must have a little time to talk with his friends about it. . . . He said, “Lord, I will follow thee; I design no other, I am determined to do it: but let me first go bid them farewell that are at home.’’ . . . Let me go and set in order my household affairs, and give direction concerning them; so some understand it. Now that which was amiss in this is, (1.) That he looked upon his following Christ as a melancholy, troublesome, dangerous thing; it was to him as if he were going to die and therefore he must take leave of all his friends, never to see them again, or never with any comfort; whereas, in following Christ, he might be more a comfort and blessing to them than if he had continued with them. (2.) That he seemed to have his worldly concerns more upon his heart than he ought to have, and than would consist with a close attendance to his duty as a follower of Christ. He seemed to hanker after his relations and family concerns, and he could not part easily and suitably from them. . . . (3.) That he was willing to enter into a temptation from his purpose of following Christ. To go and bid them farewell that were at home at his house would be to expose himself to the strongest solicitations imaginable to alter his resolution; for they would all be against it, and would beg and pray that he would not leave them. Now it was presumption in him to thrust himself into such a temptation.
In this second incident mentioned in Luke 9:59-62, Jesus Christ apparently was making a point similar to the one that He made in regard to the first incident mentioned in the same scripture passage: the man was not willing to put Jesus Christ first in his priorities.
Conclusion
None of the incidents that we have discussed provide a compelling reason to believe that Jesus Christ was intolerant of anyone, and we are not aware of any other incident that indicates otherwise. The intolerance that Jesus displayed pertained to people’s inappropriate attitudes and/or actions. Perhaps most importantly, His intolerance did not reflect bigotry, contempt, discrimination, prejudice, ridicule, scorn, or any other negative attitude toward people themselves.