Jesus was the greatest jew

JESUS WAS THE GREATEST JEW
EDITED BY GLENN PEASE
Hebrews 3:1-6 1Therefore, holy brothers and sisters,
who share in the heavenly calling, fix your thoughts on
Jesus, whom we acknowledge as our apostleand high
priest. 2He was faithful to the one who appointedhim,
just as Moses was faithful in all God's house. 3Jesus
has been found worthy of greater honor than Moses,
just as the builder of a house has greater honorthan
the house itself. 4For every house is built by someone,
but God is the builderof everything. 5"Moses was
faithful as a servantin all God's house,"bearing
witness to what would be spoken by God in the future.
6But Christis faithful as the Son over God's house.
And we are his house, if indeed we hold firmly to our
confidenceand the hope in which we glory.
And the nominees are:
1. ABRAHAM: He was a Gentile, but he was chosento be the first Jew.
2. MOSES:The majority of Jewishauthors who make a judgment choose
Moses as the greatestJew who ever lived. God's law came through Moses, and
he led the children of Israelout of Egypt.
Nathan Lopes Cardozo, the Jewishauthor wrote of Moses, "Thathe would
become the greatestJew ofall time, that his name would be immortalized in
Scripture and that it would be on the lips of millions and millions of people for
thousands of years, probably never entered his mind. Indeed he may never
have known what an eminent man he really was and that there would never

be a person who could come close to his heels as far as accomplishments are
concerned."
3. DAVID: He is consideredto be the greatestking of the Jews
4.JOHN THE BAPTIST In Luke 7:28, Jesus declaredJohnthe Baptist to be
the greatestmanto have ever lived: "I tell you, among those born of women
there is no one greaterthan John ...".
The following quotes are lifted from articles and speeches onthe internet that
indicate there are a number of Jews that some feel are the greatestto ever
live.
5. Dr. Irene Lancasteris Honorary ResearchFellow in the Centre for Jewish
Studies
"There were many Sephardi geniuses, but it can safelybe said that ibn Ezra
was the greatestJew everto set footin this land."
Abraham ibn Ezra (1089-1164),
6. Benjamin Disraeli, later Lord Beaconsfield, was atone and the same time
the greatestEnglishmanand the greatestJew who had ever lived.
7. "Yitzhak Navon calledDavid Ben-Gurion "the greatestJew ofany
generation." Froman article by Yitzhak Shamir, a former prime minister of
Israel.
Shimon Peres – Nobel Lecture called David Ben-Gurion "I
was privileged to work closelywith a man who was and remains, to my mind,
the greatestJew ofour time."
Inconsistently enough(or consistently, would one say?), non-Orthodox Jews of
today have called BaruchSpinoza the greatestJew ofmodern times.
8. Einstein as we know is regardedas one of the most genius men of this
century. In fact, I have read as somebody saying that, "Einsteinis the greatest
Jew since Jesus".But if you ask me, my personalopinion is that Einstein is the
undisputed greatestevergenius as wellas greatesteverhuman being whom
mankind has ever seen.
9. One womanmade the list as one Rabbi in his sermon on Ruth said, "Ruth
has been cherishedby our tradition as the greatestJew-by-Choice."She was a

Gentile who chose to become a Jew, and so if she is electedas the greatestJew
then you have the paradox of the greatestJew being a Gentile. Abraham falls
into this same paradox.
10. APOSTLE PAUL: DR. J. Vernon McGee said, "The greatestJew ofthem
all was Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles." A goodnumber of authors make this
statement.
11. JESUS:He is the Savior of Israel, the king Of Israel, the High Priest, The
prophet. He is more than any other Jew could ever be. None of the great
prophets could be the king or priest, and none of the kings could be the High
priest. Jesus was allof them.
It is shocking but true that the only way to God is through a Jew. Jesus said,
"John14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man
cometh unto the Father, but by me."
Why should we acceptJesus as the greatestJew to everlive?
Let us explore the evidence and see if any other candidate can match Him.
Jesus:The greatestJew to ever live
-John Dunfee
It’s surprising to find that Jesus came for the Jews andyet there are over 15
million Jews who don’t believe he was the messiah. In the article “The Jewish
Backgroundof Jesus” the author talks about how he didn’t know any Jewish
people in his early years. First, we have to distinguish the two types of Jewish
people you could meet. You could be Jewishby heritage, but not be religious.
Then, you be a member of the Judaism and be a very religious Jew. Mel
Brooks considershimself a secularJew because he doesn’tnecessarilyengage
in Judaism. When the author talks about how he meant some Jewishpeople in
his twenties, it changedhis perspective on Jesus and the New Testament. The
author startedto have concerns with Jesus being Jewishand his impact on the

Jews. I find no contradictionbetweenthe Jewishbackgroundof Jesus and the
impact he had on the Jews.
Jesus calledhimself the son of Man, the son of David, and the Messiah.
Clearly, Jesus himself thought himself to be very Jewish. If one digs deeper
into the Gospels you tend to find Jewishstyle writing in the eyewitness
accounts ofJesus’life and ministry. The accountof Mark records the life and
ministry of Jesus from a Jewishperspective. Matthew, Mark, andJohn were
all Jews writing about how they witnessedthe greatestJew to ever live. The
messiahhimself came for the Jews first, then the Gentiles. Luke writes his
gospelfrom a historicalperspective and is consideredone of the best
historians of his time. Jesus recitedold Jewishscriptures to indicate he is the
messiahfor the Jews. Johnthe Baptist was considereda holy man by many
Jews and he askedif Jesus was the Messiah. Clearly, Jesus answeredhis
question with a very emplicit yes. Jesus was raisedJewishin Nazarethby his
parents Mary and Joseph. Jesus fulfilled many of the Old Testament
Prophecies like being betrayed for 30 pieces ofsilver and having no broken
bones. Jesus’crucifixion scene reflects the prophecies of Psalm22 when he
says “My God, My God, why have you forsakenme”. Also the torture scene in
Psalm22 matches perfectly with death by crucifixion resembling Christ’s
death even more. Although we have no records of Jesus’childhood after his
birth, we do have the story of where he’s in a Jewishtemple. He’s in a Jewish
temple and his parents are looking for him and find him asking questions to
his elders. This demonstrates his childhood with a Jewishbackgroundand
took it very seriously. Jesus is baptized at age thirty and starts his ministry in
Galilee. In the final week of his ministry, his resurrection proves that he was
much more than a great Jewishteacher. It shows that he was God himself
since he was raised from the dead. If he was not God, then he committed
blasphemy for claiming to be able forgive sin and claiming that he was equal
to God. Jesus has a Jewishbackground, but is more than just a greatJewish
teacher. Jesus is God himself and came for the entire world.
Why our there 15 million Jews who don’t believe in Jesus as the messiah? I
believe we have to rewind back to when Jesus was being tried for blasphemy.
He challengedthe Jewishleaders atthe time who just lived by the law and
wanted to maintain their power as the high priests. The high priests convinced
many of the Jews to go againstChrist because by showing he had committed
blasphemy. Ultimately they didn’t want to lose their powers as the high
priests. They had Jesus crucified to suppress the truth himself. Obviously,

that plan didn’t work because Jesus rose fromthe dead. Why don’t Jews
nowadays believe in Christ? Well it has to do with the fact that Christ didn’t
deliver the Jews from the Roman Empire. God’s intension was to deliver the
Jews from sin and death. Also to deliver the Gentiles form sin and death as
well. The Roman Empire was part of God’s plan since they help spread the
Gospelthrough their road system. The Roman empire eventually convertedto
Christianity and ultimately help the spread of Christianity worldwide. If
Christ did not have an impact on the world, then why are 2.4 billion
Christians worldwide? Christ turned 1stcentury Jews into Christians and
they didn’t get poweror wealth. They got beaten, tortured and killed for their
conversionto Christianity. If Christ didn’t have an impact of Jewishculture,
then there would either no Jews or Christians today. Many Jews consider
themselves messianic Jews anddo believe Christ was the messiah. Christ did
impact the Jewishworld and we should expect 2.4 billion Christians
worldwide if he truly was who he said he was. Christ was the greatestJew to
live because he delivered the Jews and the world from sin and death.
The Surprising Jew.
Quiet Talks about Jesus — S. D. Gordon
There is a third surprise growing out of this tragic break, the greatestofall --
the Jew. The first surprises were for the Jew, the later surprise for the
church; this surprise has been and is for all the world. The Jew has been the
running puzzle of history. A strange, elusive, surprising puzzle he has been to
historians and all others. Not a nation, only a people, flagless, countryless,
without any semblance of organization, they have been mixed in with all the
peoples of the earth, yet always distinctly separate.
They have been persecuted, bitterly, cruelly, persistently persecuted, as no
other people has ever been, yet with a power of recoveryof none other too.
With an astonishing vitality, resourcefulness, andleadership, they have taken
front rank in every circle of life and every phase of activity, in art, music,
science, commerce, philanthropy, statesmanship;holding the keys of
government for greatnations, of treasure boxes, and of exclusive social
circles;making their ownstandards regardless ofothers, and with the
peculiarity of strongestleadership, pushing on, whether followedor not.
And now the past few years comes a new thing. This surprising Jew is
surprising us anew. From all corners of the earth they are gathering as not
since the scattering to the Assyrian plains, gathering to discuss and plan for

the getting into shape as a nation againon the old home soil. Jews ofevery
sort, utterly diverse in every other imaginable way, exceptthis of being Jews,
men who hate eachother intensely because ofdivergent beliefs in other
matters, yet brushing elbows in annual gatherings to plan with all their old
time intensity a new Jewishnation. Along the highways of earth, made and
controlled by Christian peoples, they come. What does it mean? They
continue to be, as they have been, the puzzle of history.
This tragic break of the kingdom and the persistencyof the King's plan
regardless ofthe break hold the key to the puzzle. The Jew has been
preserved, divinely preserved, againstevery attempt at his destruction. For he
is the keystone in the arch of the King's plan for a coming world-wide
dominion.
Jesus is God's spirit-magnet for the Jew and for all men. Around Him they
will yet gather, with the new Jewishnation in the lead, the church closestto
the personof the king, and all men drawn. Jesus is God's organizerof the
socialfabric of the world. In response to His presence and touch, eachin his
own place will swing into line and make up a perfect socialfabric.
With the new zealfor pure, holy living now in the church, the clearervision
coming to her of the Lord's purpose of evangelizing the world, the evidence in
all parts of the world of men turning their thought anew to God, this
remarkable Jewishmovement toward national life, it is a time for earnest men
to get off alone on bent knees, andwith new, quietly deep fervor, to pray "Thy
kingdom come." "Evenso come, Lord Jesus."
Was Jesus Jewish?
Would you be surprised to hear a prominent Jewishleadermake the
following statement?
Mostportrayers of the life of Jesus neglectto point out that Jesus is in every
characteristic a genuinely Jewishcharacter, that a man like him could have
grown only in the soil of Judaism, only there and nowhere else. Jesus is a
genuine Jewishpersonality, all his struggles and works, his bearing and
feeling, his speechand silence, bearthe stamp of a Jewishstyle, the mark of
Jewishidealism, of the best that was and is in Judaism, but which then existed
only in Judaism. He was a Jew among Jews;from no other people could a
man like him have come forth, and in no other people could a man like him

