The discussion over Jesus, Paul, and the Law proliferates continuously, and particularly within recent decades in the wake of new perspectives and within-Judaisms. What will soon become a household name somewhere along that spectrum is Paul Sloan, and his recent work Jesus and the Law of Moses: The Gospels and the Restoration of Israel within First-Century Judaism is a welcomed contribution to the conversation. With any work on the topic of the Law and either Jesus or Paul, a general approach must be summed. For Jesus and the Law of Moses, Sloan (hereafter S) “merges” a study on Christ as the expected Savior and a study on Jesus’s views, attitudes towards, and conflicts over the Law if Moses into one study. S navigates this through a restoration-eschatological framework, neatly canvassing Jesus’s various statements about the Law and conflicts with the Pharisees within such a view. This produces a rather interesting and stimulating read, leaning neither too far from or too close to something centered exclusively on the Law and conflicts therein, but doing what can only be considered a “coloring in the lines” of these oftentimes polemical pericopes. The initial beauty of S’s work is his ability to do exactly this, and throughout the work he applies the restoration-eschatological framework onto what is otherwise considered mere legal arguments, allowing for us to understand the conflicts within their biblical and cultural context. In short, S provides us with a work that resituates and recontextualizes a reader’s approach to Jesus and the Law, and his work is sure to make its rounds, proving beneficial to scholar and layperson alike. Any shortcomings of the work are exclusively due to the massiveness of the discussion and S’s specific focus in the work. And we are sure to see more from S, as well as this work stimulating further discussion.

S structures the book into seven chapters including the Conclusion. In his Introduction, S lays the groundwork for the book by inviting the reader to contextualize the Law, ancient-STP Judaism, and the themes of eschatological restoration in the prophets. Outlining how an anticipated return was to come, rescuing Israel in the eschatological age, S invites us to impose this upon what will come and understand it is the historical record of the world Jesus would enter. In chapter one, S embarks on the journey of demonstrating that the mainstream idea of legalism in ancient Judaism is both anachronistic and skewed. He summarizes in Sandersian fashion, “Israel does not keep these commandments in order to become God’s covenantal people; they are already God’s covenantal people whom he redeemed from slavery, and so now they express their allegiance to him through this obedience” (pages N/A). He moves into im/purity, clarifying mainstream ideas surrounding the system in ancient Judaism, writing well that “impurity is an index of one’s mortality, not one’s morality” (N/A), and not to be confused with sinfulness. S goes on to mount a persuasive argument against ideas of legalism and “compassionless exclusivism,” as well as nationalism. S spends the rest of the chapter contextualizing important elements to the coming discussion, locating aspects of the Law and obedience to it within its proper, biblical context.

In chapter two S moves to restoration eschatology, covering the sacrificial system, inevitable (at that time) pending exile for Israel into Babylon, and focuses on the three particular aspects of restoration and kingdom, the eschatological Jubilee, and the Law. This proves fascinating in this chapter and throughout the book, as S presents deep insight here into the Lord’s Prayer and later into the Beatitudes. Continuing in the chapter S further traces the theme and motif of eschatological restoration throughout the Hebrew Bible, STP literature, and thus how this is presented and continued in the synoptic gospels. In chapter three S moves into the focus of the Law specifically, which dominates the rest of the book save chapter six. Here he focuses on the Sermon on the Mount, and the result is a refreshing treatment on the nature and purpose of the antitheses (which he says “are (unjustly) labeled” as such). One feels left wanting for further exegesis on the antitheses themselves, and particularly the introductory material of Matt. 5:17-20, but it is easy to discern where S is headed and why he gets there the way he does. For S, the Beatitudes “make declarations about the eschatological restoration that implicitly demand the hearer to conform heart and action to the stated norm to participate in the promised realities” (N/A), and that not only are Jesus’s interpretations in the antitheses to follow “superior to the Pharisees’ and scribes’” (N/A), but that he interprets the commands in light of others, and such interpretation “was shown to be occasionally informed by his conviction concerning the inbreaking restoration” (N/A) in light of the relevant changes, and particularly in light of the Jubilee motif of freedom and remission of debt. There is too much to recount here, but the chapter is dense and comprehensive, showing that Jesus does little to present interpretations contrary to the Law, but rather his arguments furnished by a deep understanding of other commands and in this eschatological restorationist framework.

