In the face of seeming Christian indifference about injustice, several commentators have sought to retrieve the force of Jesus’ concern for injustice. Particularly against the portraits which paint Jesus in soft pastel hues with a happy lamb over his shoulders, smiling white schoolchildren at his feet, and happy crowds in tow; commentators have recently noted that Jesus did not always wear a smile. In fact, he had particularly strong words of judgement for perpetrators of injustice, particularly if they were religious insiders. We read of Jesus’ indictment of religious insiders (perhaps the religious teachers of his day) who by their leadership cause their followers to stumble: “‘But anyone who is the downfall of one of these little ones who have faith, would be better thrown into the sea with a great mill stone hung round his neck.” (Mark 9:42 NJB, see Matt 18:6–7, Mark 9:42, Luke 17:1–3). The statement in Luke is preceded by a particularly vivid parable about a rich man named Lazarus who feasts with indifferent extravagance in spite of great poverty just outside his door and as a result experiences harsh judgement (Luke 16:19–31). Similarly, Jesus shows his anger not with words but with action when he physically drove out those who were subverting the worship of God’s people by creating a commercial opportunity for themselves in the temple (see Matt 21:12–13, Mark 11:15–17, Luke 19:45–46). Finally, in Matthew we find another parable which unflinchingly tells of judgement of “sheep” and “goats”: “in so far as you neglected do this [helped the hungry and thirsty, clothed the naked, and visited the sick] to one of the least of these, you neglected to do it to me.”  And they will go away to eternal punishment, and the upright to eternal life’ (Matt 25:31–46). Close study of each of these statements in context yields a far more nuanced reading than I have provided here, which in some cases can explain the reasons for Jesus’ harshness. But one cannot deny that there is a measure of forcefulness, righteous anger, and judgement which lies behind these words. In short, commentators note, Jesus was no milk-toast.

I hope that Jesus’ concern for justice has been definitively re-established for our generation, but this is not actually my concern here. There is a further danger behind this (albeit partially authentic) recasting of an angry Jesus and that is that in the midst of our rhetoric we may “lose the forest for the trees.” We cannot appreciate Jesus’ full personality, if we fail to acknowledge the overwhelming measure of grace which he extended to all sorts of people, including those with wealth and power who acted with cruelty and abuse. Failing to acknowledge this, we have simply made the same mistake twice, substituting unmeasured but righteous anger for wimpy grace. Counter-examples abound, including the extending of grace for a cruelly religious Saul who acted in unrighteous judgement (Acts 9) and the tax-collector Zaccheus who made a habit of abusing his public office and extorting people and finds himself hosting Jesus at his table (Luke 19). I also wonder whether this over-correction with respect to Jesus may be a consequence of the failure to correct a popular misreading of the Old Testament which inversely finds only a God of harsh judgement. One cannot fail to note that there are surely stern words and acts of judgement in the pages of the Old Testament, but these exists in the midst of a text that largely expresses an extraordinary measure of grace and a commitment by God to the redemption of the whole creation. Jesus’ offer of friendship and words of redemption were extended to the tax-payer and the tax-extorter alike, just as God’s larger work of redemption is concerned with all persons. How we conduct ourselves is of the utmost importance, but we must not lose sight of the fact that God’s grace is indefatigable particularly for the sake of “overheated” rhetoric about social justice.