He changes his character's motivations from one of sudden anger that lashes out (literally) to one who has premeditated an attack. The character has carried the anger, allowing it to guide him long after it should have subsided from a random thought or flight of fancy. If he had just upended the tables and beat them with ready weapons (e.g. fists, chairs, tables, random stuff), it would have all stayed in the realm of an attack borne out of passion. It speaks to what a dick this Jesus character is. Actually, sounds a lot like his dad, irrational temper tantrums and holding grudges far longer than is reasonable.

@PadraicM It’s a very good interpretation but bear in mind this is John’s character, not Matthew’s. We can take this adaptation of Matthew and transpose this unexpected turn of violence onto the John Gospel, because it is revealed as an unspoken, calculated act.

Matthew is a pussycst compared to the tacit violence inherent in John.

@Geoffrey51 It could be that it was a metaphor for attonement, in other words Jesus is going to be whipped, so first he must whip someone else. It could be that it is meant to prove that Jesus has godly foresight, and that he really does nothing out of passion. Or it could be that there is a lost theological debate about where did the whip come from, which is no longer remembered, but was important at the time and John needed to answer it.

The fact that I alone can come up with three different reasons, without even trying shows just how impossible it is to guess anything at this degree of remove.

@Fernapple Exactly. That is the brilliant thing about literature when one engages with it. It enables our thinking to go beyond the surface texture and into its deeper fabric.

@Fernapple Haha I like that one !