Moving to chapter four, S begins to move into select controversies recorded in the gospels between Jesus and the religious leaders. He provides a sustained and detailed discussion on purity, centering on the conflicts in Luke 11 and Mark 7, as well as the cleansing of the lepra. This area has been of interest in the past several years, but this section serves as a contemporary and bibliographic argument clarifying Jesus’s position—which was, S argues, not abrogating the im/purity distinctions whatsoever—and the relevant ideas of the biblical categories of clean, unclean, pure, and impure. S then moves on to Jesus’s healing on the Sabbaths, where S’s dual restoration-eschatology framework and contextualization of legal conflicts aim start to shine. S views Jesus’s healings as providing rest for the daughter, for example, in Luke 13, and the same for the man with dropsy in Luke 14. Jesus does not break the Sabbath—as S argues, there is no prohibition of healing or helping people, or in the culture and relevant literature the same, as well as helping one’s animal (1)—but sees himself as Lord of Sabbath, restoring these children of God, commensurate with the restoration of Israel.

In chapter five, S now moves into a heavier focus on Jesus’s restoration ministry and various charges brought against Him by the wayward religious leaders. First, he covers the dining with sinners, which S argues was not contrary to the Law, but fits securely and neatly within this restorationist framework. Jesus is the physician with Israel, and S argues strongly against (mis)readings contrary to this point. Second is Jesus’s views of the family, where I personally believe S’s argument is most fascinating. Here, in comparison to the Levitical exemptions from familial obligations in lieu of their sacred duties in the Temple, S sees the apostles—participating in Jesus’s restorationist mission—as exempt not only from the duties of, say, burying one’s family (Luke 9:60), but also Jesus Himself in upholding these weightier duties on Sabbath (thus him being “Lord of the Sabbath”). In this, Jesus and the apostles eating of the wheat—a charge considered violating the Sabbath by their interlocutors—is likened unto David’s eating of the shewbread in similar purposes: a more pressing divine mission where such a feat, in service of God, is no violation, but rather an exception due to the importance of what they are undertaking. As S writes, “according to the Gospels, Jesus keeps the Law, provides its authoritative interpretation, and ‘breaks’ a given commandment only when the import of another duty—proclaiming the kingdom of God—competes with his duty to keep a given commandment, in which case his mission overrides the commandment…[thus] any given ‘violation’ is not actual ‘transgression’ but is akin to a priest ‘profaning’ the Sabbath to keep his commissioned duty of offering sacrifices daily” (N/A). This is an example of where the eschatological restoration theme S applies to legal disputes shines brightly, contextualizing Jesus’s mindset in his interpretation and (seeming) “neglect” of commandments properly. S argues Jesus is divinely authorized to act as such, and we do not see—as many claim—an antagonist, reductionist, or even abrogative approach to the Law and its commandments, but a very high view of the Law, and conformity to it, that gives way (permissibly, according to the Law and “weightier matters”) to permissions based on what Jesus was doing.

Chapter six, titled ‘The Temple and the Cross,’ is S’s contribution to why Jesus was then killed, as legal disagreements would hardly constitute the execution of a Jew, and the nature of Jesus’s sacrifice. Fitting this into Jesus’s situation in the Temple, where he overthrows tables and predicts the Temple’s destruction (elsewhere), S interacts with several interpreters and options on the circumstance and ultimately argues and concludes that Jesus envisaged the Temple as failing to meet its eschatological goal due to Jerusalem’s refusal to accept his message, their “time of visitation,” primarily through their previous rejection of John’s message. It is not a matter of what the Temple was supposed to be or necessarily was at that time, but rather what it won’t be on the basis of Jerusalem’s refusal to heed to their Messiah. S spends the remainder of the chapter articulating Jesus’s sacrifice within the context of Israel’s disciplinary exile, seeing Jesus as taking on the punishment (with?) of Israel and his sacrifice, rather than placed against typical arguments of temple-based offerings, more akin to Passover and the deliverance of Israel from its earthly and cosmic captors. This section is troublesome, and S’s points are not made very clear, nor does one find a very hearty interaction with other studies or a thorough explanation of his arguments. The points he does make, however, are rather thought-provoking and merited. He closes the chapter with a brief discussion on Israel and the nations, and identities thereof, which seems to function in transitioning to his conclusion, chapter seven.

