or if he is the insider, then much that hernsays makes the rest of us outsiders.”rnIndeed, this is the Jews’ long-standingrnquarrel with Jesus and the Christians:rndespite their claim to be the legitimaternprolongation of biblical Israel, and tornhonor the Jews, Christians have madernJews outsiders. (Of course, it was not thernChristians who started this, inasmuch asrnthe Jews have long been what Peter alsorncalls the Christians, “a peculiar people.”)rnJesus wants Jews to leave home and family,rnNeusner protests, to belong to thernIsrael of the future. He replies, “But, sir,rnthe Israel of home and family is where Irnam.rnRabbi Neusner lays great stress on thernorganic continuity and integrity of Israelrnas the people of God. Jesus clearly callsrnfor personal conversion, and althoughrnthe words are Paul’s, Neusner wouldrnagree that they reflect Jesus’s demands:rn”Come ye out from among them.” Onernthing that is missing in Neusner’s treatmentrnis the question of the Gentiles. Jesus,rnand particularly the disciples, wantedrnto reach those outside of historic Israelrnand to integrate them into the new laosrntou theou, the people of God, by personalrnconversion and baptism. To the extentrnthat this mission to the Gentilesrnwas successful, it left those who claimedrnnot to need conversion in the Christianrnsense—while certainly not denying thernneed for repentance in Neusner’srnsense—and who did not want to be baptized,rn”outside,” and, because they arernnot part of “the Israel of faith,” they fallrnunder Paul’s stricture, “Not all Israel is Israel.”rnProfessor Neusner’s book is short butrnprofound, and a brief review cannot do itrnjustice. Much of the book is taken up byrndisputes, in true Talmudic fashion, withrnvarious apparent contradictions or paradoxesrnin Jesus’s positions, such as “Bernholy” vs. “Be perfect,” “Honor thy fatherrnand mother” vs. “I have come to setrna man against his father . . .” Nevertheless,rnit seems to me that Neusner’s mainrncriticism lies in the fact that Jesus appealsrnto the future, wants to build thernChurch as the Israel to come. Christianityrnhas always been future-oriented,rnor eschatological in outlook, to use therntechnical theological term. (Judaism toornhas an eschatological perspective, butrnwith certain exceptions it has neverrnplayed the role that it does in Christianity.)rnIndeed, the very term ekklesia meansrn”the called out [assembly].” It wouldrnseem that as Neusner understands Israel’srncalling, it is to be; Jesus, as he seesrnhim, is calling men and women to become.rnAlbert Schweitzer, the great organistrnand musicologist who became firstrna Christian theologian and then a missionaryrndoctor, gave up teaching Christianrntheology because he was convincedrnthat it was impossible to separate Jesusrnthe “good Teacher” from his eschatologicalrnconviction that he would “comernwith glory in the clouds of heaven,” thernvery statement in Mark 14:63 thatrncaused the High Priest to rend his garmentsrnand cry, “What need we any furtherrnwitnesses?”rnThere is one curious aspect of ProfessorrnNeusner’s analysis that must still bernmentioned. Jesus does divide peoplernfrom one another, the converted fromrnthe unconverted, and did bring, as hernpromised, at least in many situations,rn”not peace but a sword.” However, Jewsrnhave from the very beginning been arn”called out” people. Holiness in Jewishrnas well as Christian understandingrnmeans “separated unto the Lord.” FromrnAbraham through Moses to the modernrnstate of Israel, Jews have been “comingrnout” from among the Gentiles, whetherrnindividually, as in Abraham’s case, orrncollectively, as with Moses. Once Jewsrnhave “come out” of Egypt, so to speak,rnhave they done all the coming out thatrnGod requires? Even when we are dealingrnwith the hundredth or so generation ofrnJews since the time of Moses? WhatrnNeusner objects to in Jesus’s appeal tornthe Jews is that Jesus is not satisfied withrntheir having come out then and beingrnphysically separate as a distinct communityrnnow, but wants them to come outrnagain, if we may say so, and to create arnnew community at the cost of losing thernold. “For Jesus, ‘you’ is as often singularrnas plural. But for the Torah, from Sinairnonward, ‘you’ is always plural,” writesrnNeusner. He is right: the “you” of Jesusrnis very frequently a “thou,” and he doesrncall individuals as well as peoples andrnnations. But isn’t there a “thou” in thernTen Commandments, too? Even if thern”thou’s” of the commandments are addressedrnto Israel the people, isn’t there arnlegitimate singular, individual thou, too,rnfor, as the spiritual says, “Not my sister,rnnot my brother, it’s me. Lord, standin’ inrnthe need of prayer”?rnWell, there is, as Neusner says, no wayrnto solve this: he wants followers of Jesusrnto remain Christians and for Jews to preserverntheir distinctive spiritual and physicalrncommunity. Our rabbinical authorrnhas smoothed over some of the glaringrnconflicts between Jews and Christiansrnand left us with some puzzles we shallrnhardly be able to solve. But as he says, wernmust leave the final verdict to God.rnHarold O.]. Brown is the director ofrnThe Rockford Institute Center onrnReligion and Society and FormanrnProfessor of Theology and Ethics atrnTrinity Evangelical Divinity School inrnDeerfield, Illinois.rnThe Shock ofrnRecognitionrnbyf.O. TaternMelville & Turner: Spheres ofrnLove and Frightrnby Robert K. WallacernAthens: University of Georgia Press;rn664 pp., $75.00rnThe academic presses are often thernsource of the most exciting books,rnthough these volumes too often escapernthe notice of the larger public. RobertrnWallace’s study of Melville and Turnerrnwill no doubt find its place in universityrnlibraries, but I think such a work shouldrnbe included in community and private libraries,rnsince what it says and impliesrnought to be of concern these days tornmany who are not graduate students. Ifrnwar is too important to leave to the generals,rnculture is too important to delegaternto seminars—or ovulars, as the case mayrnbe.rnProfessor Wallace of Northern KentuckyrnUniversity has produced anotherrnscholarly work that is insightful, stirring,rninterdisciplinary, and extraordinarily suggestivern—as we have come to expect fromrnhim. His first book, A Century of Music-rnMaking: The Lives of Josef and RosinarnLhevinne (1976), was a double biographyrnand remains an indisputable source forrnthe music-lover and a treat for the pianornbuff. Wallace’s Jane Austen and Mozart:rnClassical Equilibrium in Fiction and Musicrn(1983) dared to undertake a comparisonrnthat naturally suggests itself, butrnwhich no one had ever pursued in suchrnNOVEMBER 1993/37rnrnrn