The Sense of Events blog reports on an interesting-sounding book about Jesus and his relationship to the Jewish religion of his day—The Misunderstood Jew: The Church and the Scandal of the Jewish Jesus by Amy-Jill Levine, a respected Jewish scholar. From Sense of Events' description, the book challenges the popular view (in evangelical circles, at least) that Jesus' life and ministry were a strong break from traditional Jewish teachings and practice. From Sense of Events' summary:
[Amy-Jill Levine] wishes to introduce the reader to the Jewish ordinariness of Jesus himself and of his place and time. Just as importantly, A-J explains simply and thoroughly the errors of both the Church and the Academy in drawing conclusions about presumed monolithic Judaism; both blocs have generally supposed that whatever Jesus seemed to oppose must have been normative in Judaism of his day. That is, clergy and scholars alike haven't studied Judaica to speak of, but nonetheless think that the New Testament describes Judaism both accurately and exhaustively. It just is not so.
What's your reaction to that?
I'm intrigued, but also hesitant to comment due to my general ignorance of ancient Judaism. I will say that a lot of my reading and education growing up has encouraged me to see Jesus primarily as more of a "rebel" against established Jewish religious tradition—but now that I think of it, most of Jesus' "rebellious" activity was in response to overzealous religious leaders, not necessarily to everyday Judaism as it was practiced. This verse springs to mind as possibly relevant: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."
What's your reading? Does the New Testament paint Jesus as a good and faithful practitioner of Judaism? Have Christians overstated the extent to which Jesus broke from tradition? And how does your answer to those questions affect the way you read the New Testament and think about Jesus?





Login to comment
Alternate Login
Use your social media account to login.
Login with your ReFrame account
Comments (10)
what this book appears to be saying from the link is that Jesus has been misrepresented by many to have anti-semitic ideals, though this was clearly not the case, since Jesus said Himself that He came first to the lost house of the sheep of Israel and it wasn't really until Paul and Barnabas set out that the Gentiles were reached in large numbers. I think she misunderstands who real Christians are as opposed to those who falsely use Jesus name for their cause and misunderstands that people have always misused scripture to support their cause by taking things out of context.
though not used much in her book, apparently, saying things like Germany and Hitler being influenced by Christianity to support the Holocaust are ridiculous, he was heavily involved in the occult, not in the new testament.
So he may have broken the traditions, but that doesn't mean that he broke the law, which was never kept by the traditions.
It seems to me that Jesus' message resonated with the everyday Jew of his time lagely because of the division occuring in Judaism between the religious hierarchy which was moving more deeply into hypcritical religio-centric practices and lay Jews who were responding to that swing with a very secular cultural Judaism. It seems from the New Testament that both were pulling away from God and that those in both camps devoted to God found Jesus and his message very appealing. Let us not forget that teachers of the law came to Jesus too (Nicodemus, see also John 12:42 & Acts 15:5).
So, I don't think that the average Sunday school teacher goes into all of the details of Jesus as a rebel to the establishment and there certainly seems to be a general assumption in Christiandom that Jesus was an overall rebel. But, I think it is too sweeping of a statement to lay that burden on all pastors and professors in Christianity... Not even in evangelical Christianity...
For me, I don't see Jesus actions as a rebellion against something per se, though they definitely are a response and reaction to certain people. But I think given the nature of Judaism where there were Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes, Zealots, the Qumran Community, and others Jesus makes more sense to me as a reformer of Judaism than a rebel against 'Judaism,' because I don't think there was a single entity that encapsulated Judaism. Similar to if we tried to encapsulate all of Christianity under the term 'Christian' it just isn't an overly helpful term.
Two most obvious results was the ending of a need for an intermediary priesthood between the Believer and God. Further, it initiated individual value for each person. Such values have no other source and is basic in our Western Civilization, and overcomes a collective system of human value - and non-value - by the group, which is common to all man-made religions and humanistiv political systems of assumed number power.
( Greco-Roman systems were more than 90% slave or non-citizen non-rights throughout their entire histories and do not deserve a misplaced credit due God alone. Psalm 25:12 Joel 3:14 kjv ) selah
Choicemaker
a follower of The Lion of Judah
Church people so often paint Jesus as this ultimate Christian prom king who rebelled against the Law. In reality He was a Jewish teacher who fulfilled traditional Jewish Law and rebelled against the pastors who abused their power and position (much like many of today's pastors).
Understanding Jewish tradition and culture and how it relates to Christians now is paramount to a full life in Christ. I'm excited about this book. I wonder if it's on audio.
Jesus divided people and attracted those who had repentant hearts for God whilst repelling those who idolized institutions and traditions. It was true then and it's true now.
When Jesus can to this earth he came with the full understanding of the Law set down by God. The Jews, if you do some research, made monumental additions to their law that kept the people under very harsh legalism.
If you did any work on the Sabbath then you were condemned by the leaders.
Jesus heals a blind man and they condemn him. This is an indication that the Pharisee's, Sadducee's, Scribes and Priests had the Law of God wrong, not Jesus.
Jesus understood the intent of the Law and did not conform to the additions laid down by the Jewish leaders.
Jesus was and is Jewish. There is nothing that we can see in the bible and other texts that show he wasn't following Jewish tradition and the Law set down by God. Only that he didn't follow the laws put in place by man after the Law was given to them.