by Mike Benson

I will speak for me. I probably need to spend more time thinking about what I’m actually saying in my private prayers.

“Father in heaven…”

If I am not very careful, the phrase may constitute little more than a thoughtless, repetitive habit.

Strangely enough, I don’t talk to my earthly father that way, but I tend to do so with my heavenly Father. Does he ever get weary of my redundancy?

What am I really saying when I articulate the words, “Father in heaven…”?

First, “Father” means I am a member of God’s family.

“For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Galatians 3:27).

Just as a suit which I put on envelops me and identifies my appearance, my immersion in water (Romans 6:3-4; cf. 1 Peter 3:20-21) was the culminating act of faith by which God added me to his spiritual household (1 Timothy 3:15) and identified me as his kin.

Second, “Father” means I am a recipient of God’s special provision.

“Or what man is there among you who, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will he give him a serpent? If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask Him” (Matthew 7:9-11)?

If I, as an earthly father, endeavor to meet the dietary needs and requests of my child, how much more (cf. Ephesians 3:20) will my heavenly Father accommodate the requirements (cf. Philippians 4:19; James 1:17) of my life (cf. Psalm 37:25)?

Third, “Father” means I am the beneficiary of God’s loving discipline.

“My son, do not despise the chastening of the LORD, nor be discouraged when you are rebuked by Him; for whom the LORD loves He chastens, and scourges every son whom He receives” (Hebrews 12:5-6; cf. Proverbs 3:11-12).

Because God is my Father in heaven, he, on occasion disciplines me for my long term good (cf. Hebrews 12:9-11). He wields the rod (Psalm 89:32; Proverbs 22:15) of pain and corrects me as an expression of his special relationship (Hebrews 12:8) with  me.

“Father in heaven…”

The phrase ought to be more than some rote recital of words. It should be an indelible imprint on my heart–that I have a Father who…

• takes me in as his own
• gives me all that I need
• chastens me to help me mature.

by Mike Benson

I often hear one of my co-workers speak of “women power” at the Kensington Woods Church of Christ.

He points out that much of what is accomplished in the Lord’s service is due to the efforts of so many godly ladies who work and worship in our congregation.

He’s spot on. Our women move mountains in their homes, in the congregation, in the community, as well as abroad (e.g., Tanzania).

The past couple of weeks I’ve been reading through Exodus 2, in preparation for an upcoming sermon. And the more I’ve poured over the text, the more I can’t help but notice a certain feminine prowess at work:

• Jochebed, in direct defiance of Pharaoh’s orders, hid her precious son for three months (v. 2).
• When she could no longer hide him, she prepared an ark-basket, placed her son (and heart) within, and left him at the edge of the Nile among the reeds (v. 3).
• Pharaoh’s own daughter, in the providence of God, showed up at the exact right time, at the exact right place, found baby Moses, and rather than killing him, took him in (vv. 5-6). Eventually she adopted the boy as her son and raised him, of all places, in Pharaoh’s palace (v. 10).
• Miriam, Moses’ babysitter, kept special watch on her brother. When Pharaoh’s daughter found Moses, she quickly intervened and offered to secure a wet nurse for the child-who just happened to be his very own mother (vv. 7-9).

I can’t help but stifle a chuckle when I read how hard Pharaoh was working to murder all of the Hebrew boys (cf. 1:16, 22).

He was concerned about Hebrew man power. Little Hebrew boys would eventually grow up into formable soldiers.

Pharaoh probably should been equally concerned about Hebrew women power–exhibited by the likes of Jochebed and Miriam.

These ladies had power because they exhibited incredible faith (cf. Hebrews 11:23; James 2:14-26)!

As I think about it, raising a child in this old wicked world today is not unlike it was thousands of years ago in Egypt. Children are obviously at risk; their lives-spiritually and physically are, at times, in peril.

Godly Christian mother’s exhibit special care and try to raise and protect their offspring from the evil one (cf. 1 Timothy 3:12; Titus 2:4).

• They try to shield their children from all that that will harm their lives and souls.
• They cover their children’s eyes when sin is openly advanced in on TV and the internet.
• They cover their children’s ears when illicit behavior is applauded in popular music.
• They cover their children’s bodies when immodesty is pushed upon them by their peers.

I was richly blessed by such a lady. Many of you were too.

Take a moment today to thank heaven for her. You’re probably here today because she had some power (Proverbs 31:29-31).

by Mike Benson

“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone…” (Matthew 18:15).

Pay special attention to Matthew 18:15 again, “…Go and tell him his fault between you and him alone.” Alone.