work;in no other people could he have found the apostles who believed in
him.[1]
Rabbi Leo Bµck, the leading philosopher-theologianand historian of religion,
though sharply rejecting Christianity, saw a need to declare the Jewishnessof
Jesus in the above passage.He emphasized that Jesus (Yeshua) was a Jew,
born among Jewishpeople and recognizedby other Jews ofhis time.
Born in Bethlehem of Judea
One doesn’t have to be a theologian, however, to see the JewishnessofJesus.
It is evident in the accountof his birth in Bethlehem of Judea. The narrative
(as recorded in the New Testament)tells of wise men who came from afar to
Jerusalem, inquiring of King Herod, Where is the one who has been born king
of the Jews? We saw his star in the eastand have come to worship him.”[2]
Herod was, by all accounts, less thanjust. In addition, he was not the rightful
king of Judea. So it is no surprise that he was disturbed over that news of the
wise men. Herod askedthe more-knowledgeable religious leaders where the
messiahwas to be born and learned that the place had been predicted by the
prophet Micah, hundreds of years earlier:
“But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means leastamong the
rulers of Judah; for out of you will come a ruler who will be the shepherd of
my people Israel.”[3]
Herod was less than delighted with that information. He, in a diabolical plot
much like Pharaoh’s, massacredJewishbabies in an attempt to maintain his
own kingship. He wanted to put an end to the life of the one who would
become ruler over Israel.
However, he was unable to snuff out that baby who was born in Bethlehemto
a young Jewishgirl named Miriam (Mary). And from the moment of his
birth, to his circumcisionto his pidyon ha ben ceremony to his bar mitzvah to
his d’roshes in the synagogues andeven to his final epitaph, a sign over his
head on the instrument of his execution, “Jesus OfNazareth, The King Of The
Jews,”this one called Yeshua was identified with the Jewishpeople.
Did Jesus claimto be the Jewishmessiah?
Some have said that Jesus was indeed a goodJew, anobservant Jew, perhaps
even a prophet of our people, but he never claimed to be the Messiah. Some
say the notion that he was a savior, a mediator betweenthe people and God,
was put forth by his followers.
Nevertheless,whatdid Jesus sayabout himself?

One time when he was traveling with his disciples, he askedthem,
“Who do people say the Sonof Man is?”
They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others sayElijah; and still others,
Jeremiahor one of the prophets.
“But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you sayI am?”
Simon Peteranswered, “Youare the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
Jesus replied, “Blessedare you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed
to you by man, but by my Fatherin heaven.”[4]
Jesus’true identity
Jesus not only acceptedthe title “Messiah, the Son of the living God,” but he
declaredto Simon Peterthat God himself had revealedthat this was his true
identity.
Once when he was traveling alone, he encountereda Samaritan woman at
Sychar. In that encounterwith Jesus she said to him,
“I know that Messiah(calledChrist) is coming. When he comes, he will
explain everything to us.” Then Jesus declared, “I who speak to you am
he.”[5]
The woman rushed awayto tell the men of the village about her encounter
with Jesus. After an extended conversationwith him, they declaredtheir own
belief in his Messiahship.
One commentator, John Stott, said that “the most striking feature of the
teaching of Jesus is that he was so frequently talking about himself.”[6]
Jesus comparedto other religious figures
He further explained that this set Jesus apartfrom other great religious
figures who were self-effacing while Yeshua was self-advancing. Others would
direct people awayfrom themselves and to “the truth.” They couched their
teachings in such phrases as, “Frommy understanding, that is the right thing
to do.” In contrast, Jesus said, “I am the truth, follow me.”
If Jesus (Yeshua) was not the messiahas he claimed, he was certainly the most
arrogantand blasphemous rabbi of all history. If he was not “the Messiah, the
Son of the living God,” as he claimed to be, he deservedworse than
crucifixion. So how is it that so many people believed his claims and followed
him? What impressed Jesus’hearers?
Jesus spoke with authority!

Jewishsagestaughtby quoting opinions of other rabbis. One might say,
“Rabbi Shammai says thus and so, but Rabbi Hillel said otherwise.” Thenthe
rabbi, who would be postulating, would indicate which authority, in his
opinion, should be given more weight.
Yeshua didn’t present the “many different sides” to the question. He spoke to
eachissue directly and authoritatively. He did not need to present many
opinions to be weighedand considered. He delineated what was true in simple
forthright statements.
In one particular teaching, commonly called“the sermon on the mount”,
Jesus reiteratedseveralpoints of the law and gave his ownteaching as the
authoritative answer. For instance, he said,
You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell
you, Do not resistan evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek,
turn to him the other also.[7]
The “eye for eye” dictum was part of the Torah given by Moses. Jesus taught
something that supersededit, thereby claiming an authority beyond Moses.
Considering that God gave the law to Moses, how could Jesus dare to assert
an opinion that went beyond Moses’teaching?This was not merely arrogant,
it was heretical–ifhe did not have the authority from God to back it up. Yet,
in his teaching, Yeshua showedno hesitation, no “maybe” or “perhaps” or “it
seems to me.” He told of the ancient past as though he had been an eye witness
to it. When askedby the religious leaders of his day,
“Are you greaterthan our father Abraham? He died, and so did the prophets.
Who do you think you are?”
Jesus replied, “…Your father Abraham rejoicedat the thought of seeing my
day; he saw it and was glad.”
“You are not yet fifty years old,” they said to him, “and you have seen
Abraham!”
“I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”[8]
Jesus announcedhis deity
In that staggering statement, Jesusnot only establishedthat his existence
precededthe birth of Abraham, but by the constructionof the language, he
announced his deity.[9]
He not only knew the past and the present[10], but he spoke ofthe future as
though he was presently seeing it.[11]He continually pointed to his deity as

well as his messiahshipby the way that he spoke with authority over all stages
of time.
Once, when Yeshua was in the synagogue, he was handed the scroll of the
prophet Isaiah. Unrolling it, he read the portion, “The Spirit of the Lord is on
me, because he has anointed me to preach goodnews to the poor. He has sent
me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recoveryof sight for the blind,
to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.” Yeshua
then rolled up the scroll, returning it to the gabbai(attendant) and he sat
down.
The accountin the gospelofLuke says that “The eyes of everyone in the
synagogue were fastenedonhim, and he beganby saying to them, “Todaythis
scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.”[11]
When Jesus spoke, people had to listen. They might not have liked what he
said, but they could not take their attention elsewhere. He was impossible to
ignore.
Jesus had the powerto perform miracles
Miracle workers were not unusual in first-century Judea. There were
sorcerers andsoothsayersand healers. Some usedtrickery. Others consorted
with familiar spirits, using incantations, amulets and potions to accomplish
their feats of magic. Unlike Jesus, they did not heal in their own power.
Sometimes Yeshua used what might be considereda type of medical
treatment, such as a poultice on the eyes of a blind man. Yet even if the
mixture of mud and spittle had medicinal value, the healing far surpassedany
effectthe technique could possibly have had. It went far beyond what an
ordinary cure could achieve. A man, blind from birth, could suddenly see.
At other times he simply askedthe question, “Do you want to be healed?” or
“Do you believe?”
Jesus’miracles and the public eye
In the beginning of his ministry, Jesus told people not to tell others how they
had been healed. This would seem to indicate that his miracles were of a
superior class than any others of his day. Jesus knew that he would be a
public figure as soonas the people saw his power. He seemedto have a
timetable which temporarily kept him out of the public eye. However, once it
became knownthat he could heal even the most hopeless infirmities and that
he could feedthousands of people by multiplying a few loaves and bread and
some fish, he had throngs of people following him.

During the course of his public ministry, one man was lowered on a pallet
through the roofbecause the room was too crowded for him to brought in the
standard way. Yeshua commented on the faith of the friends who had gone to
such lengths to present their paralyzed friend to him. Then he told that
paralyzed man to pick up his pallet and walk–andhe did!
And what was Jesus’comment about the healing? “Thatyou may know that
the sonof Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” Unlike the prophets
before him, he was not merely the agentused by God; he claimed the power of
God for himself.
Jesus’miraculous power, even from far away
Jesus’powerwas such that he did not even have to be physically present with
people in order to heal them. That was the case with the slave of the Roman
centurion (soldier). That centurion was not without authority in his own right,
and yet he understood that the essenceofYeshua’s power was an authority
that far exceededhis own. “Only say the word,” the soldier urged, “and he
will be healed.”
Perhaps most amazing of all Yeshua’s miracles was his ability to raise a
person from the dead. According to the Hebrew Scriptures, Elisha the
prophet did bring back a boy from the dead.[12]However, in the case of
Lazarus, the man had not only died, but had been in a tomb for four days.
The process of decayhad already begun. Yet Jesus assuredthe dead man’s
grieving sister, Martha, that her brother would rise again.
Martha answered, “Iknow he will rise again in the resurrection at the last
day.”
Jesus saidto her, “I am the resurrectionand the life. He who believes in me
will live, even though he dies; and whoeverlives and believes in me will never
die. Do you believe this?”
(It was a common belief that when the messiahcame he would resurrectall
the dead.)
“Yes, Lord,” she told him, “I believe that you are the Messiah, the Sonof God,
who was to come into the world.”[13]
When Jesus calledLazarus forth from the moldering grave, it was an
unprecedented actof God.
Jesus’miracles were light years beyond those of any healerof his day, from
the standpoint of magnitude and from the authority they demonstrated. And
throughout his public ministry, Jesus performed those miracles to back his
claims.

