Weekly Devotional – 11/4/2013

Devotional:

 

Psalm 17.6-9

I call upon you, for you will answer me, O God; incline your ear to me, hear my words. Wondrously show your steadfast love, O savior of those who seek refuge from their adversaries at your right hand. Guard me as the apple of the eye; hide me in the shadow of your wings, from the wicked who despoil me, my deadly enemies who surround me.

psalm-17-8

In the midst of suffering and disappointment in our lives, faith can be very difficult to hold on to. When we hear someone say, “life just isn’t fair,” we want to cry out, “Well, it should be!” Life is full of ups and downs, valleys and mountain tops, trials and accomplishments. Psalm 17 is a prayer of deliverance from those moments in our lives where we feel that life is no longer fair. It is a prayer for freedom to live into God’s righteousness and for God to come and surround us with his wings of protection and grace. While life is not fair all the time, it is right at all times to pray for God to deliver us from the wrong doings in our lives and the suffering we endure.

Additionally, there is something else in this psalm that can help us in our daily lives:

Once, while reading through some of the psalms with a few peers, a friend of mine remarked that there is often a lot of language about enemies in the psalms and he was unsure what to make of it. What does the psalmist mean with “my deadly enemies who surround me?” And then he made a statement that I will never forget: “We often read the psalms as if they were written for us individually and we forget about others who need to pray these words. Maybe we need to remember that we might be the enemies that the psalm prays about for other people.”

So, the next time you find yourself in a valley of your life, come back to Psalm 17. Read the words and pray them aloud. Know that it is a good and wonderful thing to be able to call out to the God who loves you to help deliver you out of troubling circumstances. But, the next time you find yourself on a mountaintop, ask yourself if you have been living faithfully according to God’s holy word. Is there someone praying for deliverance from an enemy that may in fact be you?

 

God and Relationships – Part 2

couple-holding-hands

One of my favorite theological blogs belongs to my friend and mentor Jason Micheli (www.tamedcynic.org). Recently, Jason produced a number of posts about the importance of being in relationships. In a similar vein, I have decided to post a few of my thoughts on the theological virtues of relationships.

 

“To say ‘I love you’ one must first be able to say the ‘I.’”

Fountainhead

So says the fictional Howard Roark to Dominique Francon in Ayn Rand’s behemoth novel The Fountainhead. Though Rand herself was staunchly opposed to all forms of religion, I believe her quote, in a way, speaks profoundly to the importance of what it means to be in relationship with another.

To use Rand’s language: To say “I love you” one must first be able to say “I.” And, perhaps, more importantly, to say “I do” in marriage, one must first be able to say “I.”

Will Willimon writes, “Most people think that the toughest part of marriage is deciding who we ought to marry, making the right choice, and preparing for the decision. We say we are deciding whether or not we are “in love” with this person. Curiously the church has traditionally cared less about our emotional attachments. What the church cares about is not who you have deep feelings for but rather whether or not you are a person who is capable of sustaining the kind of commitment that makes love possible.”

love-wedding-photo

In today’s culture people (young and old) often commit to a romantic and marital relationship before ever experiencing what it means to be an individual. Young people are maturing later and further delaying the ability to find sense in individuality and therefore seek identity in others. Yes- there must be sacrifice in all relationships, but not at the expense of losing whatever it is that makes you, you.

Before a couple can fully appreciate the depth of what it means to covenant their life to someone else, they have to know who they are in order to give themselves over.

 

But here’s where it gets a little complicated…

 

You will never fully know who you are.

 

As a pastor, when I stand in front of a couple leading a wedding ceremony, the question is not “Jack, do you love Jill?” Instead the question is, “Jack, will you love Jill?” There, in that precise moment, we discover that, according to the church, love is something you commit to, something you promise to do, a future activity, the result of a covenantal marriage rather than its cause.

 

As Stanley Hauerwas famously put it, “we always marry the wrong person.” This is to say that we never marry the right person because marriage and life changes us. There will come a time when you realize that the person you have been living with is no longer the person you married or met at the coffee shop or knew from high school.

