'Jesus in the temple court (Mark 11:15-18) - Given that Jesus' protest did not change anything, do you think there was any point in what he did? Do you think he was right use violence, or do you think his anger got the better of him?

  • 0 votes

Really stuck on this so any help is appreciated, i have to do one paragraph on both sides of the arguement, thank you!!

Posted Sun 21st April, 2013 @ 14:04 by Jess

1 Answer

  • 0 votes

I think that what he did was justified, because the temple was meant to be a sacred place-his fathers house, and people were abusing it, such as robbing people and treating it with disrespect. He was filled with 'righteous anger'- (meaning a justified anger that Christians feel because someone is doing something ungodly, such as stealing) because the people there were not thinking of God but of themselves. You have to remember that though he was Gods son he did have human thought and feelings, because he was in the form of a human.

However by throwing over the table ect you could argue that he diplayed anger which he should have been above, and that he should have been peaceful and shown forgiveness, because that is what he taught to others.

Hope this helps.

Answered Sun 21st April, 2013 @ 18:12 by Belle