Jesus (Yeshua)was mysterious
There are people whose mysterious behavior leads other to regardthem as
eccentric. The mystery surrounding Yeshua, however, was not odd or
eccentric behavior. Rather, his “mystery” was in the parables he told and the
claims he made that seemedto be beyond comprehension.
For example, Yeshua met with the Jewishleader, Nicodemus and told him
that he needed to be born again. Nicodemus was puzzled. He pointed out the
obvious impossibility–how could he go back into his mother’s womb? Yeshua
lifted some of the mystery by saying that a personis born of both waterand
the Spirit and that what Nicodemus neededwas a spiritual rebirth. Yet the
idea of a spiritual rebirth was not much easierto understand or acceptthan
the physically impossible re-entry into the womb. Jesus used imagery to take
people from the familiar to the unknown, and much of what he said was a
mystery to his hearers.
Living waters
On the final day of the FeastofSuccoth, he told the worshippers at the
Temple that whoeverwas thirsty needed to drink from the kerenYeshua, the
living waters, the wellspring of salvation. Again, he went from that which was
easilyunderstood to something unseen, mysterious.
Yeshua could have spokenvery plainly but he chose to disclose truth on a
deeper level that causedpeople to ponder. Through hyperbole, metaphor,
understatement and irony, he gave answers that were not easilyunderstood. A
person couldn’t encounterYeshua and merely have a pleasantchat. He
phrased things in a way that made people seek solutions for the mysteries he
raisedin their hearts and minds. He changedthe life of everyone that met
him.
Jesus was “otherworldly”
Yeshua was born in Bethlehem, raised in Nazareth, and was, in many ways,
very much a person of his time and place. Yet not only was he surrounded by
a sense ofmystery but he was separatedby a sense ofalienation. It’s not that
he was hostile or that he sought to exclude others. The alienationoccurred
because he knew and loved what was perfectand was committed to that
perfection. Others had a difficult time understanding the beauty and wonder
of the perfectionJesus experienced, and that separatedhim from other
people.
Even as a boy of twelve, Yeshua’s other worldliness was apparent. When he
was separatedfrom his mother Miriam, and his foster father, Joseph, they

thought he had strayed, that he was lost. Upon finding him in the Temple they
scoldedhim as parents naturally would. “I’ve been about my Father’s
business,” he told them, and he was not referring to Joseph, but of a
parentage that was beyond this earth.
Likewise, whenYeshua told Nicodemus that a person cannot see the kingdom
of God without being born again, he was revealing his otherworldliness.
Jesus told people details about their lives that he would have no earthly way of
knowing.[14]WhenJesustold a man that his sins were forgiven, he knew what
the religious leaders presentwere thinking and he respondedto their
unspokenthoughts. It was saidof him, that he knew what was “in the hearts
of all.”[15]But he did not merely know what was in their hearts. He cared
about them as people.
Jesus lovedpeople!
Yeshua, unlike many other leaders of his day, showeda profound love for
people–allkinds of people. The only people who were not touched by that love
were those who did not want it. Yeshua extended forgiveness, acceptance,
approval and appreciationto all exceptthe self-satisfiedand self-righteous.
Apart from them, Jesus wantedto be with whomeverwanted to be with him.
Yeshua taught in a waythat made people smile, but he never failed to
confound the haughty or bewilder the arrogant. He was a man who had
calluses onhis hand, a magnificent sense ofhumor that transformed itself into
ready wit. He was a compassionate andcaring and loving person to those who
were vulnerable, frightened, despairing and downtrodden. He never failed to
leave people somehow betteroff than when he first met them.
The company he kept
He spent time with the tax collectors, fishermen, women of questionable
reputation, learned people, farmers with dirt beneath their nails, Jews,
Samaritans–evenRomans. He enjoyed the company of small children when
others wanted to shoo them away. He appreciatedthe gifts of women, whereas
other rabbis wouldn’t allow contactwith a female for fear of defilement.
Yeshua ate with all kinds of people, he laughed with them, he wept with them
and for them, and ultimately he died on their behalf.
Jesus was willing to be tried, convictedand crucified.
By all accounts, Yeshua did not fight for his life or even seek to defend himself
legally–thoughhe had the grounds to do so. When the ecclesiasticalpolice
came to take him away, he could have reminded them that they had no
authority beyond the Temple grounds.

Yeshua could have reminded them that according to Jewishlaw, they had no
right to take him into custody without an indictment. If Judas had been his
accuser, Yeshua could have impugned the integrity of Judas as a witness by
showing that Judas was a thief who had been stealing from the treasury. He
could have answeredfalse accusations with the ringing truth: “I did not say
that.”
“The King of the Jews”
When the governoraskedJesus if he was “the king of the Jews”, he said,
“Yes, it is as you say.” Certainly, if he was a king, he was remarkable for his
ordinariness. Yet this remarkably ordinary person, Yeshua, boasteda boast
that was beyond the imagination of most insane people. He not only admitted
he was destined to be king, but he claimed that he could calltwelve legions of
angels to his defense–ifhe chose.
Yet he made a different choice. Justas a sheepwho is brought to the slaughter
does not complain–so Yeshua did not open his mouth to utter one word of
protest. He knew he was destined to rule but he also knew he was destined to
die first. No one ever died like Yeshua died and no one ever accomplishedso
much with his death. His death was not the end, but the beginning.
The world has been changedby Jesus’coming.
Mostof us live by a calendar that measures time in the number of years
before Yeshua walkedthe earth and the number of years since. This in itself is
evidence of his profound impact on our world. Entire libraries could be filled
with books written about him. He inspired such musical masterpieces as
Handel’s Messiahcenturies after he walkedthe earth. Greatmasters, such as
Michaelangeloand Botticellisoughtto glorify Yeshua in works of art that can
be found in the most renownedmuseums and galleries on this globe.
From Augustine to Adler to Einstein, the greatestphilosophers and scientists
alike had to grapple with his teachings and ponder his person. And those
philosophers who lived before he came spoke of ethics and aesthetics which
Yeshua’s life embodied.
Yeshua worldwide
BecauseofJesus, people in remote jungles as wellas in the highest halls of
learning, know something about the Jewishpeople and our teachings. They
are familiar with the geographyof the Jewishhomeland. People are more
familiar with Bethlehem than Bombay and feelmore of an attachment to
Jerusalemthan Rome. People ofall races are named Abraham, David, Jacob,

Isaiahand Rachelbecause ofYeshua. They feelrelated to the Jewishpeople
through Jesus.
Easternreligions taught that people who suffered, pain, disease and untimely
death were being justly punished for dishonorable behavior in a previous life.
Whereas Easternreligions acceptedsuffering as karma to be repeatedover
and over in lifetime after lifetime, Yeshua taught compassionforthe suffering.
Grace and forgiveness flowedfrom him and yet his righteousness was not
compromised. That is why people loved him, and still love him so.
In Jesus Christ’s name…
Not all who said that they were Christians behaved according to Yeshua’s
example. He taught love, humility and the dignity of all people. When you find
hatred, prejudice and intolerance in the name of Jesus, youfind a failure to
follow the one whose name is being used. Any Christians who show a lack of
compassionare ignoring–evencountermanding–the example of Christ.
It’s all too easyto shift blame to Jesus for persecutionwhich he never taught
or tolerated. Human beings are quite capable of persecuting one another, not
because ofJesus, but in spite of him. People who truly are Jesus’disciples
show some discipline in following his teachings.
The goodside
Hospitals were establishedout of Christian compassion. Missionariesbrought
schools and literacyto far-awayplaces becauseofJesus. Medicaland
agricultural professionals traveledfar to give their services becauseofthe love
of Yeshua. People like Martin Neimµller, Raoul Wallenberg and Corrie Ten
Boomstood up to Hitler and the hatred he spewedout because ofthe love they
found in Yeshua.
If Jesus had merely lived and died, the world would not have been forever
altered by his coming. But his resurrectionputs Jesus on the scene ofevery
episode of history. His observable life after the crucifixion has made Jesus the
most powerful and influential personwho ever lived, because he still lives.
And the fact that he still lives and desires to change people’s lives is wonderful
to those who want what he offers and an offense to those who do not.
The dark side
Detractors dwellon deeds of “name only” Christians or the deeds of
Christians gone astray, rather than dealing with the personof Yeshua, even
when confronted with the factthat the two are separate. After all, Judaism is
not made invalid by the deeds of those Jewishpeople who violate any of the
613 precepts of the law.

In the same way, those people who take Jesus seriouslyand try to live by his
teaching are a minority. Why is it that the majority of people, Jews and
Gentiles, don’t want to hear about Yeshua?
The costof following Jesus
The irony is that, as the saying goes, “The more things change, the more they
stay the same.” When Jesus walkedthe earth, some of the rabbis and
leadership of his day did follow him, but it took tremendous courage for them
to go againstthe tide. Some of the wealthier people who had position and
powerwere able to see pasttheir riches to the spiritual poverty that Jesus
came to alleviate.
But those who avoided or despisedhim felt they didn’t need his love or his
compassionfor they saw themselves as self-sufficient. They didn’t understand
why Jesus keptcompany with people who were beneath their contempt. And
they seemedto reasonthat, if Jesus was as noble as they were, he would
distance himself from the dregs of society.
Today, many deride believers in Jesus as weak, helpless losers, looking fora
quick fix to their problems. Some view Jesus as a crutch and see themselves as
spiritually fit, having no need of him. To such people, it is irrelevant as to
whether or not, Jesus is who he says he is. To considerhim is to agree to
associate withthe kind of needy people he attracts and that they do not wish
to do.
The truth about Jesus
Jesus is as patient and loving as he ever was. He does not restricthis grace to
those who are well-educatedand highly employable. He does not reserve
mercy for the politically correctand well-connected. He is interestedin giving
hope to the oppressedand the oppressors’to the haves and have-nots alike.
Jesus is also as mysterious as he ever was. Those who have acceptedhis love
and forgiveness andhave committed their lives to him, can’t quite explain the
quality of their spiritual life to those who have not yet experiencedthe new
birth. But one can catchglimpses of it in the lives of those who know him best.
They continue to be motivated by his person and moved by his power.
Yet still he’s unseen, unknown and unheard exceptby those who have an ear
to hear and a heart to understand. by Susan Perlman
CHARLES JEFFERSON IN THE CHARACTER OF JESUS

