Publication
Monarch, c2012
Status
Available
Description
The author's aim is to help thinking lay persons and people preparing sermons to apply NT ethics within a modern culture, while still remaining faithful to the text - by taking into account the ancient culture. This is high quality scholarship at a very accessible level. Over the centuries Jesus's teaching on ethical matters has often become muted and distorted. This book sets the matter straight. Here are 30 areas of ethical debate: in each context Jesus offered insights which would have left his contemporaries agape.
User reviews
LibraryThing member Tammy.Ford.Cuevas
Jesus often shocked his listeners with his teachings. His views were seen as radical by his contemporaries, and clashed with the teachings of the Jewish leaders of that time. His very birth was scandalous, and he was not shy about spending time with those considered less than desirable. He had
Dr. Instone-Brewer has taken thirty areas of the teachings of Jesus and broken them down into short, easy-to-study chapters for the average Bible student. Each chapter covers an area of the ministry of Jesus or His teaching that was found scandalous in His day. Chapters include His illegitimate birth, his bachelorhood, Judas Iscariot, and His views on polygamy. I particularly enjoyed the chapter on Mary Magdalene. Because I believe in avoiding spoiler alerts whenever possible, I'll just say that not only do I appreciate the fact that Dr. Instone-Brewer set the record straight once again, but he also explained why we dye Easter eggs. Yes, it's all in that one chapter. In the chapter "Second-Rate Disciples", I so appreciated the idea that perhaps Jesus was making a joke at Simon Peter's expense when he said he would be a "rock". Again, no spoiler alert; you'll just have to read it for yourself. But I have always felt that Jesus had a sense of humor while He walked upon the Earth, and I'm sure we'll discover some day that He still does. That has nothing to do with the book; just a personal observation.
This book would be excellent for a study group, as well as for individual reading. I thoroughly enjoyed it and have to give it 5 stars.
*Disclosure of Material Connection: I am a member of Kregel Blog Tours and a copy of this book was provided to me by the author. Although payment may have been received by Kregel Blog Tours, no payment was received by me in exchange for this review. There was no obligation to write a positive review. All opinions expressed are entirely my own and may not necessarily agree with those of the author, publisher, publicist, or readers of this review. This disclosure is in accordance with the Federal Trade Commision’s 16 CFR, Part 255, Guides Concerning Use of Endorcements and Testimonials in Advertising*
Show More
compassion for those who no one else wanted. His very ministry, his life, death, and resurrection was a scandal.Dr. Instone-Brewer has taken thirty areas of the teachings of Jesus and broken them down into short, easy-to-study chapters for the average Bible student. Each chapter covers an area of the ministry of Jesus or His teaching that was found scandalous in His day. Chapters include His illegitimate birth, his bachelorhood, Judas Iscariot, and His views on polygamy. I particularly enjoyed the chapter on Mary Magdalene. Because I believe in avoiding spoiler alerts whenever possible, I'll just say that not only do I appreciate the fact that Dr. Instone-Brewer set the record straight once again, but he also explained why we dye Easter eggs. Yes, it's all in that one chapter. In the chapter "Second-Rate Disciples", I so appreciated the idea that perhaps Jesus was making a joke at Simon Peter's expense when he said he would be a "rock". Again, no spoiler alert; you'll just have to read it for yourself. But I have always felt that Jesus had a sense of humor while He walked upon the Earth, and I'm sure we'll discover some day that He still does. That has nothing to do with the book; just a personal observation.
This book would be excellent for a study group, as well as for individual reading. I thoroughly enjoyed it and have to give it 5 stars.
*Disclosure of Material Connection: I am a member of Kregel Blog Tours and a copy of this book was provided to me by the author. Although payment may have been received by Kregel Blog Tours, no payment was received by me in exchange for this review. There was no obligation to write a positive review. All opinions expressed are entirely my own and may not necessarily agree with those of the author, publisher, publicist, or readers of this review. This disclosure is in accordance with the Federal Trade Commision’s 16 CFR, Part 255, Guides Concerning Use of Endorcements and Testimonials in Advertising*
Show Less
LibraryThing member spbooks
Some excellent background on Jesus and the gospels from an expert in Rabbinic Judaism that enriches one's understanding. The author's motivation is to show, in part, that the gospels continue historically reliable information because Jesus' behaviour, friends, and teachings were so outrageous for
Show More
his time that they wouldn't have been invented by his followers. Valuable for anyone interested in the history and culture of Jesus' time. Show Less
LibraryThing member RonStarcher
Was the life of Jesus scandalous? According to David Instone-Brewer it was. In the context of modern scandals like we see on the news it wasn’t, but certainly it was in the minds of 1st century Jews and pagans who were not prepared for the claims of Christ. According to Paul in his letter to the
Instone-Brewer takes the reader back into the culture of first century Palestine and examines the life and ministry of Jesus in that context. His dubious birth claims, his questionable associations and his unorthodox teachings – all accepted by moderns who have had 2000 years to examine them – were quite scandalous to those early hearers.
