Anger and Christ

There has long been debate as to whether or not it is actually possible to have righteous anger as a fallen, sinful human being. Much of the debate has centered around the person of Jesus. It is apparent in the gospel accounts of his life that Jesus certainly felt the emotion of anger. There are numerous accounts of Christ reacting with rage or frustration against someone or something that was being done. The question is, then, whether Jesus actually sinned in so doing those things. The answer to this question provides some important clues as to how we, as pastors and counselors, should advise people who have issues with anger and resentment.


B.B. Warfield has written an interesting article, “The Holy Resentment of Jesus,” which addresses this very issue. In his honest interpretation, Warfield attempts to approach the Scripture with humility and openness, seeking to find a solution to the problem of holy or righteous anger. He begins his article by explaining the importance of the doctrine of the hypostatic union of Christ. Jesus was most definitely fully man and fully God, but how does this doctrine affect his emotional state? It is clear that Jesus felt emotions. He felt sorrow and anger and resentment. He got frustrated with the disciples. He overturned tables in the temple and wielded a whip to empty his Father’s house. These events in Scripture have been interpreted in several ways, two of which Warfield addresses. The first interpretation attributed apatheia, or absence of feeling, to Christ, hoping to preserve the dignity of the person of Christ. The second interpretation, wishing to clearly state the fullness of Christ’s humanity, featured the pathos, or feeling or passion, of Christ. These interpretations are essential to understanding the issue at hand. If Christ truly had an absence of feeling, then in a justified and sanctified state believers should feel this same apatheia that Christ felt. Conversely, if Christ actually felt emotions in a real way, then it is true that believers could and should also feel similar emotions.


The second interpretation seems to be the truer of the two. The ontological make-up of Jesus appears to be at question here. How similar was the “second Adam” to the first Adam? At a glance, there are obvious differences. However, upon a closer investigation, it is apparent that Christ was very much similar to all other human beings. It is clear that he wearied from his hectic schedule. He also felt physiological needs of hunger and thirst. He most assuredly felt pain on the cross. Therefore, it appears to be an appropriate assumption that since Christ experienced the physiology of humanity, he would also understand the psychology of humanity. If neither of these two assumptions are true, then it would be necessary to adopt some form of docetic thinking about the humanity of Christ. It would also hold that scriptures like Hebrews 4:15[1] and the accounts of the temptation of Christ[2] would be nonsensical and unintelligible. Consequently, in order for anyone to know anything about the real Jesus, it is necessary to rely on the written accounts of his life in the gospels. Since that is the case, the things said about Jesus, that he had real physiological and psychological needs and difficulties, must be assumed, on some level, to be true.


So, it seems obvious that Jesus had real emotions, which is the point of Warfield’s article. The question remains, however, as to whether or not Jesus’ emotions apply to us and how his emotions and reactions in particular situations can be extrapolated out in order to help us minister to others. Warfield makes it clear in his article that the emotions Jesus felt were right and had no sin in them. Jesus was, in fact, a total human being, which, of course, makes him a moral being. Moral beings must react to the circumstances of their existence. Therefore, as Warfield aptly puts it, “It would be impossible, therefore, for a moral being to stand in the presence of perceived wrong indifferent and unmoved.”[3] Christ, as a moral being, filled with pathos, would have to react in given situations appropriately. If not, his humanity could be called into question. However, it is important to point out that Jesus always responded in a perfectly suitable way. He neither underreacted nor overreacted in any specific situation. Therefore, when a situation that calls for an angry reaction, Jesus responded with the appropriate amount of anger (i.e. the cleansing of the temple[4]). Conversely, when a situation required a sorrowful response, Jesus weeps (i.e. the death of Lazarus[5]). Since we are like Christ in that we are moral beings, there are situations in which it is appropriate to be angry or to weep. If it is right that Jesus was offended by certain affronts to his morality, it is according that we would react in the same way.


With that said, it is also important to note again that Jesus holds a certain moral superiority over other human beings. His divinity made it possible for him to retain his sinless perfection. Was it possible for Jesus to sin? The answer to this mystery seems somewhat unclear, but the Bible seems to point to the fact that Jesus was truly able to sin. It was his ability to abstain from sin that makes him the perfect sacrifice. Therefore, when Christ expresses his emotions in the gospel accounts, he is able to do so without sinning. On the contrary, however, it is clear that we are not Jesus. We are to become more like him daily, but we are not him. So, the question is, then, can a believer actually articulate anger without sinning? While Jesus proves that anger and resentment is a normal human emotion, it is difficult to say how anger would affect the typical believer. It would be my counsel that anger is a dangerous emotion. It can easily be abused and lead to sinful behavior. Despite the fact that the emotion itself is not sinful, the results of such an emotion might definitely be. A responsible counselor should attempt to encourage their client into appropriately expressing their anger, which is, of course, somewhat subjective. The most important concepts to draw from Warfield’s article are that Jesus felt anger (which is expressive of the humanity of Christ and leads one to believe that it is possible to have “righteous” anger) and that there is an appropriate response to the anger emotion (which seems with regard to Christ but is infinitely more complex when dealing with fallen human beings).



[1] “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.”
[2] Matthew 4:1-11; Mark 1:12-13; Luke 4:1-13
[3] B.B. Warfield, “The Holy Resentment of Jesus: ‘For the innumerable dead is my soul disquieted,” The Journal of Biblical Counseling, 11.
[4] Matthew 21:12-17; Mark 11:15-19; Luke 19:45-48; John 2:13-22
[5] John 11:1-44