 

No one can fully know what he or she is getting out of a husband or a wife. There is a lot to be said about preparing for marriage (meeting with professionals, discussing the future, etc.) but there is an element of unpredictability that must be respected. We can never prepare for marriage in totality, but we can prepare ourselves for a lifetime of commitment to someone who is always changing (ourselves included).

 

This is exactly why it is so important to understand what you say, when you say “I.”

 

You will change in ways that you cannot predict just as your partner will change. But, as Christians, we have been adopted into a new identity through water and the Spirit that sustains us throughout the many changes of our lives.

 

Christ is alive through us, in us, and with us.

 

If we hold on to that identity, love can be the result of our relationships rather than the requirement.

 

God and Relationships – Part 1

couple-holding-hands

One of my favorite theological blogs belongs to my friend and mentor Jason Micheli (www.tamedcynic.org). Recently, Jason produced a number of posts about the importance of being in relationships. In a similar vein, I have decided to post a few of my thoughts on the theological virtues of relationships.

 

(Some of the following elements were first taken from a post written by Ron Edmondson, and then re-evaluated for this post. You can check on Edmondson’s blog here: www.ronedmondson.com)

 

Relationships are tough, perhaps tougher now than ever before. The impact of social media and changes in our contemporary culture have affected dating, marriage, and divorce in ways that cannot be fully comprehended. Moreover, maintaining a relationship predicated on the model of discipleship of Jesus Christ is a challenge in and of itself.

One of the many blessings of what it means to be a pastor is being invited into a couple’s relationship during pre-marital counseling. A few weeks ago I shared the following thoughts with a couple preparing for marriage and I believe they are relevant for anyone engaging in a serious relationship.

 

You are different. You are different and thats a good thing! Both members of a relationship differ from one another physically, emotionally, psychologically, and theologically. This is not a curse against relationships but something to be celebrated. The more a couple can live into the differences that make them who they are, the better a foundation can be made for experiencing life together. God has uniquely created you to be you, and no one else.

Set your own path. Don’t let either set of families/in-laws dictate how you will go forward with your own family. Our respective histories are important but they do not define how we can be in relationship, or how we can raise a family. Try to make sure that you are in this with/for one another, do not let anyone (related or otherwise) divide you and your thoughts on family. Every couple has a number of other relationships, but care should be made to maintain the oneness that God intends to create within a relationship. Respect the advice given to you, but listen to your spouse and work together.

Prepare to be surprised. Life will not always be peachy and perfect. For the many mountain tops that you will experience, there will be a valley waiting on the other side of the horizon. No one can ever be completely prepared for the changes that might come, but we can prepare ourselves to be ready to handle and address the changes appropriately. When difficulties arise, and they will, this is a prime time to improve the strengths and dynamics of a relationship. Theologically speaking, it might feel like you are always sitting in the shadow of the cross, but the glory of the resurrection will come. Prepare to be surprised.

Model after other couples. Look around and pay attention to the people in your life in relationships that you admire. They will inevitably have stories to share and appropriate advice to give. Remember to not just simply insert their techniques and strategies into your relationships, but allow them to model what it means to be in a fruitful connection with someone else. Often times when we come to church we assume that everyone in attendance has everything together in their lives, and similarly we often make the same assumptions of people in relationships. There is always something under the surface that we cannot see. If other couples are willing to share some of that information with you, it will likely prove helpful for your own relationship.

Communicate. Evaluate your relationship with one another. However, wait for the appropriate time to do this (in the middle of a fight is not always the best time). Couples should ask themselves, “are we growing together as a couple or are we moving further apart?” Do not always assume that your partner feels exactly the same way as you do.  If you can create a habit of honestly checking in with one another about the greater trajectory of your relationship, it will help prepare you to be open with one another in a loving and life-giving way as you move forward. Communicating with one another might sound like a simple aspect of a relationship, but its importance makes it worth mentioning over and over again.

