Did Jesus Lose His Temper?

[Danmark]

I believe it was Paul who said, "Be angry, but sin not."
Nothing wrong with a little anger. It's generally it's counterproductive and makes us stupid and makes us do foolish things, not to mention having an adverse effect on our health. Still... I don't suppose there's much dispute that Jesus got angry.

The question is, did he lose his temper?
A few examples from Matthew 23:

The Pharisees… preach, but do not practice.
They do all their deeds to be seen by others.

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!

You make him twice as much a child of Hell as yourselves.

Woe to you, blind guides….You blind fools!

You… have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness.
…. You blind guides…!

You serpents, you brood of vipers! How are you to escape being sentenced to Hell?

From Matthew 21:12, Mark 11:15, John 2:15,

So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables.

[Danmark]

By the way, I do not suggest it is entirely a bad thing to angrily tell someone the truth, or even to lose your temper. It reveals the humanity of Jesus and... well... shows me that in this regard at least, I have followed his example. I was going to say it in this narrow way it makes me look 'Christlike,' but I have to admit that would be pushing it.

[Elijah John]

I think the verses you supplied, do support the contention that Jesus was fully human and not perfect.

Another passage is the fact that he subjected himself to John's baptism of repentance FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SIN.

To admit that Jesus was not perfect and fully human, in no way disqualifies him from being a righteous person or even a prophet, fully devoted to his God.

[ghost1234]

I think the verses you supplied, do support the contention that Jesus was fully human and not perfect.

Another passage is the fact that he subjected himself to John's baptism of repentance FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SIN.

To admit that Jesus was not perfect and fully human, in no way disqualifies him from being a righteous person or even a prophet, fully devoted to his God.

This is very true.

[Divine Insight]

Matthew 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Notice in the above verse it clearly states "without a cause". According to this if you have just cause to call someone a fool then have at it.

If you are angry with your brother with good cause, then there is no reason why you can't call him a fool.

Save for man-made civility rules, of course.

~~~~~

On the topic of Jesus losing his temper, I would say that he most certainly did lose his temper in the case of the money changers at the temple. If he objected to that practice he should have taken it up with the temple council and allowed them to act upon it with proper authority.

And if they refused to do so, then shouldn't Jesus have been angry with them instead of with the money changers who were only doing what the temple authorities permitted?

Ironically, when Jesus by-passes proper procedures he gets a gold star for it and great praise, but let anyone else do that and they are condemned for not going through the proper authorities.

Of course in real life (at least according to the story) Jesus did end up getting crucified for his refusal to go through the proper authorities.

Perhaps that's the moral we should take away from the Jesus' story. It doesn't pay to buck authority. Unless we have the diplomacy and patience to walk it through the proper secular authorities. If we follow Jesus' behavior we will end up being crucified just as happened to Jesus.

Jesus is therefore a model of how "not" to behave.

[Danmark]

Matthew 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Notice in the above verse it clearly states "without a cause". According to this if you have just cause to call someone a fool then have at it.

If you are angry with your brother with good cause, then there is no reason why you can't call him a fool.

However,
Notice that the first sentence restricts itself to anger without 'just cause.' Calling someone a 'fool' or 'Raca' is an action, not just an emotion and does not necessarily have the 'just cause' restriction.

[Divine Insight]

However,
Notice that the first sentence restricts itself to anger without 'just cause.' Calling someone a 'fool' or 'Raca' is an action, not just an emotion and does not necessarily have the 'just cause' restriction.

The anger part seems to be irrelevant. The "just cause" seems to be the main point here.

My cousin was recently murdered by her husband. All of her sisters are extremely angry with the murdering husband. But their anger is certainly justified.

What's wrong with justified anger?

I think they still have a right to call him a "Fool" even in justified anger.

[Danmark]

However,
Notice that the first sentence restricts itself to anger without 'just cause.' Calling someone a 'fool' or 'Raca' is an action, not just an emotion and does not necessarily have the 'just cause' restriction.

The anger part seems to be irrelevant. The "just cause" seems to be the main point here.

My cousin was recently murdered by her husband. All of her sisters are extremely angry with the murdering husband. But their anger is certainly justified.

What's wrong with justified anger?

I think they still have a right to call him a "Fool" even in justified anger.

My point is that anger may certainly be justified, and it may even give you the gumption to do something about the event that made you angry. But usually it is a temporarily intelligence lowering emotion that is generally counterproductive.

The murderer frequently feels he has "just cause." And it isn't just Christians who can get up on their self righteous high horse.

Don't axe me how I know.

[Peds nurse]

[Replying to post 1 by Danmark]

Yes, Jesus got angry. Notice however, who he got angry with, and why. He was angry with the leaders of the church because they had so many rules that it made it next to impossible for people to know God. He was also angry when the people were selling animals to be offered as sacrifices to benefit themselves (pocket money). It wasn't about offering sacrifices to God, is was about gaining money for themselves.

I would like to mention what Jesus did not get angry about. He didn't get angry that some rejected Him. He didn't get angry when the leaders of the church tried to trip him up with his words. He didn't get angry hanging around sinners. He didn't get angry when they beat him, mocked him, and killed him, and as a matter of fact, he said, "forgive them for they know not what they do."

Usually I get mad because someone offends me...not God.

[Divine Insight]

Yes, Jesus got angry. Notice however, who he got angry with, and why. He was angry with the leaders of the church because they had so many rules that it made it next to impossible for people to know God.

And exactly why would a God who supposedly wants people to know him have allowed his very own Temples and Chief Priests to get so far out of control?

A God who has absolutely no control over his own temples and priests isn't much of a God to begin with.

The very idea that there is an actual God associated with this religion is absurd to begin with.

Moreover, even if this was the case, this God having to send his own son to earth only to be crucified at the demands of the very priests he's upset with makes even less sense. That itself would have been an extreme act of desperation by a God who has absolutely no control over anything.