Garry has showed us his Jesus--a gigantic nursery school nanny.

"Now, children, be nice! Share with your friends; and remember, we are ALL friends! And if you get mad at someone, give them a BIG HUG, and think nice thoughts! Because, remember, God loves you!"

So spake Garry's Nanny-Jesus, traveling throughout Palestine.

Garry is the latest of the Annointed, telling us what Jesus REALLY meant.

Thanks, Garry. But, I ain't buyin' it.

As several reviewers have said, your Jesus is astonishingly modern. Quite a Liberal; did he not mention global warming and "liberation theology"?

Garry's interpretation of Jesus leaves me feeling like a powerless toddler. He takes away our drives, our aspirations, our desires, and puts us in the nursery, where we are all friends, we are all the same, and we are all at the mercy of our caring, superior teachers. And is this not what the Annointed want? For us to be ignorant children, sitting at their feet, getting bite-sized portions of their benevolent wisdom? I think so, because, to me, this book dripped with arrogance. Not honest, Nietzschean arrogance, but some other kind--subtle, hiding in the shadows and in the squirrelly, slightly-condescending language.

Why should I believe Garry's interpretation of an interpretation? The gospels are interpretations of Palestinians about Jesus, assuming he really existed. Even more--they are the interpretations of the recollections of those who interpreted Jesus!

Some of Garry's nonsense: "Miracles, as it were, work themselves around such men (reviewer's note: Garry is talking about St. Francis and 'the Baal Shem Tov.' Who?! Never heard of BS Tov. Why not Paramahansa Yogananda or Sai Baba? But continuing:) Jesus is the preeminent example of this. The fact that he seems like other wonder-working holy men--Appollonius of Tyana, for instance--does not mean that he is an imitation of them. Rather, they are a reaching out toward him. They are a hunger and he the food. They are an ache, he the easement. As Chesterton said, his story resembles the great myths of mankind because he is the fulfillment of the myths." (What Jesus Meant, 2006, p. xxvii)

Cheap C.S. Lewis imitation, Garry; it is also total nonsense. Just read what you wrote--total blather. Besides, Jesus is an imitation of them, and they an imitation of him, because they all imitate the myths.

Garry has showed us his Jesus--a gigantic nursery school nanny.

"Now, children, be nice! Share with your friends; and remember, we are ALL friends! And if you get mad at someone, give them a BIG HUG, and think nice thoughts! Because, remember, God loves you!"

So spake Garry's Nanny-Jesus, traveling throughout Palestine.

Garry is the latest of the Annointed, telling us what Jesus REALLY meant.

Thanks, Garry. But, I ain't buyin' it.

As several reviewers have said, your Jesus is astonishingly modern. Quite a Liberal; did he not mention global warming and "liberation theology"?

Garry's interpretation of Jesus leaves me feeling like a powerless toddler. He takes away our drives, our aspirations, our desires, and puts us in the nursery, where we are all friends, we are all the same, and we are all at the mercy of our caring, superior teachers. And is this not what the Annointed want? For us to be ignorant children, sitting at their feet, getting bite-sized portions of their benevolent wisdom? I think so, because, to me, this book dripped with arrogance. Not honest, Nietzschean arrogance, but some other kind--subtle, hiding in the shadows and in the squirrelly, slightly-condescending language.

Why should I believe Garry's interpretation of an interpretation? The gospels are interpretations of Palestinians about Jesus, assuming he really existed. Even more--they are the interpretations of the recollections of those who interpreted Jesus!

Mr. Wills, you're no Chesterton (who he claims to be emulating).

This book was written with an agenda. The agenda was NOT to make readers holy or bring others to the faith. It was NOT to give an honest examination of Jesus' words. It WAS a book written with utter self-righteousness filled with subtle and not-so-subtle potshots at various denominational approaches to the Bible. I came away with the impression that Wills thinks he's the only true Christian.

In the foreword, Wills goes out of his way to say that Jesus was not a mere man. But in the chapters that follow, Jesus is humanized in a way I've never seen, in the discussions on wealth, power, and egalitarianism. Basically, it's Jesus the philosopher. Very little talk about salvation or purpose.

Wills jumps from fundamentalism to meditation. In that I mean his material (proof) comes straight from the New Testament and then he adds his own meaning. As a Catholic, Wills arguing from the position of sola scriptura is odd. I have not read his book Why I Am a Catholic, but I don't understand how he can be after reading this book and seeing the numerous criticisms of his Church.

Mr. Wills, you're the sole deposit of the Faith (note the sarcasm, please).