Put God first. This is perhaps one of the hardest things for a pastor to bring up with a couple because it sounds like the “preachy” thing to say. But, its important. A couple’s individual, and collective, relationship with God will help navigate the deep “valley-like” hardships of life and maintain a sense of stability when everything else feels like its crumbling. Talk about God with each other. Pray together. But also experience God in the way that only you can. Your first identity as a Christian will help so communicate who you are and whose you are. Far too many individuals in a relationship come to define themselves on the other person. You are not someone’s better (or lesser) half. You were uniquely made in the image of God and this is important to celebrate. Live into your relationship with God and it will strengthen your relationship.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer on Separation

As a devotional practice I have been reading through Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s Letters & Papers From Prison….

dietrich-bonhoeffer-2

In one of his letters from the Tegel prison (written on Christmas Eve 1943) Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote to Eberhard  and Renate Bethge (Renate was Bonhoeffer’s niece and Eberhard was a student of Bonhoeffer’s at the underground seminary in Finkenwalde) regarding their imminent separation on account of the war.

As I read through Bonhoeffer’s suggestions regarding their separation I realized how applicable they are for anyone disconnected regardless of romantic affection. Considering that I have not seen any of my friends from divinity school since graduation in May, I thought Bonhoeffer’s words are particularly fruitful for anyone who is missing someone at the moment:

First: nothing can make up for the absence of someone whom we love, and it would be wrong to try and find a substitute; we must simply hold out and see it through. That sounds very hard at first, but at the same time it is a great consolation, for the gap, as long as it remains unfilled, preserves the bonds between us. It is nonsense to say that God fills the gap; he doesn’t fill it, but on the contrary, he keeps it empty and so helps us to keep alive out former communion with each other, even at the cost of pain.

Secondly: the dearer and richer our memories, the more difficult the separation. But gratitude changes the pangs of memory into tranquil joy. The beauties of the past are borne, not as a thorn in the flesh, but as a precious gift in themselves. We must take care not to wallow in our memories or hand ourselves over to them, just as we do not gaze all the time at a valuable present, but only at special times, and apart from these keep it simply as a hidden treasure that is ours for certain. In this way the past gives us lasting joy and strength.

Thirdly: times of separation are not a total loss or unprofitable for our companionship, or at any rate they need not be so. In spite of all the difficulties that they bring, they can be the means of strengthening fellowship quite remarkably.

Fourthly: I’ve learnt here especially that the facts can always be mastered, and that difficulties are magnified out of all proportion simply by fear and anxiety. From the moment we wake until we fall asleep we must commend other people wholly and unreservedly to God and leave them in his hands, and transform our anxiety for them into prayers on their behalf: With sorrow and with grief… God will not be distracted.

-Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. Letters & Papers From Prison (New York: Macmillan Publishing, 1972), 176-177.

Mark 16.8

Joel Marcus’ interpretation on the end of Mark’s Gospel:

Image

“Since Mark does not wrap up all the loose ends, we have no alternative but to return to the inception of his narrative, “the beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ” (Mark 1.1), and to start to read it again as our story. Mark’s gospel is just the beginning of the good news, because Jesus’ story has become ours, and we take it up where Mark leaves off.”

(Joel Marcus, Anchor Bible Commentary vol. 27a Mark 8-16, page 1096)

Image

Prayer

O giver of life to all the world,

Hear me…

I am one of your many children

Let me walk in beauty,

And ever behold the red and purple sunsets

Let me learn the things

You have taught

My people

Let me discern the secrets you have

Hidden in every leaf and stone

I pray for strength

Not to be greater than my sisters and brothers

But to overcome my greatest enemy

Myself

Keep my eyes straight

And my hands clean

So that when life fades

As the fading sunset

I may come to you

Without shame

 

Holocaust Paper for REL320 at JMU

The modern Jewish emphasis on individuality and acceptance is a response to the destruction of the personal “I” during the Holocaust. When examining the Nazi’s actions against the Jews through the lens of Raul Hilberg’s 5 Phases of destruction, it becomes clear that their entire intent was predicated on weakening the Jewish people. In light of the atrocities committed during the Holocaust, Modern Jews have become very accepting of differing lifestyles, attempting to rebuild the Jewish identity and culture.