The NIV renders it, “If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you…”

“Just between the two of you…” Note that Jesus did not say, “Go and tell everybody in the congregation except the brother who has sinned against you…”

That is also sinful. If you have been sinned against, but you go to your peers and not to the one who sinned against you, you are actually guilty in the sight of heaven.

Jesus did not say, “Go tell your spouse, your adult children, your fellow deacons, the nice member sitting in the pew next to you, the church secretary, the Bible class teacher, and certainly not unbelieving Harry who lives next door.”

He said a) go b) to the offending brother c) alone. By yourself. In private. “Just between the two of you.”

Beloved, it is essential that you understand, appreciate, and practice this fundamental truth. If it is wrong for a brother to sin against you, and it is, that does not license you, in any way, to in turn sin against him by failing or refusing to go to him one-on-one.

At the very least that is cowardice; at the very worst that is rebellion towards Jesus Christ.

It is inconsistent to demand as per “thus saith the Lord” (cf. Colossians 3:17) that a person be baptized, that singing be the sole means of music in worship, and that we consume the Lord’s Supper only on Sunday, but then turn around and engage in undercover slander against someone who has injured you.

Human communications and relationships are complicated enough between brethren. Covertly telling third, fourth, and fifth parties about your brother’s sin against you only adds fuel to an already existing fire.

In fact, it says your brother may have sinned against you, but you have certainly sinned against him. And when the offending brother eventually learns that you’ve been talking about him in a derogatory fashion behind his back, it will be much, much more difficult for you to “gain your brother” (Matthew 18:15b) and be reconciled.

“Why must I go alone?” you ask. Actually, there are several Biblical reasons:

Because going alone is the most effective means of cleansing out the emotional wounds we receive (Matthew 15:18).

Because going alone shows that you want to protect (cf. 1 Corinthians 13:6-7) your brother and that you sincerely desire to preserve the relationship (cf. Genesis 13:8).

Because going alone says that you seek that special peace which uniquely exists between those of like precious faith (James 3:13-18).

Because going alone opens you and the offending brother to the life-changing experience of giving and receiving forgiveness (Colossians 3:13).

Because going alone says to Jesus that your faith is not just about knowing doctrinal truth; it is about faithfully living doctrinal truth (James 1:21-23).

Obedience requires that you get doctrine right–stuff like baptism, singing, and the precise day for breaking bread. But obedience also requires that you get other doctrines right–including going to an offending brother.

by Mike Benson

Most of the Christians I’m acquainted with generally don’t have a problem with whether or not baptism is essential to salvation, or whether or not mechanical instruments are authorized in the corporate worship assembly, or which day of the week the Lord’s Supper ought to be observed.

But many of them do tend to struggle with what Jesus taught in Matthew 18:15.

Ironically, the Lord settled immersion (Acts 22:16), music (Colossians 3:16-17), communion frequency (Acts 20:7), as well as how to address the problem of sin between brethren in the very same inspired document (2 Peter 1:3).

And so the issue is not whether Deity has previously spoken on how to handle interpersonal conflict between brethren, but whether or not you and I will actually believe (cf. Hebrews 3:19) and obey (cf. Hebrews 4:6) what he said (cf. Hebrews 1:2).

Several observations from Matthew 18:15 are in order. Please read and prayerfully consider the following:

1. It is certain that brethren will sin against one another (cf. 1 John 1:7).

“…The hope of living in ‘bumpless,’ ‘bruiseless’ relationships is unrealistic. To expect that our spouse, our children, our [preacher], or Christian friends won’t ever upset us is a false hope. Jesus never promised us perfectly smooth relationships, but to handle the bumps and bruises that inevitably come, he did give us this simple directive in Matthew 18″ (Beverly Caruso, “Go To Your Brother,” Loving Confrontation, 25).

2. Pay special attention to what Jesus did not say in the text. He did not say, “If you are irritated with your brother…go,” or “If your brother gets on your nerves…go,” nor did he say, ‘If your brother annoys you…go.” He said–watch it carefully, “If your brother sins against you…go.” The word “sin” suggests an actual transgression has occurred.

Did your brother break his word? Did he share information that he promised to keep in confidence? Did he lose his temper and say something unkind? Did sin occur, or are you simply aggravated at this individual?