Wills offers a clear-eyed Biblical view of Jesus that shuns both a romantisized image or fundamentalist view of who Jesus was and what Jesus has to say. He calls preachers and the whole Church to be accountable for offering Jesus' words with all their unexpected edge and compassion in a world that longs for such refreshing news.

I should have known better. I was hoping to find meaningful insights, but all Gary Wills has come up with a different way of saying the same tired old things. He says that "for creating radicals, there is nothing like a reading of the gospels," but don't expect anything radical here. I guess he is really singing to the choir..an evangelical/fundamentalist choir at that. So it's all about keeping within the confines of a certain belief system..., belief NOT understanding. There is nothing here to broaden or deepen the reader's undestanding of God, Jesus or history. But then again, most of us want don't want that. Wherever he is, Jesus must be tearing his hair out.

I should have known.....Gary Wills has far less idea of " what Jesus meant" than an illiterate farm worker in a third world country who gets his ideas of God from nature, not theology. Wills has simply come up with a different way of saying the same tired old things. He says that "for creating radicals, there is nothing like a reading of the gospels," but don't expect anything radical here. It's all about keeping within the confines of a two thousand year old belief system...yes, belief, NOT understanding. That's the key. How many ways can they find to tell us that if we believe two and two is five then that makes it so. But then again, that's what most of us want to hear isn't it? Jesus must be tearing his hair out.

We are having the best time in our adult study group at our church with this book. The conversations have taken us deeper and deeper into faith issues. We don't always agree with the author, but that's what makes it a fun read! It is easily understood and not filled with theological jargon that the lay person doesn't have experience with.

A truly scholarly anaylsis of the teachings of Jesus from a Catholic's point of view - but applicable to all Christendom. Certainly makes one think about the views held by the Religious Right and promugated by the evangelical churches in our country today. Since Jesus never wrote a book, or recorded a DVD, etc. we only have the words of the gospels to let us know his philosophy, doctrine, and connection to the Father. By his life, death and ressurection, we can know how to live and die.

I really wanted to like this book. However, after finishing it, I couldn't and don't understand all the hype about it. Quite simply, it isn't that great. I found it largely unoriginal and there was little in it that I hadn't heard before.

Although this book attempts to present Jesus as a radical, I can't help but think it's the kind of "radical" that many modern people would be quite comfortable with. At many points, in trying to make Jesus appear radical, he actually makes Him less challenging to modern man. At points, it seems like the author is attempting to co-opt Jesus to fit his own particular agenda. For example, he actually presented the old saw about Jesus being a pacifist, which seems to reflect his own political bias much more than it reflects the actual text of the Gospels. I could pardon one or two expressions of such bias but they seem to be weaved throughout the whole text.

There were far too many bows to political correctness in this book, as well as to political ideologies like pacifism and radical egalitarianism, for me to recommend this book. At many points, he simply tells people what they want to hear. For example, those looking for an excuse to sleep in on Sundays instead of attending church are likely to take comfort in his anti-institutional bias; apparently Jesus doesn't like organized religion either (although I'm not quite sure where he finds that in the text). The Jesus he ends up with is not all that unlike us; apparently He even buys into the latest fads and political fashions. Wills frequently ends up just reading modern ideas into the Gospels and, in doing so, presents a Jesus that fits well with our own biases and presuppositions and presents us with remarkably few challenges.

There's a fair share of reviewers here who describe something of an epiphany as a result of reading this book. I'm not sure why. Wills provides nothing of consequence that can't be readily ascertained with an attentive reading of the Gospels. Jesus preferred pariahs to the wealthy and well-heeled? No surprises. Jesus condemned the sanctimonious positioning of corrupt co-religionists? No, none there either. Jesus eschewed traditional Jewish law for the transforming grace he had come to provide? Again, nothing.

Beyond what one can easily distill from the Gospels, Wills offers Jesus as rebel around which a liberal-minded 21st-century believer may rally. While he takes the Jesus Seminar to task for creating a Jesus of convenience, Wills makes the same mistake from the perspective of faith. The primary components of love, mercy, and hope are left abandoned without the concept of repentance - something Wills singularly refuses to recognize. This is perfect for the navel-gazing generation of instant gratification, but soteriologically unworkable.

I agree with the author that organized religion eventually devolves into a celebration of earthbound rites and formalities, principles and political suasion. But, I find it overwhelmingly self-evident that this would be so. Who among us is immune to power, ego, and the subversion of truth for self? This doesn't obviate, however, the need for self-reflection, realignment, and a new commitment to the ideal. To do so, some of us gather in numbers, while for others it is an inner quest. So, Mr. Wills, what now?

"What Jesus Meant" is theology-lite, a contrived primer of sorts, lacking cumulative value and by no means comparable to bigger, better, more thought-provoking works. I respect the author's personal faith, (it is, undeniably, his to have), but find this outward manifestation of it less influential than expected. 3 stars.

