Tangent thread - I think this also feeds into a particular form of soft antisemitism within progressive Christian spaces. A lot of people have brought up the idea that Jesus' perfection doesn't mean he doesn't get angry, it's just that his anger is always *righteous* anger. https://twitter.com/JustSayXtian/status/1265320733007175681

The example that keeps being given is throwing over the tables and scourging the moneychangers in the Temple. The idea that's been presented is that sure, Jesus got angry and kind of violent, but it was *righteous anger* because he was protecting the innocent.

The moneychangers were providing a vital service. People needed to exchange other currencies for the Temple currency required in order to fulfill the mitzvahs of tithing and sacrifices. By disrupting their services, people were prevented from fulfilling their obligations

So the question is, was Jesus angry because the cause was righteous, or is the cause defined as righteous because Jesus was angry, and since Jesus has to be without sin all anger on Jesus' part must be, by definition, righteous?

To me, it reads like post hoc justification. The anger *must* be righteous, because it's unthinkable to say that Jesus lost his temper and caused hardship to people who were just trying to perform a mitzvah. The fault cannot lie with Jesus, so it must lie with the Temple system.

It becomes impossible to view Jewish society and Jewish religious practice in the 2nd Temple era as anything but corrupt and in need of being replaced, because it's inconceivable that Jesus might have overreacted or been in the wrong.