3. Jesus said if and when a brother is guilty of wrongdoing, then you have a personal role in repairing the relationship. Whether or not his actions were inadvertent, unrealized, or premeditated are irrelevant. If he sinned, that means that his actions must be confronted. Yes, you read that correctly–I said “must.” Going to the offending brother is just as much of a command as baptism, A cappella singing, and partaking of the Lord’s Supper on the first day of every week. It is obligatory; it is not optional.

You see, if your brother sins against you and you don’t go to him, then you have also sinned because you short-circuited the Lord’s will!

Your brother’s error has to be addressed, in the interest of his spiritual standing before heaven, and if you fail to go to him as the Lord requires, then he is still in error and you have exhibited a lack of love for his eternal soul.

Christ wants you to personally communicate your grievance to the offending brother by showing him his fault in a loving and caring fashion (Ephesians 4:25-32). How can he be right vertically with Christ if he’s not first right horizontally (Matthew 5:24) with you?! And the answer is–he can’t.

But how can you be right vertically with Christ if you refuse to do he has required in the New Testament? And the answer is–you can’t.

by Mike Benson

It is impossible to read the sentence without some incredulity. John records, “…The chief priests plotted to put Lazarus to death…” (John 12:10).

Think about that word–”priests.” It’s plural.

One spiritual leader didn’t scheme to murder Lazarus; many spiritual leaders schemed to murder Lazarus. And these guys were supposed to be the religious right–the moral elite of ancient Jewish society!

The ESV says, “…The chief priests made plans to put Lazarus to death as well.” “As well…” In truth, they didn’t want to murder just one man, but two. They wanted to kill Jesus (cf. 11:53) and Lazarus.

“Why?” you may ask. Re-read John 12:9-11. A great many Jews believed in Jesus. And why did a great many believe in Jesus? Because Lazarus had been raised from the dead.

Remember that the Sadducees taught that there was no resurrection (cf. Matt. 22:23-28). Unfortunately for them, Lazarus illustrated that their dogma was at obvious variance with the Biblical data. He was a living, breathing entity despite the fact that he had been entombed for four days (11:39).

Lazarus was concrete evidence to the contrary; he was the doctrinal deathblow to their misguided, man-made tradition.

It was impossible for the chief priests to argue with or against him. Any sane, thoughtful, sincere individual wouldn’t even attempt to debate with Lazarus. He was absolute proof that Jesus could perform miracles. He was the undeniable corroboration of the divinity of Christ (cf. John 20:30-31).

And that’s why the chief priests wanted to kill Lazarus and Jesus.

A few thoughts rattle around in my neocortex as I ponder this curious incident:

• If Jesus could resurrect a dead man, why did the chief priests entertain the idea of killing Lazarus in the first place? Couldn’t Jesus resurrect Lazarus again, if he so desired? What this teaches me is that you can’t expect coherent thinking and behavior from people who insist on upholding their agenda over truth.
• If Jesus could, and obviously did, bring a dead man back to life–as Jesus had also done on previous occasions–e.g., the son of the widow of Nain (Luke 7:11-17) and the daughter of Jairus (Luke 8:40-56)–wouldn’t that serve as affirmation of his divine power? Had the chief priests really thought about the futility of trifling with the miracle Man of God?

The chief priests in John’s story remind me of a critical point: unbelief is not due to a lack of evidence; unbelief is due to a lack of conviction. People don’t reject the truth because there are no facts; they reject the truth despite the facts.

Even when there is incontrovertible testimony, some folks simply choose not to believe. If their hearts are hard and their motives are impure, you can expect them to be antagonist towards truth and to engage in sinful, destructive behavior.

On the other hand, if their hearts are soft and their motives are pure, you can expect them to investigate, believe in, and follow the Lord.

• Was the world created in six literal days?
• Is there life beyond this transient walk?
• Is immersion necessary in order to be saved from sin?
• Is it possible to live in adultery?
• Is homosexual behavior sinful?

It depends. It depends on whether or not a person wants the truth and is willing to follow it to its inevitable conclusion.

The chief priests weren’t willing to do that. Dear reader, are you (cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:10)?

It was Sunday evening, February 10th.

We had barely started the assembly when it was announced that a funnel cloud was some eight miles to our west and headed in our direction.

Our fellowship broke into two groups and we huddled into a couple of classrooms to wait for what would transpire. We sang hymns and prayed fervently for the Almighty’s protection.

Within minutes the EF4 tornado broke through the northwest edge of our parking lot breaking down power lines, exploding transformers, and scattering debris.

Somehow the dark tempest skirted our vehicles as well as the building itself, and we escaped unscathed. Unfortunately, hundreds of homes in our area suffered extensive damage and hundreds more were totally destroyed.