The Jesus Scandals is divided into 3 sections, all dealing with how the message and ministry of Jesus was viewed as radical in the context of his life and culture. The first section is called “Scandals in His Life” and it covers such things as his questionable birth, his life as a single man when marriage and family were the norm, and his shameful execution as a common criminal.
Section Two is called “Scandals among Jesus’ Friends.” In this part, one reads of those people with whom Jesus’ associated. The Pharisees continually harangued about the cadre of people who were attracted to Jesus. That Jesus would associate with such people was a scandal in itself.
Section Three is “Scandals in Jesus’ Teaching.” These are perhaps the “scandal’s” with which most of us are more familiar. During his ministry, Jesus taught on a variety of topics, all which seemed to contradict the teaching of the Pharisees and confound and amaze his hearers. Some of these include divorce and remarriage, dishonesty, cursing, and “the unpardonable sin.”
The Jesus Scandals reminds us that his teachings are still scandalous and becoming more so as our culture embraces pluralism and postmodern ways of thinking. Jesus brought a radical message that when understood is still scandalous.
Show More
Corinthians, Jesus was a stumbling block to the Jews and a scandal to the Gentiles.Instone-Brewer takes the reader back into the culture of first century Palestine and examines the life and ministry of Jesus in that context. His dubious birth claims, his questionable associations and his unorthodox teachings – all accepted by moderns who have had 2000 years to examine them – were quite scandalous to those early hearers.
The Jesus Scandals is divided into 3 sections, all dealing with how the message and ministry of Jesus was viewed as radical in the context of his life and culture. The first section is called “Scandals in His Life” and it covers such things as his questionable birth, his life as a single man when marriage and family were the norm, and his shameful execution as a common criminal.
Section Two is called “Scandals among Jesus’ Friends.” In this part, one reads of those people with whom Jesus’ associated. The Pharisees continually harangued about the cadre of people who were attracted to Jesus. That Jesus would associate with such people was a scandal in itself.
Section Three is “Scandals in Jesus’ Teaching.” These are perhaps the “scandal’s” with which most of us are more familiar. During his ministry, Jesus taught on a variety of topics, all which seemed to contradict the teaching of the Pharisees and confound and amaze his hearers. Some of these include divorce and remarriage, dishonesty, cursing, and “the unpardonable sin.”
The Jesus Scandals reminds us that his teachings are still scandalous and becoming more so as our culture embraces pluralism and postmodern ways of thinking. Jesus brought a radical message that when understood is still scandalous.
Show Less
LibraryThing member MarthaJeanne
This is all fairly standard stuff. Not bad. Well presented. But hardly up to the hype on the back.
LibraryThing member ChristopherRiels
From its exotic, mysterious, and apparently esoteric cover art to its (misleading) title to its final page, this book is a highly clever production. The title is obviously designed to attract the attention of readers, of whom there are many, who seek sensational, fanciful, and titillating tales
Part of the book’s cleverness consists in the fact that the Jesus of the New Testament, while not scandalous in a way that might attract a merely fantasy-seeking reader, was and remains profoundly scandalous (a fact which is relevant to, among other things, his crucifixion); thus Instone-Brewer is quite justified in his choice of the title “The Jesus Scandals”. Indeed, he is right to emphasize this salient, essential, and vital aspect of Jesus’s life and career: everyone who seriously contemplates the life of Jesus should be acutely aware of this fact, which is especially manifest to anyone who has not been indoctrinated into unexamined Christianity (i.e., most of Instone-Brewer’s intended audience). Although, according to the author, Jesus did and said some scandalous (and, to the objective, unregenerate mind, flagitious) things, he was perfectly righteous in doing and saying them because he did and taught only the will of God, which is absolutely and necessarily identical with righteousness (however objectively cruel, abominable, and deleterious to mortal creatures it may be). A corollary to this observation, which Instone-Brewer would presumably not endorse, is that non-Christians, who have no reason to assume that everything Jesus did and said was, ipso facto, righteous, should easily recognize that much of Jesus’s scandalousness consists in its moral enormity, indecency, and unrighteousness. It hardly needs to be emphasized that, although many scandals can serve righteous and necessary causes (it is easy to think of both historical and current examples), many others are patently evil.
