The New Testament has similar passages. One of the most well known has Jesus attacking pilgrims and money changers in the temple. John is rather obviously antijewish. "I have not come with peace" is another well known, not very palatable one.
Jesus drove the money changers out of the Temple, because they were violating the Temple with their presence and their actions -- preying on poor people there.
Jesus' primary message was love (Love thy neighbor as thyself), peace, and the path to righteousness (Sell all your goods, give them to the poor, and follow me -- no man comes to the Father but through me).
The OT is far more violent, but given for a specific people at a specific time and those things are not ordered for modern day Christianity -- modern day Christians are commanded to spread the gospel to the ends of the earth, but also to be meek, and every example we have after Peter's ill-advised attempt to defend Christ the night of his crucifixion is an example of following the law where possible and being peaceful.
Attacking jewish pilgrims and people offering them services seems pretty antijewish regardless of how you want to justify it.
Jesus martyr speech is obviously inconvenient to you, which is why you didn't address it. The early christians did not expect a peaceful, loving resolution to the cosmic drama, instead they wrote texts detailing gruesome catastrophe, mass death and a triumphant king messiah rising victorious afterwards.
The view you have is distinctly modern, extremely protestant. Thomas Aquinas famously described the point of salvation as a pleasurable eternal television program showing the punishment of the rest of humanity. Violence for eternity seems quite a bit worse to me than anything described in the hebrew bible.
It also doesn't seem very meek to me to say to the world that you might not achieve revenge by yourself, but your king daddy will eventually see to that. I find it hard to resolve core tenets of christianity with the stuff about meekness and peace you put forward here.