When the tornado finally dissipated, it had left a 21-mile path of chaos in its wake.

Our shepherds cancelled the rest of the service, we closed with a prayer of thanksgiving, and then urged everyone to travel to their homes with caution.

A few minutes later, I started making my way home taking the usual trek down 40th Avenue towards Lincoln Avenue.

Barely a block away, I noticed a medium-sized tree on the right that had been toppled by the storm. The tree was standing, actually lying, all by itself in a families’ front yard.

Ironically, no less than thirty yards away there was a long, tight line of much smaller trees which were perfectly erect. Not a single one of them had been damaged or uprooted.

The little scene struck me like a hard slap in the face. Even though the singular tree in the yard was much, much larger, and presumably stronger than the saplings nearby, it didn’t have the luxury of numerous other trees to buffer from the effects of the harsh winds.

The snapshot in time reminded me physically of what is true spiritually.

God never meant for any of us to go it alone. He never intended for us to be Lone Rangers and to try to survive life’s storms all by ourselves.

A strong tree left in seclusion can’t withstand 160+ mile an hour winds, but a cluster of tiny hardwoods can brave the same fury because they mutually protect each other by their very presence.

In Romans 1, Paul wrote:

“For I long to see you, that I may impart to you some spiritual gift, so that you may be established—that is, that I may be encouraged together with you by the mutual faith both of you and me” (Romans 1:11-12; cf. 15:24).

It is intriguing to me that the apostle wanted to give the gift of his presence and fellowship so that both he and the Roman brethren would be strengthened and comforted. He was a giant—a spiritual Redwood, and yet he admitted his need for that which only fellow saints could provide.

THOUGHT: If the apostle Paul couldn’t make it in the world all by himself, if he couldn’t navigate the storms of adversity on his own, how can any of us manage to do so by ourselves today? Dear brother, dear sister—are you making regular contact with fellow Christians?

by Mike Benson

Brooke is an enigma. She is unique–an actual one of a kind. There is no other person like her in the world.

Brooke weighs 16 pounds–the typical weight for a child between the ages of 6-12 months. But Brooke Greenberg is not a toddler; she is a 20-year-old. No, that’s not a misprint. She was born in 1993.

She hasn’t grown at all since she was five. In a manner of speaking, her body and mental facilities are frozen in time. Mentally and cognitively she is a one year-old. She still has all of her baby teeth. Her hair and nails are the only parts of her body that actually grow.

Medical experts have searched in vain for some sort of a causal agent. They are baffled by this woman in the mind and body of a child.

“Why doesn’t Brooke grow?” they inquire. She has no apparent abnormalities in her endocrine system, no chromosomal aberrations, and no other observable disruptions which ought to prevent her from growing and maturing as all other people do.

Doctors conjecture that there was some sort of a gene mutation during the time she was developing in her mother’s womb. They have created a whole new malady in her honor–syndrome X.

Ironically, Brooke’s family insists there’s nothing wrong with her. Her father, Howard, said recently, “If somebody knocked on the door right now and said, ‘It’s a guaranteed pill. Give it to Brooke and she’ll be fixed,’ I would say to him, ‘She’s not broken.’”

We can dicker over semantics and whether or not it’s appropriate, or politically correct, to say Brooke is “broken,” but there’s clearly something amiss. Because physicians can’t pinpoint what initiated Brooke’s malady, it doesn’t mean everything is fine. Normal 20-year-old women function far differently than she.

The Hebrew writer once struggled with Syndrome X, too. He wrote, “…By this time you ought to be teachers…” (5:12a).

Jewish Christians were Brooke Greenberg. They hadn’t matured; they still needed milk (v. 12b). They were spiritually stunted and had failed to grow. One author observes:

“In saying you ought to be teachers, the author, rather than harassing them because they were not all teachers, is shaming them because they had not grown up in Christ. To be a teacher meant to the ancient mind that one was able to think and to act maturely–the very thing that these Christians could not do. They had had enough time, indeed more than enough. But they had gone backward rather than forward. They still needed a teacher. They still needed to be taught, as literally rendered, ‘the rudiments of the beginning of the oracles of God’ (e.g., the very ABC’s of God’s oracles).”/1

Good reader:

• Are you growing and maturing in your faith?
• Do you spend more time in personal Bible study and prayer than you did when you first were born into Christ?
• Are you more active and is your faith exhibited in the way you serve in the kingdom?
• Can you make better decisions about how to interact with and in the world?
• Can you observe and trace your walk into spiritual adulthood-or do you still need a bottle to suck on?