Incomparably the most scandalous, outrageous, and evil teaching of Jesus—which he clearly considered essential to his message, since he utters it in each of the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke)—is that many, and probably most, human beings will be consigned by him and his God to extreme, conscious, post mortem torment. This doctrine is obviously, to decontextualize and re-purpose a proposition of Anselm’s, the scandal than which [no] greater can be conceived: the most abominable, indecent, and anti-human doctrine imaginable. Consider the fact that all, or at least almost all, modern states have abolished the penalty of burning at the stake, and most modern people rightly find the idea of such inhuman torture and killing surpassingly appalling; yet that abominable process lasted far less time than sinners can, according to Jesus, expect to spend in the torture of Hell. The fact that it is God who sends people to Hell does not make this enormity righteous or just: we should expect a putatively loving God to instantiate perfect love, not perfect hatefulness. To call such overwhelming viciousness a manifestation of justice, or, as some claim, even of love, is supremely perverse. Thus, most people, who recognize that cruelty is a patent expression of wickedness, are inestimably more morally advanced than God in at least this respect. Instone-Brewer fully recognizes and acknowledges the scandalous character of the doctrine of Hell; but, as noted above, he finds it acceptable since it is perpetrated by Jesus and his "heavenly Father." What sort of "Father" can this be? Would a morally advanced human society not be right to deprive such a monstrous human father of his authority over such a grievously abused child, despite the fact that the cruelty of such a father could never approach that of the Christian God? The author’s attitude toward this purportedly just “eternal punishment” (Greek kolasis) is clear from the following statements about Jesus and his teachings on the subject:
"He spoke more about eternal hell and coming judgment than about the popular subject of God’s love—though he was also outspoken about this (p. 12)."
Apparently, Instone-Brewer would deny the perfectly obvious point that Hell and God’s vaunted love are radically incompatible and logically contradictory, however much Christian apologists feebly attempt to reconcile them.
"Hell was an important part of Jesus’s teaching. In fact, he taught more about it than any other Jew of his time (p. 179)".
If so, at least in this respect, Jesus was a more wicked and truculent teacher than “any other Jew of his time.”
"Jesus expressed anger when appropriate, but in [Matthew 5.21-22] he said that even calling someone a 'raca' (Aramaic for “idiot” or “oaf”) was an act deserving of punishment in hell."
One is bound to respond to the latter doctrine that although calling someone hurtful names is (usually, at least) wrong, the punishment does not fit the crime. There are many more examples in the gospels of speech and acts that, while much more innocuous than name-calling our fellows, are, according to Jesus, equally or even more damnable (e.g. "speak[ing] a word against the Holy Spirit", which is the "sin" that "will not be forgiven in this world or in the world to come": another teaching that occurs in all of the synoptic gospels . As Instone-Brewer well observes: “Hell is a subject that we do not often hear preached on today—perhaps because it is so offensive to most people.” Although the author might not agree, “most people” are absolutely right to be offended by it, because it is the apex of depravity and cruelty. Christian preachers, insofar as they are Christian and presumably dedicated to the teachings of Christ, should, from a religious point of view, preach damnation in Hell, because it was plainly and vociferously taught by Jesus himself. But it is, all the same, morally detestable and condemnable, for the obvious reason that post mortem torture cannot be justified by God or anyone else.