As a people, the Israelites have been faced with conflict since the beginning of time. They were slaves under Egyptian rule until the Exodus story. After they made it to the Holy Land they subsequently attacked by the Assyrians, the Babylonians, and the Persians. After the Diaspora of 587 BCE the largest attack against the Israelites came in Jerusalem by the Romans, culminating in the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. (Flannery, lecture) With the rapid rise and spread of Christianity, the stratification between Jewish Christians and Gentilic Christians grew. The adoption of Christianity in the Roman Empire, under the rule of Constantine, led to further separation.

By the Middle Ages anti-Semitism had grown in popularity. Numerous European towns included art that demonized the Jewish people. This artwork included bridges, statues, and signs. The Jewish people were depicted as having demonic characteristic and were often slaughtering animals for their blood. Subsequently many Jews were accused of the Blood Libel Charge: using Christian blood to make bread. Jews were even accused of “desecrating the host” by rubbing their hands over communion bread. (Flannery, lecture) All of these images aided the anti-Semitic desire to weaken Jewish culture.

The demonization of the Jews came to a head when the Nazis came into power in Germany. The Nazi Regime’s ideology was predicated on the eradication of the Jews. The party rested on four pillars of their platform: nationalism, authoritarianism, militarism, and anti-Semitism. (Flannery, lecture)

The nationalistic drive was fueled by Hitler’s desire for the providential Aryan Race to dominate Europe. He was often photographed in the Alps with a purebred German shepherd, German with blonde hair and blue eyes, and wearing traditional German clothing.  Hitler and the Nazi party were successful in dismantling the German government during a time of economic depression, leaving him in an authoritarian position to rule the country. The Nazi party disregarded the limits of military numbers established by the Treaty of Versailles and rapidly began to (re)build the military. The final pillar of Anti-Semitism was carried out via a process that had been culminating since the Middle Ages.

Raul Hilberg’s 5 Phases of Destruction are useful when evaluating the actions of the Nazi regime. The phases are structured linearly as: definition, expropriation, concentration, deportation, and culminates in murder. (Flannery, lecture) To initiate the use of a new definition the Nazis used the Jews as a scapegoat for the country’s economic problems, and called for a boycott of Jewish businesses in 1933. Jews were then required to wear a symbol on their clothing, differentiating them the rest of society. Within 2 years the Nuremberg Laws had been put into effect; one’s “Jewishness” was a trait based on ancestry, rather than religious beliefs. The second phase of expropriation began to take form in and around the implementation of the “Kristallnacht.” In one evening 1,300 synagogues and 7,000 Jewish homes were set on fire, 30,000 Jews were sent to work camps or ghettos, and the forced segregation of Jews from the rest of society was put into action. (Flannery, lecture) In 1938 Hitler announced Germany’s desire to deport the Jews from Germany at a conference in Evian, France. 1939 saw the German invasion of Poland where the majority of the concentration camps would be constructed and filled. By 1940 the “Final Solution” was to be implemented, the goal of which was to eradicate the Jewish people. In a Secret Document from the Third Reich entitled “Protocol of the Wannsee Conference” (written in 1942) the extent of the Nazi desire to exterminate the Jews comes into light: “In the course of this final solution of the European Jewish question approximately 11 million Jews may be taken into consideration…”(Botwinick, 166)

The Nazi Final Solution was administered through the concentration camps of Europe in what is now known as the Holocaust. In the end over 6 million Jews were forced into these camps and were eventually executed. Dr. Carol Zemel’s lecture on the “Art of the Holocaust” gives rare insight into the psyche of the Jewish prisoners. Zemel choose to focus on the images created in the camps on in the time shortly thereafter, which she refers to as “time between time.” Many prisoners who had survived the camps were placed on trains and sent home, giving them time to artistically respond to their past events and uncertain future. It was during this time of “primeval chaos” after liberation that artists portrayed their images without emotion, without narrative sequencing, and without a personal “I.” The images are drawn without borders, helping to demonstrate the feeling of “time within time” and the emotionless faces lend to the destruction of Jewish individuality.