It breaks my heart to think about Brooke. She’ll never know the joys that come with maturation. But it’s even more heartbreaking to think about children of God who are like her.

Who wants to stay that way?

_________
1/ Neil R. Lightfoot, “Spiritual Childhood,” Jesus Christ Today, page 112.

by Mike Benson

It is a $100 word. Anthropomorphism. It is difficult to enunciate; it is even more challenging to understand.

The word is a combination of the Greek anothropos, meaning human and morphe, meaning form. Anthropomorphic language represents God having human form or characteristics.

For instance, the Bible says:

• God has feet. – “Exalt the LORD our God, and worship at his footstool…” (Psalm 99:5). If he possesses a footstool, then obviously he has feet, right?
• God has a heart. – “And I will give you shepherds according to My heart…”(Jeremiah 3:5; cf. 1 Samuel 13:14; Genesis 6:6; 8:21).
• God has arms. – “Ah, lord GOD! Behold, You have made the heavens and the earth by Your great power and outstretched arm…” (Jeremiah 32:17; cf. Exodus 15:16; Deuteronomy 11:2; Psalm 89:10; Isaish 51:9; 62:8).
• God has hands. – “Therefore humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God…” (1 Peter 5:6; cf. Exodus 7:5; Psalm 8:6 Jn. 10:28; Acts 4:28, 30).
• God has fingers. – “He gave Moses two tablets of the Testimony, tablets of stone, written with the finger of God” (Exodus 31:18; cf. Psalm 8:3; Luke 11:20).
• God has a face. – “Their angels do always see the face of My Father…” (Matthew 18:10; cf. Numbers 6:24; Psalm 9:3; 17:2; 27:8; 31:20).
• God has a mouth. – “I speak with him (Moses) face to face…” (Numbers 12:8; cf. Deuteronomy 8:3; Job 11:5; Psalm 33:6; Matthew 4:4).
• God has a nose. – “And with the blast of Your nostrils the waters were gathered together…” (Exodus 15:8; cf. Job 4:9; Genesis 8:21).
• God has ears. – “His ears are open to their prayers…”(1 Peter 3:12; cf. Psalm 71:2; 10:17; 31:2; 102:1,2).
• God has eyes. – “His eyes behold, His eyelids test the sons of men” (Psalm 11:4; cf. 34:15; 139:12; Proverbs 5:21; 2 Chrononicles 16:9; Zechariah 2:8; 1 Peter 3:12).

Do these passages tell us that God possesses physical features? No. Jesus said, “God is Spirit” (John 4:24), and as such, he is not a partaker of flesh and blood as we are.

Here are two helpful things to remember whenever you come across anthropomorphic language in your study of the Scriptures:

• 1. Anthropomorphic language typically informs readers of something God has done or is doing.
• 2. Anthropomorphic language speaks of God as though he were a man in order to help us, on some limited level, to comprehend deity (cf. Psalm 50:21; Isaiah 55:9).

Bernard Ramm, in his book, Protestant Biblical Interpretation, observes:

“Holy Scripture is the truth of God accommodated to the human mind so that the human mind can assimilate it. Through such accommodation the truth of God can get through to man and be a meaningful revelation. Stated another way, revelation must have an anthropomorphic character.”

Contemporary writer R.B. Thieme says similarly:

“For the sake of clarity…when describing the character and function of infinite God, the Bible often resorts to language of accommodation. In other words, to make certain that His thoughts, policies, decisions, and actions are lucidly explained, God takes into account our inherent limitations and basic ignorance. He graciously describes Himself as having human feelings, human passions, human thoughts, human anatomy-even human sins-in order to communicate things to us for which otherwise we would have no frame of reference.”

by Mike Benson

“Now it happened on another Sabbath, also, that He entered the synagogue and taught. And a man was there whose right hand was withered” (Luke 6:6).

While inspiration limits many of the details of this occasion, we do know the identity of at least some of those who were present in the assembly.

The scribes and Pharisees were present (Luke 6:7). They had set themselves up as the authorized police of Jesus’ behavior and doctrine.

A man with a withered hand was also present./1 Was this poor fellow essentially planted by the lawyers in order to trap Jesus? There’s no definitive answer to that question, but the evidence forces us to raise a curious eyebrow.

In any case, the religious leaders were obviously anticipating Jesus’ arrival. Their question, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?” was not due to any desire to witness a miracle, nor to express compassion for the unfortunate man with the shriveled hand. They only wished to ensnare the Lord in his actions and discredit him before his peers.