For Instone-Brewer, on the other hand, Hell is eminently just. Admittedly, however, his conception of Hell is less abominable than many: his exegesis, controversially, holds that Hell’s “fire” and “maggots”, are “metaphorical.” Yet he acknowledges that, according to Jesus, there will be “weeping and gnashing of teeth—that is, the suffering of hell.” Thus, however metaphorical hell may be, for the innumerable persons condemned to it it is clearly an excruciating form of torment, if Jesus’s words are to be taken seriously. Instone-Brewer seems to conclude, although it is not quite clear that he is totally committed to this view (note his use of he word “if”, p. 182), that Hell comprises a period of torment for a time and at an intensity commensurate to the degree of our guilt, followed ultimately by annihilation; yet he also admits that the Greek text can also denote eternal punishment in the usual sense. It is plain, however, that we must object to the author’s view that in “God’s justice”. . . “suffering will be proportionate to guilt.” Here again, it is apposite to remember that most moderns would rightly be morally repulsed at the proposition that human-inflicted burning at the stake would be “proportionate to guilt;” on the contrary, most would assert that it is extremely disproportionate, unjust, and appalling. Why should we consider God to be just for imposing a much longer and, perhaps, even more intense punishment than any human authority could execute or even imagine? The perfectly patent answer is that we should not do so: it is the ultimate expression of wanton and irresistible hatefulness and wickedness, and surely not of “justice” or “love.” The doctrine that it is God, rather than human beings, who casts the “wicked” into Hell does not make this “punishment” just. Surely we should expect better treatment and more indulgence from a god who, according the the New Testament, “is love.” So far as justice is concerned, no one more deserves "eternal punishment" than God himself: he enforces his will by overwhelming, ineluctable power and the promise of Hell for those who do not believe in or obey him.
Since this essay is already excessively protracted, I will end my analysis of The Jesus Scandals with the forgoing discussion of Hell. Those who are curious about Instone-Brewer's other “Jesus Scandals” may read the book and consider for themselves which of those scandals instantiate justice and love; certainly some of them do not, while others are less horrendous and some are even commendable. For me, the ultimate abomination—namely, Jesus’s doctrine that God will condemn innumerable human beings to enduring post mortem torture—overwhelms anything praiseworthy in his character and teaching.
Show More
about Jesus that are remarkable for their lack of evidential support. Readers who think they are taking up a book of this genre will be disappointed: The title’s “scandals” turn out to be well-known features of the life, teachings, and deeds of Jesus with which every informed Christian will be familiar from the gospels of the New Testament. The book is, in fact, a work of truly New Testament-derived apologetics.Part of the book’s cleverness consists in the fact that the Jesus of the New Testament, while not scandalous in a way that might attract a merely fantasy-seeking reader, was and remains profoundly scandalous (a fact which is relevant to, among other things, his crucifixion); thus Instone-Brewer is quite justified in his choice of the title “The Jesus Scandals”. Indeed, he is right to emphasize this salient, essential, and vital aspect of Jesus’s life and career: everyone who seriously contemplates the life of Jesus should be acutely aware of this fact, which is especially manifest to anyone who has not been indoctrinated into unexamined Christianity (i.e., most of Instone-Brewer’s intended audience). Although, according to the author, Jesus did and said some scandalous (and, to the objective, unregenerate mind, flagitious) things, he was perfectly righteous in doing and saying them because he did and taught only the will of God, which is absolutely and necessarily identical with righteousness (however objectively cruel, abominable, and deleterious to mortal creatures it may be). A corollary to this observation, which Instone-Brewer would presumably not endorse, is that non-Christians, who have no reason to assume that everything Jesus did and said was, ipso facto, righteous, should easily recognize that much of Jesus’s scandalousness consists in its moral enormity, indecency, and unrighteousness. It hardly needs to be emphasized that, although many scandals can serve righteous and necessary causes (it is easy to think of both historical and current examples), many others are patently evil.
Incomparably the most scandalous, outrageous, and evil teaching of Jesus—which he clearly considered essential to his message, since he utters it in each of the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke)—is that many, and probably most, human beings will be consigned by him and his God to extreme, conscious, post mortem torment. This doctrine is obviously, to decontextualize and re-purpose a proposition of Anselm’s, the scandal than which [no] greater can be conceived: the most abominable, indecent, and anti-human doctrine imaginable. Consider the fact that all, or at least almost all, modern states have abolished the penalty of burning at the stake, and most modern people rightly find the idea of such inhuman torture and killing surpassingly appalling; yet that abominable process lasted far less time than sinners can, according to Jesus, expect to spend in the torture of Hell. The fact that it is God who sends people to Hell does not make this enormity righteous or just: we should expect a putatively loving God to instantiate perfect love, not perfect hatefulness. To call such overwhelming viciousness a manifestation of justice, or, as some claim, even of love, is supremely perverse. Thus, most people, who recognize that cruelty is a patent expression of wickedness, are inestimably more morally advanced than God in at least this respect. Instone-Brewer fully recognizes and acknowledges the scandalous character of the doctrine of Hell; but, as noted above, he finds it acceptable since it is perpetrated by Jesus and his "heavenly Father." What sort of "Father" can this be? Would a morally advanced human society not be right to deprive such a monstrous human father of his authority over such a grievously abused child, despite the fact that the cruelty of such a father could never approach that of the Christian God? The author’s attitude toward this purportedly just “eternal punishment” (Greek kolasis) is clear from the following statements about Jesus and his teachings on the subject:
"He spoke more about eternal hell and coming judgment than about the popular subject of God’s love—though he was also outspoken about this (p. 12)."