During Aaron Childs’ vacation to Europe he was able to visit the concentration camp in Dachau, Germany. His lecture and slideshow were filled with vivid anecdotes and images from the camp, 60 years after its inception. Childs described the camp’s desire to weaken the individual Jews through constant repetition and dehumanizing efforts. The prisoners were forced to congregate in the middle of the field three times a day for counting, regardless of still being alive. Dead prisoners were carried onto the field so that they too would be accounted for. During these times of inspection the prisoners were forced to look at the ground, again reinforcing the Nazi’s goal to weaken the individual Jew.

Throughout the early 20th century the Nazi party was overwhelmingly successful at weakening the Jewish people and culture. Every act against the Jews was carefully prepared as demonstrated in the “Protocol of the Wannsee Conference” and led towards the final solution. Between the forced symbols depicting one’s “jewishness” and forcing the Jews into the ghettos, the Nazi regime destroyed the Jewish personal “I.”

By 1946 World War 2 had ended and war crimes were being charged at the Nuremberg Trials. In the wake of these trials three major advances took place: the Geneva Convention, the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Response to the Holocaust. The response to the Holocaust was the creation and establishment of the modern country of Israel.

Over the last sixty years, the Jewish response to the Holocaust has resulted in a wide array of acceptance and diversity. The Jewish comedic film “When Do We Eat?” helps to demonstrate this modern sentiment. Though fictional, the characters show how through their diversity they are still one people. The grandfather, a survivor of the Holocaust, always keeps a suitcase with him because “you never know when they’ll come for you.” His son, the patriarch of the family, is a man whose employment comes from selling Christmas ornaments. The grandson, and eldest son of the patriarchical father, is a recent adoptee of Orthodox Judaism, and wore the proper attire to the Passover meal. All three of these men are incredibly different and would not have shared a Passover meal before the events of the 1940’s. But it is in light of the horror of the holocaust and the destruction of the personal “I” that modern Jews have become more accepting of the different lifestyles. As a people the Jews were forced to lose their own sense of identity during the Holocaust and the years leading up to it. The only necessary reaction was to celebrate life, to love on another, and to accept the differing perspectives of Judaism.

Bibliography

Botwinick, Rita. A Holocaust Reader: From Ideology to Annihilation. NJ: Prentice Hall. 1998.

Childs, Aaron. “European Vacation.” James Madison University. 4/2010

Flannery, Frances. “Judaism.” James Madison University. 1/2010 – 4/2010

When Do We Eat?. Dir. Salvador Litvak. 2005. DVD

Zemel, Carol. “Art of the Holocaust.” James Madison University. 3/2010

“I don’t need a Church. My faith is in the person of Jesus.”

A recent assignment for a class on Catholicism…

On the basis of the New Testament, how would you answer someone who says, “I don’t need a Church. My faith is in the person of Jesus.”

With the growing controversies surrounding the Christian denominations [Catholic and Protestant alike] many people are beginning to fall into the category of the above written quotation. When asked, “Who was Jesus?” and “Why did Jesus come?” many of my peers are quick to respond with something close to: “He was the Messiah” and “He came to die for my sins so I can go to heaven.” Both of these statements are astute responses yet they are incredible lacking. To limit one’s faith solely to the person of Jesus Christ you miss His entire message.

The crucifixion and resurrection were only the beginnings of the new life that Jesus intended for the world. By giving His life he put into action the creation of the Church by his disciples/apostles. The Church is so overwhelmingly necessary to a “faithful” follower of Christ. Saint Paul wrote in his epistle to Corinth, “We are all part of one body, the body of Jesus Christ.” This body that Paul speaks of, this is the same body that began to form on the day of Pentecost. That day, Peter [and the disciples] spoke to the crowds in numerous tongues, baptized them, and encouraged them to begin living in communities “that broke bread with one another.” This is what Jesus was all about, bringing about the Kingdom of God on Earth, ushering in true egalitarianism. To live your life without the Church seems contrary.