"How he looms above the heads of his contemporaries!There were men of
distinction in Palestine nineteencenturies ago. Jesusmeasuredhis strength
with the greatestmenof his land and generation. But how lacking these men
were in insight the Gospels everywhere disclose.Theyfumbled cardinal
questions and stumbled at points which were critical. They lost themselves in
the mazes of problems which they could not see through or master. Jesus had
eyes which saw to the core of every problem and to the centerof every
situation. He never missedthe essentialpoint or was misled by a subordinate
issue. He stripped off the accidentalfrom the soulof the essential, and no
matter how tangled or complicateda matter was he seized the dominant
principle and made all things plain. Compared with him the Scribes and
Pharisees were owls batting their stupid eyes in the glare of noon. Insight is a
trait of greatness. Onlygreatmen see deep into things. It was his insight
which made him formidable to the men who tried to trip and trap him with
their questions. Again and again they tried it, but they never succeeded. He
always outwitted their subtlety, and always discomfited them at their favorite
game. Wheneverthey dashed at him with a question intended to roll him in
the dust, he seizedit, turned its point upon the man who askedit, and went on
his waytriumphant. Neverdid they getthe advantage of him in a discussion
or an argument. No more clever man ever lived. He beat his assailants into
silence every time they attackedhim. His cleverness was too much for the
acutestintellect which wrestledwith him. He was quick, dexterous, adroit,
and yet when we think of him we do not think of his cleverness because
cleverness is a scintillation of the intellect, and while intellectual brilliancy
dazzles us in other men, we are not impressedby it in Jesus becausehis
cleverness is only one of many talents and endowments which combine to add
luster to his princely, transcendentpersonality."
"When we leave the New Testamentand walk among the nations of the earth
where shall we find a man with whom we should be willing to compare Jesus
of Nazareth? Can you think of an Italian or a German or a Frenchman or an
Englishman or an American whose name is worthy to be linked with his? The
heart draws back shuddering at the suggestionofsuch a thought. Greatmen
have come and gone, doing their mighty deeds and leaving behind names
which shall not die, but what race or nation would dare even in its most
egotistic and vainglorious moments to suggestthat the most illustrious of all
its sons has a right to sit on a throne so high as the throne of Jesus? His soul is

like a star and dwells apart. He is unique, unapproached, unapproachable. He
is the incomparable. His name is Wonderful."
RachmielFrydland
Mostmodern Jewishpeople seemto have made their "peace"with Jesus of
Nazareth. Some considerHim to be a great, Jew, oreven the greatestJew who
ever lived. Some of our Jewishleaders, as Dr.Heinrich Graetzand Dr. Joseph
Klausner, compliment Him on His teaching. Some admire His parables and
purity. as Moses Montefiore;and Some as Sholem Asch and others, even
considerHim to be the Messiah ofthe Gentiles. Todaywe often meet Jewish
people who acknowledgethat Jesus is the MessiahforJew and Gentile alike;
and some are even willing to share these convictions with other Jewishpeople.
Sholem Asch
Yiddish Author
1880-1957
I couldn't help writing on Jesus. Since I first met him he has held
my mind and heart. I grew up, you know, on the border of Poland
and Russia, whichwas not exactly the finest place in the world for
a Jew to sit down and write a life of Jesus Christ. Yet even
through these years the hope of doing just that fascinatedme. For
Jesus Christ is to me the outstanding personality of all time, all
history, both as Sonof God and as Sonof Man. Everything he
ever said or did has value for us today and that is something you
can sayof no other man, dead or alive. There is no easymiddle
ground to stroll upon. You either acceptJesus orrejecthim. You
can analyze Mohammed and...Buddha, but don't try it with him.
You either acceptor you reject....
Ben Siegel, The Controversial Sholem Asch: An Introduction to His Fiction
(Ohio: Bowling GreenUniversity Popular Press, 1976), p. 148, quoting an
interview with Asch by Frank S. Meadin The Christian Herald in 1944.
Martin Buber
Philosopher
1878-1965

From my youth onwards I have found in Jesus my greatbrother.
That Christianity has regardedand does regard him as Godand
Savior has always appearedto me a fact of the highest importance
which, for his sake and my own, I must endeavorto understand...
I am more than ever certainthat a greatplace belongs to him in
Israel's history of faith and that this place cannot be described by
any of the usual categories.
TwoTypes of Faith (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1961), pp. 12-13.
John Cournos
Novelist and Essayist
1881-1966
Jesus was a Jew -- the best of Jews....
Jesus was not only a Jew. He was the apex and the acme of Jewish
teaching, which began with Mosesand ran the entire evolving
gamut of kings, teachers, prophets, and rabbis -- David and Isaiah
and Danieland Hillel -- until their pith and essencewas
crystallized in this greatestofall Jews....
For a Jew, therefore, to forget that Jesus was a Jew, and to deny
him, is to forgetand to deny all the Jewishteaching that was
before Jesus:it is to reject the Jewishheritage, to betray what was
best in Israel....
I know a number of Jews who believe as I do, who believe it is
time that the Jews reclaimedJesus, and that it is desirable that
they should do so...Totake three examples among them, one is a
novelist, whose books are aboutJews and read by Jews;one is an
educator, whose work is among Jews and who knows Jews
exceptionallywell; and one is a scholarinterestedin Jewish
Sunday schools--ifhe were permitted by the elders he would
include among his readings of "gems" ofJewishliterature the
Sermon on the Mount.
In An Open Letter to Jewsand Christians (New York:Oxford University Press,
1938).
Norman Cousins
Former Editor of the Saturday Review
Born 1912
There is every reasonfor Judaism to lose its reluctance toward
Jesus. His owntowering spiritual presence is a projection of

Judaism, not a repudiation of it. Jesus is not to be taxed for the
un-Christian ideas and acts of those who have spokenin his name.
Jesus neverrepudiated Judaism. He was proud to be a Jew, yet he
did not confine himself to Judaism. He did not believe in spiritual
exclusivity for either Jew or Gentile. He assertedthe Jewish
heritage and soughtto preserve an exalt its values, but he did it
within a universal context. No other figure -- spiritual,
philosophical, political or intellectual -- has had a greaterimpact
on human history. To belong to a people that produced Jesus is to
share in a distinction of vast dimension and meaning....
The modern synagogue canlive fully and openly with
Jesus.
"The JewishnessofJesus," AmericanJudaism 10:1 (1960), p. 36.
Albert Einstein
Physicist and Professor, Princeton University
1879-1955
As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the
Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure
of the Nazarene....Noone canread the Gospels withoutfeeling the
actualpresence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word.
No myth is filled with such life.
Jesus is too colossalforthe pen of phrase-mongers, however
artful. No man can dispose of Christianity with a bon mot.
George SylvesterViereck, "WhatLife Means to Einstein," The Saturday
EveningPost, October26, 1929.
Hyman G. Enelow
President of the Central Conference of American Rabbis
and Rabbi of Temple Emanu-El, New York City (Reform)
1877-1934
Jesus was not only born a Jew, but consciousofhis Jewish
descent.
Jesus realizedthe spiritual distinction of the Jewishpeople, and
regardedhimself as sent to teach and help his people.
Jesus, like other teachers, severelycriticized his people for their
spiritual short-comings, seeking to correctthem, but at the same
time he loved and pitied them. His whole ministry was saturated
with love for his people, and loyalty to it.

Jesus, like all other of the noblest type of Jewishteachers, taught
the essentiallessons ofspiritual religion -- love, justice, goodness,
purity, holiness -- subordinating the material and the political to
the spiritual and the eternal.
Who can compute all that Jesus has meant to humanity? The love
he has inspired, the solace he has given, the goodhe has
engendered, the hope and joy he has kindled -- all that is
unequaled in human history.
"A JewishView of Jesus", pp.441-442, 509 in Selected Works of Hyman G.
Enelow, VolumeIII: Collected Writings (privately printed, 1935).
Solomon B. Freehof
Author and Professor at Hebrew Union College
1892-1990
All this vast diversity of opinion has not lessenedthe vividness of
the personalityof Jesus. The opposite opinions have not balanced
eachother into immobility. All the opinions are still staunchly
held and ardently defended. The years have not diminished the
urgency of the question: "What do you think of Jesus?"
...The significantfact is that time has not faded the vividness of his
[Jesus']image. Poetrystill sings his praise. He is still the living
comrade of countless lives. No Moslemever sings, "Mohammed,
lover of my soul," nor does any Jew say of Moses,the teacher, "I
need thee every hour."
In Stormers of Heaven (New York: Harper and Row, 1931).
Kaufmann Kohler
Rabbbi and Educator
1843-1926
The times of Jesus were ripe for a socialupheaval, for the
Messianic Age, whenthe proud will be brought low, and the
humble will be lifted up. Jesus, the most lowly of all men, the
despised, beyond comparison, of the despisedJewishnation, has
ascendedthe world's throne to become the GreatKing of the
whole earth.
In Judaism atthe World's Parliamentof Religions (Cincinnati: Clarke, 1894).
Geza Vermes
Professor Emeritus of Jewish Studies, University of Oxford
Born 1924

...No objective and enlightened student of the Gospels canhelp
but be struck by the incomparable superiority of Jesus....
Secondto none in profundity of insight and grandeur of
character, he is in particular an unsurpassedmaster of the art of
laying bare the inmost core of spiritual truth and of bringing
every issue back to the essenceofreligion, the existential
relationship of man and man, and man and God.
Jesus the Jew:A Historian'sReadingof the Gospels (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1973), p. 224.
Harris Weinstock
American Businessman, Synagogue President, and Author
1854-1922
His wisdom and gentleness, his unselfishness of spirit and his love
for humanity, his desire to live in the spirit of the early Jewish
prophets, and to practise in his daily life the ethics of Judaism, are
becoming better understood, so that the modern Jew looks upon
Jesus as one of the greatestgifts that Israelhas given to the world,
and he is, therefore, proud to callJesus his very own: blood of his
blood, flesh of his flesh.
Had there been no Abraham, there would have been no Moses.
Had there been no Moses, there would have been no Jesus. Had
there been no Jesus, there would have been no Paul. Had there
been no Paul, there would have been no Christianity. Had there
been no Christianity, there would have been no Luther. Had there
been no Luther, there would have been no Pilgrim fathers to land
on these shores with the JewishBibles under their arms. Had
there been no Pilgrim fathers, there would have been no civil or
religious liberty....Without Jesus orPaul, the Godof Israelwould
still have been the God of a handful.
Jesus the Jew and Other Addresses (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1902).
“He explains that, as shadows are scatteredandvanish at sunrise, so likewise
the shadows offormer days passedawayat the rising of Jesus, the sun of
righteousness.”
Yeshua the Messiah

Yeshua is the originalHebrew proper name for Jesus ofNazareth, a
JewishRabbi (and more) who lived from about 6 B.C.E. to 27 C.E.
(A.D.) In other words, Yeshua was the name His mother calledHim
when shall called Him for supper.
Jesus is a mis-transliteration of the Greek mis-transliteration, Yeysu.
(Some say the name Jesus probably developed from the name of the
pagangod Zeus, but there is little or no evidence for this.) It is true that
Emporer Constatine mistook Jesus for the Greek god Apollo, but that is
another story.
It is the most proper to callHim Yeshua, since only in the Hebrew does
His name have any meaning. In Hebrew Yeshua means both
"Salvation," and the concatenatedform of Yahoshua, the "L-RD who is
Salvation." The name Jesus has no intrinsic meaning in English, except
as it is known as His name in English. (Therefore, we cannot deny the
name Jesus, since this name commonly identifies the Messiahto English
speaking people.)
Many people of the world believe Yeshua to be the promised Lamb of
G-d, who was chosento be sacrificedfor all mankind's sin. The Bible
declares that mankind must have a blood sacrifice to substitute
punishment for their sins by placing them on the sacrifice, figuratively
speaking. The sacrifice has to be blameless, else the punishment could
not be substituted, since the thing sacrificedwould be dying for its own
sins. Clean and spotless animals were once sacrificedas a temporal
measure until a fully qualified sacrifice could be supplied at the proper
time. FollowersofYeshua believe He was that perfectsacrifice. He is a
man, who could be properly substituted for mankind, yet G-d in the
flesh, for only G-d is sinless. Only G-d Himself is a pure enough
sacrifice to satisfy His holy justice, for all men have sinned.
Yeshua came speaking the TorahWord of G-d with absolute authority.
He made no mistake in regards to all G-d's commands. Only G-d
Himself could act this way. For this reasonpeople acceptYeshua as G-d
in the flesh. Not that G-d is consignedor limited to flesh, but that He
can manifest Himself in whateverform He pleases to fulfill His task.
Yeshua of Nazarethwas and is the form of flesh that G-d was manifest
in. In this form, Yeshua is the Son of G-d and the Son of Man.
BecauseYeshua presentedHimself with this absolute authority it is only
logicalto conclude He either is G-d or He is the world's greatest
pretender, thus a liar and definitely a lunatic.