Apparently, Instone-Brewer would deny the perfectly obvious point that Hell and God’s vaunted love are radically incompatible and logically contradictory, however much Christian apologists feebly attempt to reconcile them.
"Hell was an important part of Jesus’s teaching. In fact, he taught more about it than any other Jew of his time (p. 179)".
If so, at least in this respect, Jesus was a more wicked and truculent teacher than “any other Jew of his time.”
"Jesus expressed anger when appropriate, but in [Matthew 5.21-22] he said that even calling someone a 'raca' (Aramaic for “idiot” or “oaf”) was an act deserving of punishment in hell."
One is bound to respond to the latter doctrine that although calling someone hurtful names is (usually, at least) wrong, the punishment does not fit the crime. There are many more examples in the gospels of speech and acts that, while much more innocuous than name-calling our fellows, are, according to Jesus, equally or even more damnable (e.g. "speak[ing] a word against the Holy Spirit", which is the "sin" that "will not be forgiven in this world or in the world to come": another teaching that occurs in all of the synoptic gospels . As Instone-Brewer well observes: “Hell is a subject that we do not often hear preached on today—perhaps because it is so offensive to most people.” Although the author might not agree, “most people” are absolutely right to be offended by it, because it is the apex of depravity and cruelty. Christian preachers, insofar as they are Christian and presumably dedicated to the teachings of Christ, should, from a religious point of view, preach damnation in Hell, because it was plainly and vociferously taught by Jesus himself. But it is, all the same, morally detestable and condemnable, for the obvious reason that post mortem torture cannot be justified by God or anyone else.
For Instone-Brewer, on the other hand, Hell is eminently just. Admittedly, however, his conception of Hell is less abominable than many: his exegesis, controversially, holds that Hell’s “fire” and “maggots”, are “metaphorical.” Yet he acknowledges that, according to Jesus, there will be “weeping and gnashing of teeth—that is, the suffering of hell.” Thus, however metaphorical hell may be, for the innumerable persons condemned to it it is clearly an excruciating form of torment, if Jesus’s words are to be taken seriously. Instone-Brewer seems to conclude, although it is not quite clear that he is totally committed to this view (note his use of he word “if”, p. 182), that Hell comprises a period of torment for a time and at an intensity commensurate to the degree of our guilt, followed ultimately by annihilation; yet he also admits that the Greek text can also denote eternal punishment in the usual sense. It is plain, however, that we must object to the author’s view that in “God’s justice”. . . “suffering will be proportionate to guilt.” Here again, it is apposite to remember that most moderns would rightly be morally repulsed at the proposition that human-inflicted burning at the stake would be “proportionate to guilt;” on the contrary, most would assert that it is extremely disproportionate, unjust, and appalling. Why should we consider God to be just for imposing a much longer and, perhaps, even more intense punishment than any human authority could execute or even imagine? The perfectly patent answer is that we should not do so: it is the ultimate expression of wanton and irresistible hatefulness and wickedness, and surely not of “justice” or “love.” The doctrine that it is God, rather than human beings, who casts the “wicked” into Hell does not make this “punishment” just. Surely we should expect better treatment and more indulgence from a god who, according the the New Testament, “is love.” So far as justice is concerned, no one more deserves "eternal punishment" than God himself: he enforces his will by overwhelming, ineluctable power and the promise of Hell for those who do not believe in or obey him.
Since this essay is already excessively protracted, I will end my analysis of The Jesus Scandals with the forgoing discussion of Hell. Those who are curious about Instone-Brewer's other “Jesus Scandals” may read the book and consider for themselves which of those scandals instantiate justice and love; certainly some of them do not, while others are less horrendous and some are even commendable. For me, the ultimate abomination—namely, Jesus’s doctrine that God will condemn innumerable human beings to enduring post mortem torture—overwhelms anything praiseworthy in his character and teaching.
Show Less
Language
Original language
English
ISBN
9780857210234