Jesus could see through the façade of his antagonists. They had gotten so caught up in the day of the calendar that they overlooked the identity of the Messiah and the fact that the Son of God literally stood in their midst.

He had performed miracles on other occasions, but all they could see was a breach of their man-made traditions.

I find it fascinating that Jesus knew their ungodly motives and went to the synagogue anyway. And he could have healed the man with the withered hand on any other day of the week, but he chose to express mercy on the Sabbath–this Sabbath.

Milquetoast peacekeepers would have no doubt warned Jesus to quietly avoid the controversy all together.

“Lord, don’t upset these guys–just leave them alone and wait to heal this guy tomorrow. You’ve got enough grief and stress without another fuss with these troublemakers.”

But Jesus didn’t back down. He was confrontational and in their faces. He knew the only way to melt their frozen hearts was to expose their duplicity for all to see.

He hated hypocrisy more than all other sins and therefore chose to “work,” at least as they interpreted it, in order to reveal their true spirit and motives.

He told the man to step forward so that all could watch the drama unfold. He then asked the scribes and Pharisees, “Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?”

As he had done on other occasions, Jesus turned their own question against them–and then Jesus healed. The handicap was removed, the man was whole, and perhaps most telling of all, his opponents were silenced, yet again.

Yes, the Lord knew the scribes and Pharisees were waiting. He knew the twisted question they were going to ask. He knew they would hate him–(and ultimately kill him) for what he would say and do.

However, Jesus went in the synagogue, laid bare their stubborn, blinded hearts, turned their own question against them, and healed the man with the withered hand anyway.

Jesus healed on the Sabbath because rabbinic tradition had turned the God-ordained day of rest into a day of incredible burden. Jesus healed on the Sabbath because those who demanded certain behaviors of others failed to carry out and live them themselves.

Jesus healed on the Sabbath because he despised pharisaical insincerity at its very core.

Just a thought, brethren. When error is deliberately taught and practiced by those who claim to know Jesus today, how should we respond?

• Should we wait and heal on another day?
• Should we wait until the Sabbath is past?

_______________

1/ The Greek word for “withered” is xeros and means dry. This appendage, for whatever reason, had been deprived of the normal moisture afforded the rest of his body.

by Mike Benson

If Hollywood teaches us anything–which is very, very little, it teaches us not to trust how it portrays any real-life character.

Writers, directors, and producers all have their personal say in how an individual is brought to the big screen.

“Based on a true story” is the motion picture industries’ way of saying:

“We are using large amounts of creative license and editorial bias to show you what we’d like you to see about this particular person in history.”

I remember reading years ago about the 13th century Scottish hero, William Wallace, often referred to today as “Brave Heart.” Hollywood gave him a rather extensive facelift.

Truth be known, the William Wallace of the silver screen and the William Wallace of history are two radically different entities.

But nowhere is Hollywood’s disposition towards real people more evident than in the life of our Lord.

Cinema and pop culture has morphed him into a rather stolid, dull, and largely unemotional being. He’s a disconnected, Vulcan-like therapist for broken and hurting folks.

What’s worse is that he is depicted as moving in and among the ancient masses with the energy and enthusiasm, forgive me, of a baked potato.

You see, Hollywood wants you to think of the Jesus of history as obtuse at best and dull and out of touch at worst. In other words, he is uncaring and irrelevant.

But friends, my Bible shows the Messiah to be quite different from how he is rendered in modern media.

The Jesus of Scripture is a man of intense passion and feeling.

• Watch him overthrow the tables of the moneychangers in the temple in Matthew 21. Did Jesus care about sin, hypocrisy and greed? Was he ever aroused by transgression and iniquity?
• Watch him shed tears at Lazarus’ tomb in John 11. Did Jesus feel deeply at funerals or was he an emotional vegetable? Did he weep or was he devoid of affection?
• Watch him interact with the crowds of sick folks in Matthew 14. The Holy Spirit said Jesus was “moved with compassion.” Does that sound like he didn’t care and that he was unaffected by pain?
• Listen to him lift his broken voice on Gethsemane’s hill as he pours out his heart to God in Hebrews 5. The NKJV describes his laments as “vehement” (NKJV), while the ESV describes them as “loud cries and tears.” Does this sound like a man who is incapable of sensitivity?

Our Lord was no half-human android! He had heart, he felt strongly, and he was passionate!

Give Hollywood its credit. It knows how to appeal to the carnal and it knows how to make lots of money.

It just doesn’t know how to deal with the real Son of Man.