If Yeshua is G-d then He is the greatestJew who everlived, and an
honor to the Jewishpeople. If He is not G-d then He is the worst Jew
who ever lived and a disgrace to Jewishness.
Messianic Jewsbelieve Yeshua to be the MessiahofIsrael and G-d in
the flesh, who will come againto deliver Israelfrom their persecutors.
Amen.
Copyright 1996. DavidM. Hargis. All rights reserved.
Jesus the Jew
William Loader
Let me begin by acknowledging a certainhesitation in addressing this
topic. I stand in the Christian tradition. What am I doing talking about
Jewishness? Icontemplated changing the title of my talk to, 'Jesus, not a
non-Jew.'Furthermore I am aware that in addressing such a topic
within the context of Jewish-Christiandialogue I cannotand must not
avoid the broader context and history which surrounds the issue.
In many cultures formal gatherings begin with a moment of grief and
remembrance of the dead. That is appropriate here. For we are
addressing a topic which in some hands became the ground for hatred
of Jews and found its most horrific manifestationin the holocaust. That
pain belongs to the truth, as does the corporate guilt which I share as a
member of a tradition which has fosteredits cause. Yetthat tradition
also leads me to repentance and the searchfor truth.
I approachthe topic, Jesus, the Jew, as an historian. In particular I
approachit as an historian of the early Christian writings, commonly
calledthe New Testamentof the Christian Bible, and of the social,
cultural and religious world in which these writings emerged. I have
just completeda major study, entitled, 'Jesus'Attitude towards the
Law. A Study of the Gospels', and anotheraimed at a broader reading
public, entitled, Jesus and the Fundamentalism of his Day.
Where does one begin? What are our sources for discussing Jesus, the
Jew? Our primary sources are the Christian gospels. Those ofmost
historicalvalue for our purpose are the four included in the Christian
Bible, the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. In
addition, the modern historian takes into accountthe Gospelof Thomas,
a secondcentury gospelcontaining sayings of Jesus, many of which

preserve early tradition. The Christian gospels beganto emerge in the
fourth decade afterJesus'death. Exceptfor a brief prologue which
some have, they preserve collections ofanecdotes andsayings strung
togetherwithin a narrative framework of less than a year, in the case of
Matthew, Mark and Luke, and three years in the case ofJohn. Each
gospelreflects carefulauthorship, often adept literary skill, but also
ideologicalperspectivesinformed by the Christian faith of particular
church communities and their concerns.
By observing the waythe authors of Matthew and Luke rewrote Mark,
we can appreciate both the conservative nature of the process of
transmissionand the way in which it nevertheless led to changes,
sometimes subtle, sometimes radical. What they, writing in the 80s did
with Mark, we must assume, Mark in the late 60s or early 70's did with
his sources,and they in turn with theirs, back through forty years. This
makes it difficult to reconstructexactwording of Jesus'sayings and, at
times, even to know whether what we have before us is historicalat all
or part of the creative processes ofthe tradition. The quest for the
historicalJesus and the quest for the historical contemporaries ofJesus,
his fellow Jews, are alike fraught with difficulty. Both pictures are
colouredby subsequent events. The historian must weigheachunit of
material critically and do so in dialogue with others pursuing the same
critical endeavour, of which there are not a few! Here, there are no
shortcuts, whether inspired by dogmatic assertions ofhistoricalworth
or by speculative reconstructions basedonpesher codes orjournalistic
endeavour.
Sometimes the creative work of the bearers of the Jesus tradition is
relatively plain for all to see. Thus much of John's gospeltakes onthe
characterof a stage play in which Jesus as the leading charactervoices
the faith of the community; and his opponents, that of the community's
opponents. Yet the same is the case in all the gospels. It is all a matter of
degree. And, similarly, in all there is material of doubtless historical
worth, including in the Gospelof John.
Our information about Jesus, the Jew, must, therefore, be evaluated in
the light of the literary and historicalcontext of the gospels. Itmust also
be evaluated in the light of wider sources aboutthe world of the time,
especiallythe religious, socialand cultural world of Palestine in the first
century. Here againwe face the challenge ofevaluating sources. The
tannaitic traditions of the Mishnah and Tosefta andof early midrashim
face the same rigorous inquiry as the gospels. It is not necessarilyto be

assumedthat attributions preserved from the end of the secondcentury
onwards about allegedsayings and rulings of pre-70 Judaism are
accurate. Here, too, there are no shortcuts which enable us to leap back
over a hundred and thirty years. Yet there is little doubt that many of
the traditions are much earlierthan the time of the Mishnah's
compilation and reflectlife and values already present before the
destruction of the temple.
Recentdecades have uncoveredor recovereda rich array of Jewish
writings which emanate from the first century of the current era and
before. Beside the mighty corpus of Philo and Josephus, and the various
testaments, treatises,tales, and apocalyptic works whichhave long been
known, we now have the diverse library of manuscripts found at
Qumran on the DeadSea. Archaeologyalso plays a significant role,
especiallywhen combined with demographic, economic and sociological
studies. We now know much more about Galilee and Judea than had
been known to previous generations. Some ofthis depends on new
information; some depends on looking at old information in new ways.
One need only mention the new appreciation of the impact of
Hellenisationin Palestine orthe complexity of socialand political
movements of the time. The rather oversimplified analysis of pre-70
Judaism into three major sects or parties, Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes
(and, as a fourth, Zealots), has given wayto the realisationthat even
within these there was considerable diversity and beyond them as well.
At the same time there has been a growing appreciationof the social
and cultural systems of the Mediterraneanworld, which goes far
beyond a focus on individuals, as if they stoodin some sense
independently of their world.
This is an appropriate door though which to enter our discussionof
Jesus, the Jew. There is no dispute about Jesus'ethnicity, nor about the
fact that he grew up in Galilee. He was a northern Jew, probably
descendedfrom those Jews settledby the Hasmoneans in the regiona
century earlier. Unlike many of his contemporaries, suchas Philip and
Andrew, Jesus bore a Jewishname: Jeshua, shortfor Jehoshua. Family
names indicate a strong commitment to Israel's traditions: brothers
Jacob(James), Joseph(Joses), Judas or Jude (Judah), Simon, and
father, Joseph, mother, Mary/Miriam.
Even without knowing more than this we may assume that Jesus and his
family were observantof Torah, paid tithes, kept the sabbath,
circumcisedtheir males, attended the synagogue, observedrelevant

purity laws concerning foods, upheld days of purification in relation to
child birth and menstruation, kept the dietary code and one could go on
to all the other elements of the Torah which applied to daily life. While
the Christian gospels recorddisputes about Jesus'interpretation of a
few of these, and to these we shall return, we are doubtless on safe
ground in assuming that Jesus like his family was observant. In such
close knit societiesdisregardwould have stoodout. We would have
heard about it. Matthew even tells us that Jesus wore tassels as a mark
of commitment to Law observance andcertainly believed Mark had
indicated the same. The notion of a Christian Jesus, who did not live by
Torahor only by its ethical values, does not fit historicalrealities. Jesus
was, first and foremosta Jew, an insider; indeed, I suggest, if anything,
fairly conservative.
I believe that some anecdotespreservedin the gospelwritings
corroborate this analysis. Confrontedby a Gentile woman, a
Syrophoenicianwanting help for her daughter, Jesus'first response is:
'Let the children be fed first! It is not right to take the children's bread
and throw it to the dogs.'(Mark 7:27). Mark is not embarrassedto
mention this because he goes onto show that the wily woman persuaded
Jesus to drop the barriers and respond to her need. A similarly
conservative reactionappears whena leper crashes throughthe
establishedbarriers and pleads at Jesus'feet for healing (1:40-44). One
of our earliestmanuscripts reports that Jesus was enraged(1:41D)and
all agree he sent the man off gruffly to the priest with the reminder that
he make the prescribed offering (1:43). His offence at being touched by
the womanwith the flow of blood (Mark 5:25-34)probably reflectedhis
sensitivity about her uncleanness in the earlier form of the story. His
response to the Gentile centurion wanting help for his son is initially off
putting: 'Am I to come and heal him?' (Matt 8:7). That is why the
centurion responds immediately by confessing his unworthiness, 'I am
not worthy for you to come under my roof.' He sensedJesus'hesitation
and understood why. Luke has Peterhave the same reactionin the days
of the early church and it takes heavenly intervention to persuade him
otherwise. Jesus responds to the man's pleas, but even so, as with the
Syrophoenicianwoman, he does not enter the Gentile house.
These are not typical Jewishresponses ofthe time. They are perhaps
typical conservative Jewishresponses. It is remarkable that they have
been preserved. The same conservatismis reflectedto some degree in
Jesus'command to his disciples that they not enter Samaritan territory

or venture into Gentile areas in their mission (Matt 10:5-6). He saw his
own mission and theirs as one 'to the lostsheep of Israel'. When
Matthew reworks Mark's storyabout the Syrophoenicianwoman (Matt
15:21-28;cf. Mark 7:24-30), he explains Jesus'attitude in exactly these
words, 'I am sent only to the lost sheepof the house of Israel'(Matt
15:24). And to reinforce the point Matthew describes the woman as
Canaanite!Luke preserves a similar attitude. The celebrated
repentance of Zacchaeus, the tax collector, who made four fold
restitution for his misdeeds, receives Jesus'accolade:'Today salvation
has come to this house'(Luke 19:9). The words which follow are
revealing: 'Forhe also is a sonof Abraham.'
The fact that Jesus focusedonly on his fellow Jews also makesgood
sense ofsubsequent history, where the first Christians had to grapple
with whether to expand their horizons or not and then on what basis.
This became a problem because Jesushad made it clearthat his mission
was to Israel. What was this task? Whenwe address Jesus'task, we
begin to see a pattern or framework of thought, which probably even
had a place for Gentiles in time. One might think of Jesus'task as that
of a healer. After all, most of the incidents I have mentioned thus far are
of that nature. The anecdote which tells us that John the Baptist
enquired about Jesus'role, has Jesus respondby describing his healing
activity. Even allowing for the exaggerations andembroidery which
inevitably accompanyheroes, there is little doubt that Jesus was
acknowledgedas a faith healer and exorcist, whether positively or
negatively. Faith healers and exorcists were rare, but not unknown in
the prophetic and charismatic traditions of Israelas also among other
peoples.
Yet Jesus apparently saw suchactivity within a broader perspective. In
an era of unrest and oppression, even if sometimes simply quiet and dull
oppressionor compromised by the relief of survival, there was a variety
of responses to what were seenas forces which were not of God,
especiallypoliticalrulers. Many people longed for Israel's liberation.
Luke is probably not far from the mark, when he depicts devout Jews
praying in the temple for a reversalof Israel's fortunes, the casting
down of the mighty and the lifting up of the poor (Luke 1-2). Jesus
belongedto John the Baptist's school, at least, his schoolof thought.
John announced that God would bring the world to judgement and call
Israelto account. People shouldrealise this, submit themselves to God's
judgement, and show they mean it by letting themselves be submerged