This little book by Garry Wills is an easy read and somewhat inspirational. I would have appreciated it more, and given more credence to it, had I found footnotes, references and an index. It is simply one man's personal opinion of what he thought Jesus meant.

Since my encounter with Philip Yancey's monumental works including "What's so amazing about grace?" "Jesus I never knew," "Bible Jesus read" etc a few years before, I had not been that fascinated by a Christian book as great as this. It's by all means original, thought provoking, insightful and brilliant. In short, a must read for all believers in Christ. Highly recommended!

p.s. Below please find some of my favorite passages to justify my short but sincere and highly positive review above.

A letter addressed to a Protestant evangelical who believes in literal reading of the Bible. "....When somebody tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for e.g., I simply remind them that Lev 18.22 clearly states it to be an abomination - end of debate. I do need some advice from you...
1. Lev 25.44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided that they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why cant I own Canadians?
2. I would liek to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21.7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness. Lev 15.19. The problem is: how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35.2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev 11.10), it's a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I dont agree. Can you settle this? Are there degrees of abomination? pg 33-34

What is the kind of religion Jesus opposed? Any religion that is proud of its virtue, like the boastful Pharisees. Any that is self righteous, quick to judge and condemn, ready to impose burdens rather than share or lift them. Any that exalts its own officers, proud of its trappings, building expensive monuments to itself. Any that neglects the poor and cultivates the rich, any that scorns outcasts and flatters the rulers of this world. If that sounds like just about every form of religion we know, then we can see how far off from religion Jesus stood. pg 77

If Jesus did not come to establish a church, why did he come? He said it over and over, from the outset. He brought us heaven's reign...The word "reign" is normally translated "kingdom," but that is a misleading term. It suggests a place or a political structure. The Christian reign is the personal presence of Jesus. pg 84

All these men (Paul Schrader, Martin Scorsese etc) think that Judas, in betraying Jesus to the high priests, did not believe that he would be sentenced to death, since Jews had no authority for capital punishment under Roman rule. He did not foresee that Jesus would be turned over to Pontius Pilate, who had the power to crucify. They think Judas may have been trying to shock Jesus into taking a more aggressive and rebellious stand against Rome, to convince him that endlessly turning the other cheeck would not liberate the land. pg 102

Jesus was, in the words of Raymond Brown, "abandoned by his disciples, betrayed by Judas, denied by Peter, accused of blasphemy by the priests, rejected in favor of a murderer by the crowd, mocked by the Sanhedrin and by Roman troops and by all who cam to the cross, surrounded by darkness, and seemingly forsaken by his God." pg 114

My faith was energized and deepened by this thoughtful, fascinating perspective on Jesus's life and teachings. I was very moved by many aspects, especially sections on the meaning of the Resurrection, Judas, and the radicalism of Jesus's life. I enjoy reading Garry Wills's perspectives on religion.

I was extremely disappointed in Mr. Wills book. His conservative approach to a complex subject lends virtually nothing you couldn't learn in a middle school Sunday school class. For a reader seeking to understand New Testament writings, Mr. Wills ccontributes nothing of value.

A great little book that should give Christians of all sorts something to think about. It certainly gave me some ideas to mull over with regards to how to live according to Jesus' teaching, especially things a little different than popular Christian culture. I'm no Bible scholar but everything seemed kosher (it does quote the Bible extensively). I think Garry Wills might be on to something important but in any case it's an interesting read. If you have any interest in Jesus at all you could probably learn something from this book.

Of course this book doesn't live up to its title--no one knows for sure what Jesus meant. This is a short book with some interesting ideas, worth considering, but the author has no special method of getting at Jesus' meanings. He proceeds as though what Jesus was reported as saying and doing in the gospels can all be taken at face value, without considering how the authors of the gospels may have shaped it to their own purposes and, yes, their own understandings of Jesus' meanings.

With all of Wills' complaints about the pope and the Catholic church, its hard to understand why he is still a Catholic. Yes, I read his book "Why I Am a Catholic", but that didn't answer the question either. Says he loves the (Nicean) creed--but most churches adhere to the creed, not just the Catholic church.

All in all, I find Wills' an interesting commentator on Christianity, but there are better authors out there on the topic.

--Alan Zundel, the HeartAwake Center

Koine Greek is not elegant. It is the language of the New Testament. Jesus was homeless. His craft, cabitnetmaking, was itinerant. His very presence was subversive of the established religious order.