TC Mertins

Book Review: Jesus and Judaism by EP Sanders

E.P. Sanders’ Jesus and Judaism attempts to analytically comprehend Jesus’ intentionality in pre-70 AD Palestine. By understanding Jesus’ relationship with Judaism during his lifetime, Sanders paints a portrait of Jesus clearly within Judaism, not against it. Sanders effectively constructs this Jewish Jesus by developing a structural understanding of the events leading to Jesus’ death, and how Christianity developed from the death and resurrection.
Sanders divides his book into three sections: the restoration of Israel, the kingdom, and conflict and death. Each section builds off of its predecessor and continually builds a more complete understanding of Jesus. It is evident from the very beginning of the book that Sanders believes that a focus on the actions of Jesus will provide a greater synthesis rather than the sayings of Jesus (Senior, 571).

Sanders first priority in the book is to understand Jesus’ intentionality. He believes that and understanding should “situate Jesus believably in Judaism yet explain why the movement initiated by him eventually broke with Judaism.” (Sanders, 18) There is unanimous consent that Jesus died as a Jew, but the role that he played amongst his contemporaries plays as the major theme of Sanders’ book. Along with his lateral-Palestinian relationships Sanders questions whether or not the resurrection is the sole explanation for the emergence of the Christian movement, or if there is more than an accidental connection between Jesus’ own work and the beginnings of Christianity. Sanders specifically references Henry Cadbury’s The Peril of Modernizing Jesus in that scholars today are apt to delineate a person’s aim by evaluating their recorded words and actions. Cadbury, in his work, argued that it is too easy to arrive at a man’s purpose by seeing what he accomplished. Cadbury uses the argument that where there is smoke there is fire but the ratio of smoke and fire varies enormously, and the smoke is often misleading as to the exact location of the fire (Sanders, 20). Sanders uses Cadbury’s work to help redefine his own question: can one infer Jesus’ intention from the actions of his followers after his death?

In his first section, the restoration of Israel, Sanders begins to appropriate Jesus most important action from the Gospels: the temple action. Sanders claims that modern scholarship assumes that Jesus’ temple action arrived because of the abuses within the temple: the changing of money, and the purchasing of sacrifices. Sanders notes that those who believe that Jesus was attempting to restore the Temple to its original state neglect the fact that the purpose of the temple was to serve as a place for sacrifice, and that sacrifices require the supply of worthy sacrificial animals (Sanders, 63). During the time of Jesus’ life, thousands upon thousands of people would come annually to Jerusalem to offer sacrifices to God because the Temple was the only place where sacrifices could be offered. Because so many Jews had to travel great distances to reach Jerusalem, they ran the risk of destroying the purity of their to-be sacrificial animals; therefore animals were made available for purchase at the Temple. Money changing had to take place because the pilgrims came from so many places and needed to exchange their money into a common coinage that was accepted by the Temple. Sanders brings these misconceptions into the front light to help better understand Jesus’ intentionality in the “turning of the tables.”

The Temple was only doing what it had been doing for hundreds of years, and Sanders belies it quite unlikely that Jesus’ action was a response to these practices. Sanders posits that Jesus’ temple action was a symbolic demonstration. As a practicing Jew, Jesus no doubt understood the divine commandments from God through Moses regarding sacrifice in the Temple. As the Son of God, Jesus would not go against the practices dictated by His Father. If Jesus had intended to purify the temple he no doubt would have used water (Sanders, 70) instead he overturned tables, representing destruction. In the second chapter of the Gospel of John after Jesus overturned the tables and was questions by the Jews about his actions He answered them saying: “Destroy this Temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” Jesus’ destruction was to lead toward restoration (Sanders, 71).

From his comprehensive understanding of the Temple incident Sanders concludes that Jesus publicly threatened the destruction of the Temple. With His declaration Jesus can be seen to have believed in the arrival of the eschaton, which would bring a new Temple to be given from God in heaven. Jesus’ incident prophetically symbolized the coming kingdom.

