Rabbi vs. Jesus

In a new book, Rabbi Jacob Neusner proposes to ""take up an argument postponed for nearly 2,000 years."" In A Rabbi Talks With Jesus, Neusner attempts to define Jewish problems with the teachings of Jesus. A review of Neusner's book in the Dallas Morning News shows it to be a highly flawed study.

First, the rabbi claims to take Jesus just as He is presented in the four gospels, leaving the debate about the historical Jesus to others, but he refuses to consider the miracles or the resurrection as part of the context in which the authors of those gospels present Jesus. In effect, this undermines, in the rabbi's view, much of what Jesus has to say, because He becomes just another teacher, a rabbi Himself. The miracles and resurrection serve to confirm not only the message of Jesus, but His deity as well. Imagine the story of Moses without the plagues of Egypt, without the parting of the Red Sea. The acts performed by God to support the words Moses spoke give credence to his teaching, so to deny Jesus the same credence by overlooking His miracles is a faulty, straw-man kind of argument.

The rabbi also shows his bias from the beginning when he says, ""Where Jesus diverges from the revelation by God to Moses at Mount Sinai, he is wrong and Moses is right."" This sort of bias dramatically impacts the teachings of the Lord, as Moses is seen as from God, while Jesus is seen disagreeing with God. In truth, both teachings were from God, but served different purposes (see Gal. 3:15-29). The rabbi is afflicted, 2,000 years later, with the same blindness the Pharisees had, for he cannot get beyond his ""relationship with Moses"" in order to come to serve God.

A particular instance where the rabbi says Moses and Jesus disagree is where Moses teaches ""Honor your father and mother"" (Ex. 20:12), while Jesus says, ""I came to set a man against his father and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law"" (Matt. 10:35). First, it should be pointed out that the teachers speak of different things; Moses of the need for children to obey and honor parents, and Jesus of the need to make faith personal. Everyone knows of instances where, because of a decision based on one's faith in God, strife has come into a family, and the rabbi understands this as well, if he is honest. 2 Kings 16 details the reign of Ahaz as king of Judah. Ahaz ""did not do what was right in the sight of the Lord his God"" (v. 2), served the idols of the kings of Israel (v. 3), and even took up the abominable practice of human sacrifice from the idolatry of the nations around him (v. 3). He stole treasures from the temple of God to send tribute to the king of Assyria (v. 8). In all, he was a terrible king. In chapter 18, his son Hezekiah becomes king, and ""he did right in the sight of the Lord"" (v. 3), he destroyed places of idol worship (v. 4), even destroying the bronze serpent of Moses, which people had begun to worship (v. 4). It is clear that Hezekiah did not ""honor"" the memory of his father in what he did. But he did serve God, and God was pleased with Hezekiah (vv. 5-7). Was Hezekiah's failure to ""honor"" his father a violation of Moses' Law? Even the rabbi would say it was not, so when Jesus speaks of households that are turned upside down, He speaks of those who, because of their faith and service to God would become enemies of their parents.

Another area of disagreement for the rabbi is that he finds Jesus to speak almost entirely of the individual, with no reference to Israel as a whole. Again, the rabbi's view is, first and foremost, distorted. Jesus consistently discusses the failure of Israel to bow to God's will (Matt. 15:1-20; Lk. 11:29-32; Lk. 14:16-24), placing Him directly in the tradition of prophets like Jeremiah and Malachi. Second, the whole of Biblical teaching is, in fact, based on the individual. Certainly, there are laws and instructions for the government of Israel, but those are based on an Israel where God was king. Even in these however, there is considerable proof that what God truly desired was individual service to Him. The Ten Commandments, for instance, while serving as the law of the land, are still highly individual in nature, and they are designed to bring one closer to God, not just to establish justice for the nation. David, recognized by all Jewish people as the great king of Israel, saw that individual, heartfelt response to God was even more important than fulfilling the Law concerning sacrifices (Ps. 51:14-17). Ezekiel, whom the rabbi would certainly honor as a prophet, spoke of the uniquely individual way that God deals with men (see Ez. 18). We cannot, through our association with a nation, an ethnicity, a church, a family or any other group, insure our salvation. It must be based on individual response to God's word and individual service to Him. To decry the teachings of Jesus on this important aspect of man's relationship to God is to completely miss the point of service to and faith in God.

Finally, the rabbi asks the questions, ""What parts of the Old Testament are binding for followers of Jesus? And specifically, to what extent does the social teaching of the Torah apply to Christianity?"" It is here that the rabbi truly departs from Jesus, because he desires to cling to a system which God has replaced (Gal. 2:15-21; Rom. 3; Heb. 8). The days of the Torah are over. There is much teaching in the Old Testament which is still valuable, but none of its laws are binding for the Christian. Christians serve God under a system of faith, and they seek to be God's people based on His grace (embodied by the blood of Christ), which they meet through obedience to His word.

We applaud the rabbi's attempts to make sense of the disagreements between what he believes and what Jesus taught (that is how we come to the proper knowledge of Christ), but it is clear that when one ""talks with Jesus,"" it is important to do more listening than talking.