He Wasn't a Nice Guy

He claimed to be the Messiah. When you make claims, you build expectations in people. It's inevitable. And you have to live up to some bible standards when you do that. You have to be this and that--well, that is as far as people's understanding of Scriptures is concerned. Their unspiritual understanding of Scriptures often make them turn bible standards into their own formulated standards. [Picture above from Alex Plesovskich @aples].

And often, people miss what Scriptures really mean, even the experts and scholars or theologians (or especially them?). Because God's Word can only be understood through the Holy Spirit, exactly the way Jesus understood them.

Matthew quotes Isaiah on the Messiah...

“Here is my servant whom I have chosen, the one I love, in whom I delight; I will put my Spirit on him, and he will proclaim justice to the nations. 19 He will not quarrel or cry out; no one will hear his voice in the streets. 20 A bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out, till he has brought justice through to victory. 21 In his name the nations will put their hope. [Matthew 12]

Sounds like Mr. Nice Guy, right? So patient and tolerant. "He will not quarrel or cry out," it says. "A bruised reed he will not break." But there was Jesus, reacting violently in the temple, driving out sellers, buyers, money changers and animals with a whip and turning over tables. He actually reacted unbecoming a man of God. Though he didn't hurt anybody, you'd still call that violent if you were honest. You're a fool if you'd call that peaceful. At another time, he was even branded a glutton and drunkard, someone out of his mind and demon-possessed.

Looked like he didn't pass Isaiah's criteria.

He could've just preached against materialism and warned people who'd turn the temple into a den of robbers. I would've done so. I mean, I'd be conscious about what Isaiah said about the Messiah. To my mind, that meant being a Mr. Nice Guy. We often become conscious about standards when we claim to be somebody--like a Christian or a pastor--thinking we have to maintain quality standard, not realizing they're often adulterated bible standards corrupted by religious ideas and intentions. And then we submit ourselves to them. That's when we totally lose it.

We think the fruit of the Spirit results to a Mr. Nice Guy personality. We see gentleness, patience and kindness in the list, so we equate all that to being nice. Thus, a lot of "spiritual" Christians try their best to have nice, pleasing personalities, talking in gentle and modulated voices, sounding like poets or those doing declamation and displaying formal mannerism behind the pulpit. Always in formal attire. Very seldom getting angry (in public) and always ready with religious niceties or a bible verse.

We think that is Christ-like, and it's primarily because we blind ourselves to the fact that Jesus was not nice--NOT in the way the world defines nice. And anyway, "nice" is not among the fruit of the Spirit. Kind is, and kind is quite different from nice.

I'm irked by folks when they correct you for being honest about your emotions. I tell people when I'm pissed off or irritated by certain behaviors, actuation or even by certain people and honestly say what I feel. And they bombard me with religious advises and bible verses, readily telling me how pastors or spiritual people shouldn't be like that. I should be patient and loving and understanding and gentle. "Self control," they remind me. They think that's spiritual.

Well, did Jesus apologize for his behavior at the temple? We often do that after exhibiting some inappropriate conduct or outburst in church--things against religious norms--because we think it's part of being spiritual. Apologize. Yup, we're all susceptible to unbecoming behavior (I am)--even the most spiritual do (or especially them, I guess)--and most of us think it's wrong. We're supposed to be "civil." But civil is not fruit of the Spirit either. It's what worldly standard calls decency. Jesus was never decent. I mean, spitting on the ground and making a mud and putting it on the blind's eyes? That's decent?

The religious leaders gave him a chance to apologize. “By what authority are you doing these things?” they asked. “And who gave you authority to do this?” I'd have probably said, "Guys, I'm so sorry about yesterday at the temple. I was just tired and stressed out. I didn't mean to do it." Church norm or pressure would make us do that. But not Jesus. He didn't apologize. He was more like arrogant than meek.

And several times, when some Pharisees invited him for dinner, he criticized everyone in the Pharisaic party (even the host) instead of being polite and tame as we would be.

See? He wasn't a Mr. Nice Guy.

And yet Jesus fulfilled every Scripture passage about the Messiah--in the way that God meant it, not as man in his own make-believe wisdom defined the Messiah in their understanding of Scriptures. This is why the bible urges us to rely solely on the Holy Spirit's revelation (we should be Jesus stalkers), not on our erudite theological guesses or speculations, no matter how high the degree. I believe Jesus intended to display a quick blast of anger (indignation actually) to demolish false expectations of what a Messiah should be. Like how he brazenly broke the Sabbath (the religious and theologians won't agree that Jesus broke the Sabbath). It was done intentionally by Jesus to drive home a point.

And anyway, what he broke was a religious standard derived from a corrupted view of the bible standard--which is what theologians do and are good at. So, John was correct when he said Jesus broke the Sabbath law (John 5.18), because he in fact did. Otherwise, John would not have written thus if it were not. And John understood this solely by what the Holy Spirit supernaturally revealed to him, not by any human theology.

You see, the passage "He will not quarrel or cry out; no one will hear his voice in the streets. A bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out," should be balanced with "zeal for your house consumes me."

We should understand what "consumes" means, and Jesus perfectly demonstrated it at the temple. This is why Paul also tells us to "be angry" and "sin not." Our fake spirituality has given anger a bad, bad name. We think anger is downright just evil, period, forgetting that God displays his wrath as well as his kindness. We should get angry when people (especially in church) wallow in sin or corrupt God's intentions for his Word.

Jesus "will not quarrel or cry out" if you personally attacked him, but it was a different matter if you blasphemed God and the things of God. His zeal for such would surely consume him. You could never hurt his ego because he had none. But his Sonship gives him zeal for the Father and his Kingdom. Bruised reeds and smoldering wicks he chose to have nothing to do with yet, and that's what denominations are--bruised reeds and smoldering wicks. But once the Lord "has brought justice through to victory," then bruised reeds will be broken and smoldering wicks will be snuffed out.

Why? Because zeal for God's house (the genuine house) consumes him, and he won't have second thoughts about driving out money changers from God's true temple as he did in the Gospel.

But don't get me wrong. There are church people who are nothing but spoiled brats. Period. Cranky people. I mean, they're outright ROTTEN. All they can be is sometimes be "nice" because they do not have the fruit of the Spirit. Being angry at sin, corruption and wickedness is having God's anger. And it's good. But man's anger (especially when his ego is hurt) is not.

..because human anger does not produce the righteousness that God desires. [James 1.20]

They're nice to people who are nice to them--or those of the same church denomination as they have. Jesus wasn't like that, to be sure. He purposely didn't look nice (and demolished any ideas of him being nice) because religious people are bound to abuse nice-looking people.

Nice in God's Kingdom looks rude in this world, and meek in the Kingdom looks arrogant in this world. "To the one, we are an aroma that brings death; to the other, an aroma that brings life." (2 Corinthians 2.16)