in the Jordan. The Jordan was a turning point in more ways than one.
Such baptisms marked a new beginning. Jesus had himself baptised. Of
this factthere is little doubt. He, too, submitted to God's judgement and
promise.
The gospeltraditions tell us that this event suddenly turned the thirty
year old into a spirit filled prophet proclaiming God's messageand
performing acts of liberation through healing. This was his mission. In
the first three gospels this idealisedscene signals the end of John's
ministry and beginning of Jesus'work. John's gospelhas them work as
contemporaries for a period. Whateverthe historicalreality, the
encounter with John is highly significant for understanding Jesus the
Jew. John had confronted the apathy of those who restedon their status
as Abraham's children and did not keepthe Law. He calledfor serious
change. Jesus was similarly confrontationaland similarly demanding.
God's Law remained. There was to be no tinkering with even the tiniest
stroke of a letter.
Matthew is probably right when he shows Jesus going out of his wayto
allay suspicions that he in any way soughtto undermine the Law (5:17-
19). Matthew has him on the attack, like John, againstpeople who
wateredthe Law down. The much celebratedcontrasts which
Matthew's Jesus creates(5:21-48)were notcontrasts betweenwhat the
Law taught and what he taught, but betweenthe way people had been
hearing the Law and what it really meant. Thus like other greatJewish
teachers ofhis time and later, Jesus railed not only againstmurder but
againstangerand hatred; not only againstadultery, but againstlustful
exploitation of women. Like some of the stricterteachers of his day he
attackedoaths and divorce. In this he calledfor an even higher morality
than Torahdemanded, just as did the writers of the Temple Scroll and
the teachers ofQumran. It is as misleading to see these strictures as
abrogating Torahon the part of Jesus as it would be to accuse the
Qumran radicals of the same.
It is also clearthat Jesus espousedan attitude towards Torahwhich we
might describe as affirming a hierarchy of values. He found agreement
with a scribe in affirming that the greatestcommand was to love God
and the secondto love one's neighbour (Mark 12:28-34). These
mattered more than all the sacrifices one might offer. The Psalms and
the prophets had alreadyaffirmed this. Luke tells a number of stories
which underline the same point. The way to life is to keepthe
commandments and that means learning to be a neighbour to those in

need, like the goodSamaritan (10:25-37). In an image of heaven and hell
Abraham bemoans the failure of people to heed to call for compassion
towards the poor (16:28-31).
Mark preserves an anecdote according to which a rich man approached
Jesus an the issue of the way to inherit eternallife (10:17-22). The
encounter is instructive and doubtless reflects an historicalincident.
Addressed as 'Goodteacher,'Jesus immediately refuses the
compliment: 'Why do you callme good. No one is goodexceptone:
God.' You canhear echoes ofthe shema. What is Jesus'answerto the
man's quest? 'You know the commandments!' Mark tells us that Jesus
lookedon the man with affection when he declaredthat since his youth
he had kept the commandments. But then Jesus'reply exposes a radical
flaw. Challengedto sellhis goods and give them to the poor and join
Jesus, the man gives up and goes awaysad. It was not that Jesus was
adding to the commandments or demanding he convert. Jesus'
challenge exposedthe man's failure to graspwhat underlies the
commandments: compassionfor the needy. Keeping right practices to
the letter means nothing if there is no compassion. Jesus wantedpeople
to follow him on this! But as a teacher, not even as a 'goodteacher',
because Godwas the centre of things.
It is interesting to find Jesus sometimes onthe warpath like John
againstmalpractice. He attacks hypocrisy(Mark 38-40);Luke 11:37-
52). He attacks leaderswho put on a show, exploit the poor, the widows.
Like John and like the prophets he warns of impending disasterif
people forsake the ways of God. It will lead to the destruction of the
temple, he warns (Mark 13;Luke 13:34-35). Thatmatters because the
temple is God's house (Mark 11:17;John 2:16)). John speaks ofJesus'
zeal for the temple (John 2:17). It will lead to his downfall, as we shall
see. Jesus did not attack the temple in itself or the sacrifices, anymore
than had the prophets before him. God's things were to be given to God
and that doubtless included tithes (Mark 12:17). But he attackedsome
people for being preoccupied with tithing minute quantities of herbs,
indeed some that the Mishnah explicitly exempts, while neglectjustice
and the love of God. But it is interesting how that confrontation ends.
Referring to such values and to tithing of minutiae he declares:'These
you ought to have kept while not neglecting those'(Matt 23:23: Luke
11:42). That is, he affirms such tithing, nevertheless!
Jesus'demands sethim in continuity with John. With John he shares
the belief that people must be accountable and will face divine

judgement. He even appears to share John's view that such judgement
must be near at hand. But it is at this point that we discern also
differences. The little we have of John's teaching and preaching focuses
on judgement. In Jesus'teaching the climax of history is mostly
portrayed in much more promising terms. Jesus employs the biblical
visions of hope, especiallyfrom Isaiah. 'How beautiful on the mountains
are feetof the one who proclaims to Zion: Your God reigns'(52:7). The
exiles lookedto that glorious day. That glorious vision inspired Jesus.
PoorIsraelis to hear this goodnews. 'Blessedare you poor for yours is
the kingdom of God; blessedare you who hunger for you shall be filled;
blessedare you who weep;you shall laugh!' (Luke 6:20-21).
Images of a greatfeast, of joy and laughter, of harvest and plenty,
abound in Jesus'teaching. He proclaimed the biblical hope: God is
going to set up his kingdom. Life will be transformed. Israel's children
will flock togetherfrom all points of the compass andfeasttogetherwith
Abraham, Isaac and Jacobin the kingdom (Matt 8:11; Luke 13:28-29).
Even his choice oftwelve disciples reflects the Jewishnessofhis hope:
twelve disciples, twelve tribes. Israelwould grow as a tree. Perhaps he
also sharedthe common hope so beautifully portrayed in the Psalms of
Solomonthat the Gentiles, too, would flock to join Israelin the worship
of God (PsSol17). There they would find a nesting place. Perhaps there
is a hint of this in the birds finding shade under the mustard bush
(Mark 4:32; cf. Luke 13:19).
When Jesus of Nazarethleft John and enteredthe populated areas of
lowerGalilee to proclaim his message, he was reflecting this new
optimism about the future. The kingdom of God, God's reign was at
hand (Mark 1:14-15). Like the Kaddish prayer, the prayer he taught his
followers included the petition that God's kingdom would soonbe
established:ïYour kingdom come!' (Luke 11:2; Matt 6:10). The joy of
expectationspilled overinto the present waiting, so that the present
itself became caughtup into the reality of the hope. But there was more
to it than that. Jesus appears to have identified his own achievements
and task as belonging to God's strategyfor the introduction of the
kingdom. Here is where he placedhis miracles and acts of exorcism.
Performed in the powerof God's spirit, they were indications of the
triumph over evil and pain that was to come. 'If I by the finger of God
castout demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you' (Matt
12:28;Luke 11:20).

Not only Jesus'healing activity; also his radical expositionof God's law
belongedwithin the context of his vision of the future. In a way this was
what one might expect. If you long for what will be God's triumph at
the end, then you will surely want to see that triumph alreadybecoming
reality in the present. The vision of future peace finds its echo in Jesus'
teaching about trust. It challengedthe worrying about food and shelter
and pointed to the idyllic life of the lily of the fields and the birds of
nature (Luke 12:22-32;Matt 6: 25-34). While Jesus appears to have
drawn heavily on images from the prophets, Isaiah, in particular, much
of his teaching also consistedin appeals to popular understanding of
nature and human values. God is like a caring father, who refuses to
abandon a wayward child (Luke 15:11-32). These are images ofIsrael's
sages,but they also reflect the piety of the Psalms. Jesus was a story
teller and a user of imagery.
It is interesting that this prophetic vision of Israel's hope functioned as
an integrative point of reference forJesus. Notthat it replacedthe
greatestcommandment. Ratherthe God who is to be loved is the God
who shares the longing for the vision to become reality. It is a way of
thinking about God. It meant that expositions of God's will tend to come
from that starting point rather than from a more formal deposit of
authority, such as the scripture or the laws. This puts him in the
categoryofthe charismatic teacherrather than the biblical interpreter
(cf. Mark 1:22). We see this working itself out in Jesus'attitudes of
hospitality and joy. Whether giving hospitality or receiving it, Jesus
related to the outcastand the despisedin a way which indicated their
inclusion (Mark 3:13-22;Luke 7:31-35;Matt 11:16-19). The
disqualified were treated like the qualified. He understood such radical
inclusion as foreshadowing the radical inclusion of all in the feastof the
kingdom. The meal became an important symbol, later stylised after his
death to become a major Christian sacrament.
In the process Jesusappears to have engagedopenly in what one might
call a celebratorylifestyle. He did not fast and subject himself to the
disciplines of asceticismas had John. He had come in from the desert.
There was nothing un-Jewish about this behaviour, but it was at least
unusual and for some disturbing. His response to the criticism that he
was a glutton and a drunkard who kept bad company was to counter
that wisdom would prove itself in the long run (Luke 7:31-35;Matt
11:16-19).