Moving to S’s conclusion, our author recapitulates some valuable points made throughout the work and promotes a view of continuity between the two testaments. S then moves to the pericopes of Acts 10 and 15, and a brief (but interesting) overview of Paul. While there is some significant coverage on these three, the chapter feels quite rushed and thrown together. One wonders if S would have been prudent to have left this unaddressed altogether and have pulled together his argument in more detail, as a conclusion and summary would naturally be. On Acts 10, he makes the persuasive argument of Peter’s vision clearly referring to Gentiles rather than to food, and on Acts 15 he focuses on the prescriptive commands given to the Gentiles being (1) based upon Lev 17-19, and (2) fit securely within larger restorationist themes. Thus, the expectations of the Gentiles with regard to the Law mirror that of the Israelite—to whom alone the dietary and extra regulations were imposed—mirror the circumstances of the foreigner dwelling in Israel’s midst. S’s argument here is a bit weak with various holes in it, built upon a good deal of assumptions and hermeneutical leaps, but his focus on restoration themes is solid and to be commended. These pericopes are often marked by a good level of syllogism and lack of considering multiple perspectives, so this is not much of a surprise. One almost feels that S, again, threw these sections together and wants to say more than he is. In fact, much of the work feels as if he has couched an examination of the Law within this restorationist framework and, while certainly insightful, the reader who has studied this area feels a certain degree of hesitancy in fully spelling out some things. However, this may simply be this reviewer’s views, and is no comment for or against the quality of the study.
S briefly finishes the chapter out with Paul’s views in 1 Corinthians 8-10 and Romans 14, where in a footnote S announces forthcoming work denying that the latter has anything to do with biblical dietary restrictions or Sabbath and that one of Paul’s contentions with the Law is simply that it cannot resurrect people, which is necessary. Here an interesting, but very brief, reading of Galatians 2-3 is found but one leaves with the impression that Paul may have done well not being invoked at all. S admits this to some degree, and ends with comments (and begins) that his intention is not to “answer [the complexities in Paul] fully here” (N/A). He finishes off the book (truly) concluding that NT scholars have oftentimes misread Jews, Judaism, and the Law, depicting a Jesus and the apostles that is not accurate, adding that his (likely with errors too; his words) work contributes to further discussion and refreshed views towards the topic.

In all, S’s work is a refreshing study and a very welcomed contribution to the discussion of Jesus and the Law, and he provides a rather fascinating and significant vantagepoint to the topic(s). For any reader curious about Jesus’s views of the Law, the cultural, religious, and circumstantial context of his interactions with the Pharisees on it, and a brief but concise introduction to proper understandings of the Law, S’s work comes highly recommended and presents a succinct and insightful introduction to various subjects direct and indirect to these ideas. While one vested in these areas of interest may leave the work feeling like much more could have been done or said, for what the work seems to seek ought to do it is a phenomenal work and any reader—scholar, layperson, and everything in between—will undoubtedly benefit from S’s quite unique and well-executed study. The work does leave one wanting for more work from S, and that is a very good sign of something done well with an interesting subject domain. As the scholarly world moves forward in a positive direction, with countless implications, to studies and views on the Law in the New Testament, S’s work will certainly cement itself among the greats, presenting a work accessible to the layperson and intensive for the serious student and scholar. Thus, (truly) in all, I would strongly recommend Jesus and the Law of Moses for any student of the Gospels, and the Bible in general.

I received a complimentary digital copy (hence the lack of page numbers) from Baker Publishing in exchange for a review. This did not impact or affect my review, opinions, or comments.