Jesus is the fulfillment of myths. He is not a model of family values, he was rebellious. He entered his adult ministry from a radical acetic movement. He came before the world as a follower of John the Baptist. His chosen people were the suffering ones. He went through social barriers and taboos.

Miracles are worked for outsiders. Riches and power are enemies of spirit. Jesus was a radical egalitarian. He opposed violence. He called authentic the religion of the heart, not ritualism.

Nineteen ministries are mentioned in the gospels and the letters, no priests. The movement had no authority structure. Palm Sunday is both triumph and defeat. Jesus was put to death through religion and politics. Crucifixion was cruel. It was an extreme penalty.

WHAT JESUS MEANT is a beautiful book. It delivers a message, brilliantly.

Koine Greek is not elegant. It is the language of the New Testament. Jesus was homeless. His craft, cabitnetmaking, was itinerant. His very presence was subversive of the established religious order.

Jesus is the fulfillment of myths. He is not a model of family values, he was rebellious. He entered his adult ministry from a radical acetic movement. He came before the world as a follower of John the Baptist. His chosen people were the suffering ones. He went through social barriers and taboos.

Miracles are worked for outsiders. Riches and power are enemies of spirit. Jesus was a radical egalitarian. He opposed violence. He called authentic the religion of the heart, not ritualism.

Nineteen minstries are mentioned in the gospels and the letters, no priests. The movement had no authority structure. Palm Sunday is both triumph and defeat. Jesus was put to death through religion and politics. Crucifision was cruel. It was an extreme penalty.

WHAT JESUS MEANT is a beautiful book. It delivers a message, brilliantly.

If Wills was actually a scholar, he would know that most of the story in the New Testament was copied from a biography of Julius Caesar that was popular around 50 AD. The "real" - and I use the term loosely - the "real" Jesus never said any of the learned phrases that were attributed to him in the decades after all of the people who actually knew him passed away.
So, as far as telling us "what Jesus really meant" goes, nothing in this book is credible. The title is just another empty sales pitch.

This book stunned me in its ability to elucidate. I highly recommend it to anyone striving to understand the meaning behind the words and deeds of Jesus.

The book did a good job cutting through millenia of church doctrines and traditions and gave me a glimpse of the Jesus I remember from the gospels. It was really about the Jesus of the bible bypassing all additives. The biblical Jesus was not concerned with church attendance, tithing, legalism, wealth, doctrines, or building mega churches. You will find in this book that Jesus was opposed to institutional religion, politics, and the abuses of the wealthy. His life was about showing the downtrodden a spiritual path to the kingdom of God where they were all welcome. His path was one of love.

"A new instruction I have given you: Love one another. All will know that you are followers by this sign alone, that you have love for one another" (John 13.34-35) Oh, how we have lost our way. Read this book to find it again.

This book is highly recommended. I personally attend an Evangelical Vineyard Church so that you can have an idea of my background and have a frame of reference concerning my review. That being said, I can safely say I agree with about 95% of what Wills says in his book and I highly recommend it. He removes the veneer of 2000 years of church history, dogma, and spiritual overgrowth in order to look at the words of Christ in a refreshing first century way. He scrapes off the old to get down to the "wood" of meaning in the original text.

Wills taught Greek for many years at John Hopkins University, which gives him expertise to provide his own New Testament Translation in the passages he deals with. His translations are fresh and can give slightly different nuances to what Jesus meant in some of His saying. Generally I enjoyed his translations as they gave further insight into some of the passages. Other passages however, I felt like he chose words a little to foreign to be of much use, for example he uses the word sensate for flesh in 1 Cor 15. On the positive side as I understand it he would say that the "give this day our daily bread" in the Lords prayer would be understood as the bread of the Kingdom or eschatological bread. This gives rise to contemplation of texts, which through overuse have lost their punch but with his own translation it, gives it an opportunity for those words to become fresh again.

Wills challenges both the Evangelicals and the Catholics in some their accepted thoughts and practices. With laser like precision he zeros in on some of the Catholic Ecclesiastical abuses of the past and present as well as exposing the Evangelical political religious agenda as a perversion of Christ's teaching. He claims that Jesus was killed by religion and killed by politics. I am over simplifying but basically Jesus rejected the religious formalism of Judaism but Catholicism has essentially replaced it. Trying to bring Christ into a "faith based" politics also does grievous injury to the gospel.

The gospel is solely treating every person you meet regardless of being poor, homeless, outcast, hungry, sick, thirsty, as you would Jesus. They are Jesus in this world and the love of God as displayed in Christ Jesus is to be poured out to them through each of us as individuals and corporately in our communities.

There is much to gain from the reading of this book. I think both Catholics and Protestants (for lack of a better word) will benefit from his work. After reading it I am interested in reading some of the other works by this author.