We are beginning to move towards controversy. So far nothing I have
said indicates that Jesus was un-Jewish, let alone anti Jewish. Nor, do I
believe, does any of the material consideredthus far indicate that Jesus
was abandoning the faith of his people. Quite the contrary, his vision
and behaviour depended upon it. He was not the first charismatic,
prophetic figure. Not all teachers ofIsraelwere of the scribal mould;
not all were interpreters of scripture in the stricter sense. There were
sages,prophetic figures, visionaries, revolutionaries, holy men. The
rather striking emphasis on God's coming kingdom was not an oddity
for the time. If anything future hope was something of a preoccupation,
especiallyamong those articulate enoughto see whathad gone wrong.
But what went wrong with Jesus, or with his relationship with his
people? Even to put the question in this wayskews the issue. It was
never as simple as that. Let me turn to some of the conflicts in which we
know Jesus become embroiled. What did they add up to? One has
already been mentioned: Jesus was notlike John. Perhaps the real
difficulty was betweenJesus'followers and John's followers. Why did
Jesus not behave like John? Nothing in scripture said one must behave
like John. This was not a matter of observance.
Yet the issue was confusedby the fact that Jesus appears to have
intentionally mixed not just with the needy but with the rich who were
widely recognisedas criminal or, at least, immoral, among whom were
toll collectorsand prostitutes, frequently their associates andcommon
at dinner parties. What was a person claiming to be inspired by God's
spirit doing courting such company? Alright if this is a missionary
strategy, but you seemto be enjoying yourself! Jesus'quip, 'The sick
need a doctor, not the well' (Mark 2:17), has something of the mission
feel about it, but he was not the SalvationArmy and must have behaved
in a way that left him open to the accusationthat he was personally
associating with such types. This behaviour would have been abhorrent
to many fellow Jews, notleastthe writers of the sectariandocuments of
the DeadSea Scrolls, but to many others as well. Jesus appears to have
seensuch associationas anexpressionof inclusiveness. Formally it
broke no law of scripture, but it representedan unusual stance towards
holiness. Does compassionforpeople warrant exposing oneselfto moral
and ritual contamination? Doubtless many of these people were lax with
regard to the Law in matters of personalpurity, observance ofproper
tithing, avoidance of impurities. After all, these, too, were enjoined by

God. You can hardly acclaimthe first commandment and ignore what
God commands!
Mark tells of an occasionwhenin healing a paralysed man Jesus
declaredhis sins forgiven (2:1-12). Christians have often read this as a
claim by Jesus to forgive sins. Mark reflects the controversyof later
days in depicting Jesus'opponents as charging him with blasphemy!
Jesus'trial has begun. It became quite common to transpose later
controversies back into the ministry of Jesus. In the anecdote Jesus
declares that the man's sins are forgiven. By whom? By God of course.
It is the passive voice. At some stage this has been underlined by the
statementthat Jesus, the Son of Man, has authority on earth to forgive
sins - like the priests, like other charismatics, like John the Baptist, who
did it every day in associationwith his waterrite. Jesus, like John,
included declarationof God's forgiveness in his message.The Mosaic
Law does not establisha monopoly concerning who may declare God's
forgiveness, althoughit was mostly something linked with the temple.
Assurance of forgiveness forms part of the piety of the Jew who knew
the psalms. Nevertheless bothJohn and Jesus, while not acting contrary
to the Law, were somewhatmaverick. Unorthodox channels of spiritual
powerare uncomfortable for any religious system. Christians know all
about that and doubtless charismatic rabbis raise similar fears. Add to
this allegedmiraculous powers and it is little wonder that one early
recipe was to declare that, yes, Jesus did all this, but by the power of
demons. Some tried it on. Jesus replied that it hardly made sense fora
demon to prevent the undoing of demonic damage (Mark 3:22-30;Luke
11:15-22).
There were other niggles, mostly from rather extreme perspectives. One
was about washing hands before eating (Mark 7:1-21). It assumes a
position according to which unclean hands might make food unclean
which might make a person unclean. That is a long shot - three remove
from the original purity and by all standards would have to be
extremist. Jesus'response is a typical quip: 'Notwhat enters a person
makes them unclean, but what comes out of them' (Mark 7:15). The
earthy humour of the saying is apparent if we paraphrase it this way:
'What stinks is what comes out, not what goes in.' It should doubtless be
understood as a contrastlike: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice'(Hos 6:6). In
other words, purity of ethical attitude and behaviour matters more than
cultic purity. But, like the tithing of tiny herbs, it was not rubbishing
either aspectof purity. Only later did Mark and his tradition turn the

words into an absolute contrastand have Jesus effectivelydeny the
validity of biblical purity laws. Both Matthew and Luke backedoff from
such a radical stance, Luke by omitting the episode, Matthew by
making it square with biblical law again, with the result that Jesus is
rejecting only an extremist interpretation.
There are a number of occasions whenJesus incurs criticism because of
sabbath behaviour. The best known derives from an occasionwhen
disciples, walking through grain fields on the sabbath, pluck heads of
grain and eat it (Mark 2:23-28). Distance from home is not the issue.
Plucking the heads of grain might be a technical infringement, although
only on the strictestreading. Jesus'original quip belittles the complaint:
'The sabbath was made for people, not people for the sabbath!' It was
not that the disciples were in desperate need. They appearto have been
harmlessly plucking the odd head of grain and chewing it. Jesus'
response is a theologicalargument which says:God's chief concernis
with people not with rules. It is alright to relax and misses the point to
fuss about such minor things. But it is borderline and controversial.
Soonother explanations came into the story to justify the approach. So
the disciples become hungry, like David and his men who ate the
shewbread. Jesus has authority to declare the right interpretation (The
Son of Man is lord also of the sabbath). Matthew and Luke both prefer
to omit Jesus'radicalquip in favour of saferrenderings.
All the other sabbath controversies entailacts of healing on the sabbath.
They are all borderline. Why not wait a day? Why wait? 'Is it lawful to
do goodon the sabbath or to do harm?' (Mark 3:4). The quip is almost
mischievous, yet it makes its point. Jesus'defence seems to have been an
appeal to what is appropriate observance ofthe sabbath, not an attempt
to justify non observance.In other words it is still an inner Jewish
discussion. Only later would Christians move to transform Jesus'
authority to interpret into an authority to override and discard. Mark
comes nearto this and certainly espouses suchan understanding in
some parts. John has Jesus replace the Law's authority altogether,
reducing it to a witness on his own behalf (1:17; 7:39). But neither
Matthew nor Luke allow such an approachto stand. Jesus observes
Torah- rightly and defends its intention.
A further possible ground for criticism was Jesus'attitude towards
family, wealth and land. He appears to have challengedthe hold these
had on people, sometimes in very offensive ways. For instance, he tells a
would be disciple who wants first to bury his father, to let the dead bury

the dead and to follow immediately (Matt 8:22; Luke 9:60). But we hear
no dispute about it and no indication anyone would have seenit as more
than Jesus'claiming a more urgent need. It was radical to suggestthat
family systems could stand in the way of God's will, but that was Jesus'
way. His own family, Mark tells us, thought he was mad, but Jesus
refused to be healed; instead declaring his family to be those who do the
will of God (Mark 3:21, 31-35;cf. Luke 4:23). Elsewhere he confronted
people about dishonouring parents (Mark 7:10-13), so there was no
sense in which he was jettisoning this commandment; he was drawing
attention to the fact it must never compete with loyalty to God's will.
Jesus did not call all to wander in his band. But along with those who
did, Jesus appears to have been making a statementagainstsociety's
values. There was a higher priority than wealthand land, even though
these were also God's covenant blessings. Jesus was in that sense about
as counter cultural as the teachers ofthe period whom we place in the
broad categoryof Cynics. They too scoffedat pretension, attacked
hypocrisy, lived a demonstrably simple life, used earthy images and
enjoined simple trust in God. But if Jesus might fall into this category,
he does so as a Jew and one also passionate aboutIsrael's future.
Thus far Jesus lookslike a charismatic Jew, impassionedby a vision of
God's goodness andlove and determined to apply it in the present. He is
in every generationof Jews, I suspect. He belongs firmly at leastwithin
the range of pre-70 Judaism as I understand it. But something went
wrong. Oddly enoughit appears to have had little or nothing to do with
controversies overLaw observance. At leastnothing in the earliest
accounts ofJesus'arrestand trial indicates that Law observance
featured as a charge, despite the compositionallinks which Mark seeks
to forge. Both Mark and John would have us believe that the movement
againstJesus was temple inspired and began building momentum at an
early stage. Evenso, in the end Law observance is not the issue. This is
not to saythat matters of controversywould not have contributed to the
unease in Jerusalemabout Jesus, but we have little to go by. I think it
quite possible that Jesus, like many other charismatic figures of the
time, was a worry for the authorities. John's gospelprobably captures
the situation well in showing the high priest concernedto scotchJesus
and his movement lest the Romans see them harbouring unrest and
become more oppressive (11:47-53).
Jesus will not have wonmuch sympathy from the religious authorities
of the temple system. His parable of the GoodSamaritan is hardly

subtle in its slight on priests and Levites who by pass the needy man on
the side of the road. But then mocking religious authorities may well
have been a common phenomenon in the resentful north and it is
certainly a sport which survives to this day whereverthere is centralised
authority, political or religious. Here it was both. If John bothered
them, so would Jesus formuch the same reasons, but, as Mark
indicates, John was an enigma for the authorities and so perhaps was
Jesus initially (Mark 11:27-33). It is hard not to feel some sympathy
with the authorities of this time; there were so many odd bodies
emerging in the wake of hope and fervour, some apparently quite mad
and others downright dangerous. But then I write in the so-calledfirst
world.
Jesus does not appearto have held back in criticism of some of the
religious authorities, especiallyin cases ofexploitation and hypocrisy.
He was evidently appalled at commercialisationin the temple precincts.
I think it most likely that he saw the system as corrupt and concluded
that the end must be judgement. Other Jews, like the writer of Jubilees
and the teachers at Qumran, had been convinced of that for decades, if
not for over a century. Jesus was taking John's messageto its logical
conclusionand echoing the sentiments of Jeremiahagainstthe temple
leadership of his day.
Jesus'actionof overturning the tables of the currency exchange and
chasing out the dealers in animals for sacrifice may symbolise coming
judgement or may be a spontaneous actof anger at what they
represented. It is probably misleading to seek the cause in the exchange
rates they employed or in price manipulation. Whoever placed
Jeremiah's words on Jesus'lips, that the temple had become a den of
thieves was doubtless not thinking of these transactions, but of the
system as a whole. It was a single sudden actin a small cornerof the
huge courtyard, not even enough to warrant the watching guards to
intervene, but perhaps noted by observers. Perhaps also it was the scene
where Jesus made some fateful statementabout the temple's
destruction. Fatefulbecause whatevercould be construed as an act
againstthe temple could also be construed as an actagainstthe nation
and, what is worse, againstthe Roman masters. Thatmeant death.
Was there a trial before the Sanhedrin? John's gospelhas only an
informal hearing with Annas, the former high priest and father in law
of Caiaphas, high priest at the time. It is scarcelypossible to unravel the
complexities of the evidence relating to the last days of Jesus in this

