Correcting Jesus

We've come a long way from the 1st century. We've figured out quite a bit, not just scientifically, but culturally, socially, and all that. Today, in our enlightened existence, I think that we (and I mean a lot of us, not just "the left" or "the liberals" or the like) might be tempted to correct people we see who lived in that time from our own perspectives. Take, for instance, Peter in the Book of Acts. Peter's first sermon (Acts 2) was, well, not too bright. He wasn't sensitive. He wasn't seeker sensitive. He wasn't careful of not offending his listeners. He didn't do it right. I mean, really, Peter, what makes you think "Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves know -- this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men" (Acts 2:22-23) was the kind of approach that would win converts? Come on!

Or look at Stephen's sermon in Acts 7. Seriously, man, did you even think about what you were saying? You know that if you're on trial for your life and you want to get the Gospel across to a gang of unbelievers who are trying you, "You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you. Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who announced beforehand the coming of the Righteous One, whom you have now betrayed and murdered, you who received the law as delivered by angels and did not keep it" (Acts 7:51-53) is not the way to get it done. Wise up, Stephen. I mean, you see the outcome, right? They stoned you to death. If you had only been more sensitive, more aware, more tactful, you might have had a better outcome.

The worst, however, is our tendency to want to correct the One that cannot be corrected. That would be Jesus Himself. Oh, no, we may not actually say it, but we surely think it. Or maybe, most likely, we "censor" Jesus in our own minds. Here, test yourself. Is your view of Jesus "meek and mild", perhaps a "laughing Jesus", a quiet, soft-spoken guy? Is He the compassionate one who never said a harsh word? Well, then, I suggest that you are correcting Jesus, because that's not the biblical image. Consider the following.

Jesus wasn't some "nice guy" when He instructed His disciples on their traveling mission:

Whenever you enter a town and they do not receive you, go into its streets and say, 'Even the dust of your town that clings to our feet we wipe off against you. Nevertheless know this, that the kingdom of God has come near.' I tell you, it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom than for that town. Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. But it will be more bearable in the judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you. And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You shall be brought down to Hades. The one who hears you hears Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me, and the one who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me" (Luke 10:10-16).

Oh, my, that's pretty harsh language. Even more so when you understand that the biblical "woe" isn't our standard "woe is me", but a curse pronounced against a sinful person or group. I mean, seriously, how is a Jew of His day supposed to take it when He says "it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom"? That can't be considered "warm" or "sensitive". It is certainly not "inclusive". Wasn't Jesus supposed to be the lover of all sinners? What's all this?

His diatribe in Matthew 23 is much worse. At least seven times He describes the local religious rulers as "hypocrites". He has "friendly" (not very) descriptions like "white-washed tombs", "vipers", and "blind fools". He accuses them of making converts and then "you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves." Oh, it's big, and its an entire chapter. Seriously, Jesus, describing them as "a child of hell"? That's not friendly at all. It doesn't coincide with our "nice guy" image of Jesus. The image of Christ in the Temple with whip in hand doesn't really fit well with the soft-spoken, laughing Jesus we like so well. His repeated references to people who will "be thrown into the fire" (Matt 7:19; 13:40; 18:8-9; 25:41; John 15:6) don't come across as humble or kind. Jesus, in fact, has the most definitive descriptions of eternal judgment in terms of "where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched".

Jesus certainly embodied perfection. He did precisely what the Father told Him to do all the time. We'd like to think that a kinder, gentler Jesus is the right one because, well, we really like that image. And we'd like to correct anyone who thinks otherwise. The problem, of course, is that the Bible does not depict Jesus solely as that nice guy, but also as a tough-talking, hard-hitting Savior who confronted sin when He saw it and pulled no punches, so to speak. When we try, then, to depict Him otherwise, we are actually trying to correct Jesus. I don't know about you, but I'm certainly not comfortable doing that.