Sanders uses the text from Ezekiel 34 and 37 to cite the prophetic declaration of the restoration of Israel, under the leadership of the Davidic line, with the land divided among the twelve tribes. With Jesus’ declaration of rebuilding the temple He directly parallels the restoration of Israel. Jesus from the Davidic genealogical line, and He choose 12 disciples, directly reflected by the 12 tribes. It would thus follow that the followers of Jesus (post-resurrection) would be Jewish. Sanders discounts this logic with a precise understanding of Paul’s actions described in Romans 11.
Paul was fully engaged in the Gentile mission. After the death and resurrection of Jesus, Israel was not established and victorious. Thus Paul believed that the result of the Gentile mission would be to invoke envy in the Jews to accept Jesus as Messiah (Romans 11.14). When the Jews accepted Jesus, Israel would thus be saved. This reading into Paul’s epistle leads Sanders to conclude that:

“A teacher and healer who is executed and believed by his followers to have been raised does not simply, on the basis of those facts, account for the rise of a movement which in a very short period of time starts the activity which characterizes the last act of an eschatological drama, the introduction of the Gentiles […] Peter and the others (Paul), then, must already have been led to see Jesus’ ministry as a key event in the fulfillment of the prophecies.” (Sanders, 95)

The second major portion of Sander’s book is devoted to the Kingdom. The disciples, after seeing the death and resurrection, becoming apostles, acted as the leaders of a Jewish eschatological movement (Sanders, 129). Rather than adopting an understanding that the kingdom was to come, or that it had already been instituted, Sanders defends a harmonization of both understandings. He comes to this belief by analyzing the Pauline epistles in that Paul wrote that Christians were currently justified and that they were a new creation (Romans 5.1 and II Corinthians 5.17) but that salvation was to come in the future (Romans 5.9). Ultimately Sanders claims that though some things about the kingdom had been fulfilled with Jesus death and resurrection, the kingdom itself must be understood to be coming in the immediate future. Because Jesus called his twelve to symbolize the restoration of Israel (i.e. the coming of the kingdom), the expectations of Jewish restoration theology are visibly present in Jesus’ actions.

In his third and final section of the book, Sanders investigates the conflict leading to the death of Jesus. Sanders uses a concise understanding of Jewish law to show that Jesus did not think that it could be freely transgressed, but rather that it was not final. Just as Jesus said in Matthew 5.17: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.” Sanders discounts Jesus’ interpretation of the law as being the reason for His crucifixion, he instead attributes His death as a result of the temple actions. Because the temple was ordained by God, any threat against it would have been deeply offensive, enough to the point of condemning someone to death (Sanders, 271). Jesus offended his greatest opponents, the Pharisees, by offering grace and forgiveness to sinners, whereas the Pharisees relied on their own self-righteousness and merit. Although he often contended with the Pharisees, the priests of the Temple were the go-betweens with Roman authorities in disputed manners. All of Jesus’ previous actions came to a head at the time of Passover in Jerusalem when the Temple incident took place; the priests could not overlook His actions. Therefore, Sanders’ claims, it is easy to understand while Jesus was crucified. Jesus’ followers, after witnessing his death and resurrection, carried through the logic of Jesus’ own position in a transformed situation (Sanders, 340). They synthesized a movement that would grow and continue to change in ways unforeseeable in Jesus’ own time.

Sanders’ greatest strength is his methodology. His writing is reminiscent of Thomas Aquinas in that he carefully presents hypothesis and then systematically defends his ideas against opposing viewpoints. The book enables its reader to gradually comprehend ancient Palestine in the time of Jesus death, and the motivations behind the actions of the New Testament. It is clear that the book poses as a major tool not only to the world of academia, but to practicing Christian ministers and/or educators. The encompassing nature of the book provides a complete contextual background to the life and teaching of Jesus Christ.

The book is weakened by its lack of theological interest. Sanders’ dedicates so much of the book to the historicity of Jesus’ life that he neglects to analytically investigate the theological implications of Jesus’ actions. He places so much emphasis on the Temple incident as being the decisive moment in Jesus’ life, yet he neglects the fact that the incident was recorded some years after Jesus’ death. It appears almost ironic that he would spend so much time methodologically investigating so many aspects of ancient Palestine, but he doesn’t address the reliability of the Gospels regarding the Temple incident, he takes it as it is. On the whole Sanders’ Jesus and Judaism is an absolutely astonishing piece of academic literature, one that would do well to be read by more in the religious community and academia.