Ashlee Marie Madrid 


CST130H

Strauss, Mark L. Jesus Behaving Badly. IVP, 2015.

In chapter four of Jesus Behaving Badly, Mark Strauss addresses the question, was Jesus

an environmentalist or earth scorcher. There were two main topics discussed which attempted to

back up the claim that Jesus had no regard for God’s creations, these were the killing of pigs and

the cursing of the fig tree. As I read about these two issues and the positions that Strauss took, I

found myself agreeing with his point of view.

From the surface, the story of the killing of the pigs does sound like Jesus senselessly

killed them, but there was a reason it happened. Jesus was faced with a decision to save a man’s

life that had been taken over by a demon. As Strauss stated, Jesus had no idea what would

happen to the pigs, in Jesus’ earthly life there was a lot that he was still uncertain of (61). This

also brings up the battle between good and evil. The people of the town saw this as an act of evil

but in reality it was good because the man was healed and he was given the chance to spread the

good news, while the evil was killed by the means of the demons and pigs. In the end God’s

kingdom triumphed over the devil.

The cursing of the fig tree was another event that had people questioning Jesus’ true

intentions. I do not think that Jesus was trying to teach a lesson or that he did it out of anger. The

tree was unproductive just like Jerusalem, and I believe he did it as a warning. In my opinion I

do not think that Jesus did anything without fully having a reason or purpose, including these

two events. I can see why some people would think that Jesus carelessly tossed out God’s
 !2

creation with no regard, but I ultimately see him as an environmentalist, protecting and caring for

all.

Strauss discusses, in chapter five, the issues of Jesus either being a legalist or being grace

filled. From the legalist perspective, there is much dialogue that portrays Jesus as having high

standards, demanding perfection, stating that salvation is hard to attain and even brings up the

idea of self-mutilation to keep sin from happening. I believe there are both advantages and

disadvantages to this point of view. Legalism would be good for the reasons of obeying God and

focusing on his word. There would be no room for any distractions or errors, and it would teach

lessons of working hard for what is given. A disadvantage of legalism would be placing such

high expectations on people that it could eventually turn them away from God. It would make

them think it is too hard to get into the good graces, so why try. Even though Jesus showed some

characteristics of a legalist, I do not think that fully defined him. Which brings up the alternative,

he was also very much grace filled.

Strauss mentions many parables in this chapter that relate to Jesus and his display of

graceful action. Forgiveness and salvation is considered a gift to those who repent and remain

faithful to God. The Parable of the Prodigal Son is a great example that shows grace and

forgiveness, just as God does. Strauss explains these grace filled parables and it is clear that the

message is that grace is free and it does not sound like legalism (82). People are undeserving of

salvation, but that does not stop him from delivering. It would be easy for there to be harsh laws

and make it difficult to gain salvation but that is not that way it is. I think Strauss’ reference to an

adopted child who does nothing to earn entrance into a family is a good comparison to how we

our accepted gracefully as God’s children by simply being obedient and loving (91).
 !3

Another issue that Strauss introduces in chapter seven is the question of Jesus being

antifamily or family friendly. The chapter starts with a story of a cult, which like Jesus is seen as

being antifamily and needing complete attention from everyone. Strauss made several points of

Jesus acting as if he did not care about his own family. He said to hate your family, and if you do

not then you are not worthy. Jesus asked his disciples to leave and abandon their family and

homes. It is surely true that if anyone said these things they would be seen as having no family

loyalty or values. I am sure that I would call anyone crazy if they told me to hate my family, but

it was not just anyone, it was Jesus. I believe that even though Jesus said these things he had a

specific purpose. That purpose was to have people focus more on God and learn how to glorify

him without distraction.

On the other hand, Strauss makes several points that the use of hyperboles is the

explanation of why Jesus sounded antifamily. In the statement Jesus made to hate your family,

Strauss said hate could have actually meant to love less (121). So to me this would mean that

Jesus was in a way both family friendly and antifamily for good reasons. To love less would

mean to love God more than family and to put him first. According to Strauss, human

relationships are of little significance when compared to spiritual relationships with God (122).

Strauss also make a point in this chapter to discuss how family interacts with religious

life, which I found interesting. He used examples of people being hated by family because they

do not agree with the same religious beliefs as the family. This could also be the reason why

Jesus said to hate or love your family less. Family could potentially be a hinderance from

following God and fully accepting his word. Jesus said that the real family is the family of God.
 !4

Another matter that Strauss discusses is found in chapter eleven, where he looks into the

issue of Jesus either being a failed prophet or a victorious king. There are several ways to

interpret Jesus’ predictions, one being that the kingdom of God was near. Strauss dives into the

topic of people thinking that the coming of the kingdom meant that there was going to be a

conquering king, who was going to save them. In this regard, I can see why people would have

been disappointed and thought he had failed, they did not receive what they thought was coming.

In order to understand why the kingdom of God was misinterpreted by the people, it is

important to understand what the kingdom is, and Strauss does a good job explaining that.

Strauss’ perspective explains that the coming of the kingdom of God was more about

establishing a new covenant. The kingdom of God refers to his authority and sovereign rule over

the universe (165). Strauss not only mentions what the kingdom of God is but also how it came

about. God gave authority and power to Jesus. Through the numerous healings, exorcisms and

miracles Jesus performed, this was God launching a plan to renew and restore creation (167).

There are several points that Strauss made that I thought were strong in defending Jesus

and him actually being victorious, like when he described that the kingdom of God has been

compromised because of humans. This is why Jesus sought out, through God, to restore

humanity and bring back God’s reign. I also believe that it is significant that Strauss included

Peters two explanation for where the coming of the kingdom is (185), it is in God’s own timing

and by his own patience. Jesus’ prediction was not what was expected but I do not believe that he

failed. It was God’s plan before the world came to existence that Jesus would in fact be a

victorious king and it is because of Jesus that the opportunity is present to have a relationship

with God.
 !5

In Chapter twelve, Strauss addresses the issue of Jesus either being a decaying corpse or

a resurrected lord. I found this chapter to be most interesting, because as mentioned in the

beginning of the chapter this is one of the most controversial events of Jesus’ life. Strauss made

several great points arguing both sides. There are numerous claims made against the resurrection

that are brought up in this chapter. The disciples stole Jesus’ body, he never really died on the

cross, the women went to the wrong tomb or maybe it was all just a vision that everyone had.

The upside to having a rational explanation is it could actually be proven and the truth would

definitely be known. The downside, Jesus was never resurrected and he in fact was not the all

powerful messiah. I could very much entertain all of these explanations but the only thing

holding me back would be my faith.

A Resurrected Lord was definitely something that Jesus was. All five of the facts that

Strauss addresses are very well written and examined. The facts, Jesus died and his body was

buried in the tomb, this cannot be argued. This is not a very hard concept to understand and

Strauss makes a good point that the church even confirmed this and if it was not true they

probably would not have made this claim. Most importantly, the resurrection was thought to have

saved peoples lives. This fact is really interesting to me and I like the stance that Strauss makes.

Before the resurrection certain people did not believe in Jesus, they did not understand his

ministry. It appears that after the resurrection they were willing to do whatever needed to remain

faithful to God. Which only validates my opinion that Jesus was indeed resurrected. In

conclusion, there are many issues circulating Jesus’ life and death but Strauss does an excellent

job at addressing each one in an informative way and I will no doubt agree with Strauss that

Jesus will always remain a fascinating, enigmatic, mysterious figure (199).

!6