paper. Let me identify elements which belong at the high end of the
scale ofprobability. Jesus was crucifiedunder Pontius Pilate by his
soldiers. But Jewishauthorities of the time were somehow involved. The
most likely scenario is that the temple authorities found Jesus offensive
and a threat because ofthe reactionhis movement might provoke from
the Romans. At bestthe issue was preserving stability and relative
freedom of worship. Populist movements which could look at all
seditious must be eliminated for the sake of the people. These were real
dangers. History had shown it and would show it.
The charge againstJesus onthe cross and his mockeryas 'King of the
Jews', his execution betweentwo brigands, the tradition about swapping
Jesus for the brigand, Barabbas, the appearance ofthe royal messianic
motifs - these all suggestthatPilate faceda man chargedwith sedition
in generalterms. Yet the failure to round up Jesus'followers for
executionindicates that his was not seenas a military movement. He,
himself, had to be removed. It is one of the oddities of the gospel
material that messiahshipfeatures in these last days, whereas it is
largely absentfrom the rest of the early tradition. Only one occasion
does it come to the fore when Jesus is reported as accepting the
acclamation, 'Messiah', but straightawayPeterwho voiced it is exposed
as misunderstanding what it was about (Mark 8:27-33). It seems
unlikely that Christians acclaimedJesus Messiahafterhis death solely
on the grounds that this was a false accusationlevelledagainstJesus.
We canonly speculate that Jesus may have been willing to have such an
appellation applied to himself in the lastdays of his life. But it is not
reported as his concernprior to that. Even then the charge was false at
one level. He was not wanting to be what many hoped for in a Davidic
Messiah.
With regard to a possible Jewishtrial or hearing, it is very likely that
later charges againstChristianbelief have given shape to the
accusations. This is very likely to be the case onthe matter of
blasphemy. Claiming a kind of messiahshipwas not uncommon and not
seenas blasphemous. That charge became relevant only when
Christians developedtheir high assessmentofJesus'characterand
origin, but even in John's gospelthe charge is vigorously defended. The
issue of some kind of messiahshipdid most likely play a role and fed the
charge to Pilate.
The first charge mentioned, the claim to be going to destroy the temple,
is presented as false, but thinly veils what was a valid concern. Like

JeremiahJesus had attackedtemple authorities and warnedof its
destruction. Of this there is little doubt. As already mentioned, such a
charge lent weight to the view that Jesus was seditious. It may well have
been linked in some minds with messianic aspirations, namely, the
rebuilding of a glorious temple, like Solomon's, that first son of David.
Would Jesus'executionhave made the front page of the newspaper?
Possibly, possibly not. Viewed from a Christian perspective with a naive
reading of the gospels,we might imagine the world stoodstill and all of
Israelheld its breath. This is unlikely. Executions were common.
Human life was cheap. Times were desperate orcould be if unrest was
not snuffed out. Politicalrealities had to take precedentover individual
aspirations. The authorities must have believed they were acting in the
nation's best interests. Jesus wouldnot be the first innocent to fall
victim to such necessitude. These were the days when totalitarian
regimes were the norm. Jesus died a Jew with a vision and a deep sense
of fulfilling God's will. Romans killed him. The religious authorities of
his people were part of the act. This is very, very different from the wild
and dangerous claims that 'The Jews killedJesus.'It is also a long way
from the overreactionagainstthe horrors of antisemitism which deletes
any involvement of Jewishauthorities and speculates that they were
working for his release. Theywere caughtup in the system.
Jesus was not crucified because he denied his Jewishness, abandoned
the Scriptures, or disowned his people. He died as a result of a
combination of factors which had conspired also againstothers of his
people who had captured a vision and launched prophetic challenges.
But he remained a Jew, Jesus ofNazareth, the Jew from Galilee. Why
could it not stay that way? Why the later split betweenJesus'movement
and most of his compatriots? To answerthis question demands another
paper, but let me indicate two major aspects which, I believe, led to this
parting of the ways, which is a rather innocuous way of speaking about
what for some was a very painful and traumatic family and community
event.
First there was the issue of inclusiveness. The movement seems to have
kept up the egalitariantendencies of Jesus and also continued to
associate regularlywith sinners and outcasts. In itself that was not
necessarilya problem. It was just dangerous. It became a more acute
problem when, whether ousted or just activelyitinerant, members of the
Jesus movement found themselves in synagogues orin other public
places where Gentiles were attractedto their message.Theyvery soon

affirmed that the spirit of Jesus sanctionedsucha widening of the
appeal. The assumption is that Israel's God is the God of the universe,
so this had to entail proclaiming God's goodnessto all peoples. Israel
must not keepGod to itself. What then should happen with non-Jews?
Should they be allowedin? Provisions about becoming a Jew are
relatively unambiguous. There was biblical precedentand there were
biblical commands. That might have been the end of it.
But this charismatic movement, like its charismatic leader, Jesus, seems
not to have attended first to such requirements, but de facto received
such people into its movement and then, later, faced the issues. Some
were all for following the normal procedures fully, including
circumcising the converts. But they had already been receivedand were
participating in the spirit of the movement, sharing in common meals
and worship. So others believed at leastcircumcisionshould be waived.
The range of opinions spread further. Some believed that all biblical
laws which functioned as identity markers or barriers should fall. Some,
like Paul, argued that the new movement had its own sufficient basis for
goodness whichwould more than meet what was the spirit and intention
of the Law. Some saw themselves as needing to abandon Jewishheritage
altogether.
The range reflects also deep division and pain, for these were Jews
talking to Jews within the movement. Jesus had not facedthis situation.
He left no concrete indication of what might have been his response.
The Christian Jews were on their own. Yet they did stand under the
influence of Jesus and to some extent you can see that he had an
orientation which had the potential to lead in some of these directions.
He affirmed ritual and ceremoniallaw, but gave higher priority to
ethical commands of love. He affirmed love for God, but appears to
have seenthis primarily in personalistic terms of trust and prayer,
rather than in cultic terms. When faced with a choice between
preserving what he sensedas barriers he should uphold and responding
to human need, he could drop the barriers. But it is one thing to say
some things matter more than others, an inclusive contrast. It is quite
another thing to start saying that one can abandon some things, an
exclusive contrast.
Many Christian Jews, facedwith the new situation of Gentiles argued
that inclusion would have to mean removal of barriers. Gentiles did not
have to become Jews. Theydid not have to become culturally Jewish.
This, of course, begs the question in the view of those for whom

scripture is Scripture. God's Law is unchangeable. We see here the
interesting phenomenon of cross cultural encounter in which people of
one culture are forcedto decide what is absolute and of abiding value
and what belongs to the particulars of their culture which need not be
preserved. We all know this experience. You just need to look at
Christianity to see the same issues played out over and over again. God
has instituted our way of doing things - of course!
The Hellenistic world of the Romanempire and before had brought
considerable cross culturalencounter. Jews dispersedthroughout the
regionhad long exposure to the issues and mostly took a conservative
line, even though there are many examples of spiritualisation of cultic
particulars such as sacrifice, foodand purity laws and the like. Already
scripture, itself, had affirmed that circumcision of the heart was the
priority, a contrite heart worth more than many sacrifices. It was not a
huge step from inclusive contrasts to exclusive contrasts. Byand large
the Christian movement opted for some forms of exclusive contrast.
Now no longer: circumcisionof the heart more than circumcisionof the
flesh; but circumcisionof the heart instead of circumcision of the flesh.
Jesus and other Jews who were developing inclusive contrasts (and
probably annoying temple authorities by doing so - like saying, 'You
don't really have to come to church regularly to be a Christian') were
the forerunners for the more radical break. Forsome Jews such
abandonment meant abandonment of God's people, Israel, and the
Jewishwayof life. Debates aboutquality of observance and non
observance were not new and continue. The radicalwings of the
Christian movement took a liberal stance towards inclusionwhich
meant they had to redefine their relationship to their Jewishheritage.
Reading Paul's writings you can see how much that continuity
mattered. But many Jews remain unpersuaded that in Paul sufficient
continuity remains.
It was not that Christian piety lost that the Law represents, either
ethically or cultically. The tragedy of Jesus'innocent execution, like
moments of terrible tragedy at other times, generatedextraordinary
spiritual energy, so that writers like Paul made it central to their life's
meaning and helped bequeath to Christian tradition a profound sense of
death leading to life, pain leading to liberation. Pouredout, innocent
love, became the ultimate sacrifice beyond all others, so that Christians
came to affirm: 'Christ died for all!' All need to live by the power of this
vulnerable, self giving love. It was still the love of the God of Abraham,

Isaac and Jacob. ChristianJews saw Jesus as representing, symbolising,
the suffering of Israel. They are betrayed wheneversuch profound
sensitivity has been skewedagainsttheir people and the cross notlaid
beside her suffering but used to inflict it.
The other major area, usually seenas the main area of conflict, is the
way Christians came to speak about Jesus. Ithink there is insufficient
evidence to justify the claim that Jesus saw himself as something other
than a human being. When he spoke of himself as God's child and of
God as his father, he was drawing on Jewishmodels, not making a DNA
claim. Undoubtedly he claimed a specialplace for himself, as had
specialfigures before him. He acts with charismatic authority.
Charismatic authorities are always a bother to establishedauthorities,
as we have seen, but they appear from time to time. Like John, Jesus
actedwith authority, claiming God's authority. Only at a functional
level could one say, representing God. But then such distinctions blur
when we contemplate that it is not as though God was somewhere else.
Paul said, 'God was in Christ.' God was also in Moses.Christians want
to say that God was uniquely in Christ. I am not sure that this would
have made a lot of sense to the historicalJesus. Whatdoes unique
mean?
There is no question that Jesus exercisedauthority, in healing, in
teaching, in preaching. It was not authority over againstTorah, but
authority in declaring God's will, and that, focusedespeciallyon the
future and its impact already now in the present rather than
exegeticallyin exposition of scriptural law. The enigmatic phrase, ïSon
of Man', appears on Jesus'lips in the gospelmaterial. It is hard to know
how much it preserves historicalmemory. I still think it derives from
apocalyptic speculationand alludes primarily to the human one who
will actas God's agentat the climax of history. Did Jesus see himself
acting in this role? Perhaps. And perhaps he assumedthat also his band
would assume leadership in a renewedIsrael of the restoredtribes (cf.
Matt 19:28; Luke 22:30).
When the disciples claimed they had seenJesus alive after his death, it
meant for them that God had vindicated Jesus overagainsthis accusers.
Beliefin resurrectionwas not uncommon. Here, however, it entailed a
claim that the time of resurrections, the time of the end, was at hand. It
proved to them that Jesus was right in what he saidand claimed. This
explains the continuity: the Jesus movement continued to proclaim
God's coming reign and to behave in community and inclusiveness as

Jesus was the greatest jew

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Jesus was the greatest jew

Similar to Jesus was the greatest jew (16)

More from GLENN PEASE

More from GLENN PEASE (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Jesus was the greatest jew