This is one of the most frequent questions raised by those who do not accept Jesus as Messiah. At first glance, it seems logical: “If the Messiah was supposed to bring peace on earth, and Jesus did not do that, then Jesus cannot be the Messiah.”

This argument arises from a limited understanding of what the Hebrew Scriptures have to say about the role of the Messiah. While the Scriptures promise that the Messiah would bring about a universal and lasting peace on earth, it makes clear that before this could happen, there would need to be peace between God and humankind. Biblical prophecies speak not only of the Messiah’s glorious victory over evil, but also of the Messiah’s sufferings and atoning death on our behalf. In other words, in the Hebrew Scriptures, the Messiah is described asassuming not only the royal, but also the priestly role of his ancestor, David. Ultimately, the results of his first coming will lead to his return, when he will establish complete peace on earth forever.

Before we consider in more detail particular verses from the Hebrew Bible, let us first take a brief look at the Talmudic tradition, especially its interpretation in the writings of the Vilna Gaon, the greatest rabbinic scholar of the eighteenth century. The Talmud divides the existence of the world into three, two thousand year periods: the era of desolation (Adam to Abraham); the era of Torah (Abraham to around the beginning of the Common Era); and the Messianic era. According to the Talmud, the Messiah should have come about two thousand years ago, but this did not happen because “our iniquities were many” (Sanhedrin 97a-b).

The Vilna Gaon based his timeline for world events on that of the medieval scholar Rashi, and maintained that a time of increasing darkness and universal apostasy would precede the arrival of the Messiah. In his view, even though the Jews had not deserved the Messiah’s arrival, God had, nonetheless, initiated the process that would ensure the Messiah’s ultimate arrival. The Gaon believed that this time of transition they were living in now was characterized by humankind moving from spiritual darkness and sin to the realization that in order to become truly human again, people must accept God’s dominion; only then will the Messiah arrive.

The Gaon was convinced that the last third of history had begun more than eighteen hundred years earlier, and believed that the Messianic era was right on schedule even though it was not happening in the way that most were expecting. Clearly, the Gaon did not believe in Jesus, and probably did not have an accurate picture of who Yeshua was and what he did. In fact, he believed that the Messianic era had begun without the coming of the Messiah. Nonetheless, when it is understood that the Gaon based his calculations on those of Rashi, and when adjustments to that timetable are made to compensate for an historical error of about 180 years, we see that, in effect, the Vilna Gaon placed the arrival of the Messiah in the same century as Jesus!

Which seems more reasonable to you: to adopt the Gaon’s perspective that the Messianic era began without the coming of the Messiah, or to believe that it began with his coming? Are you willing to accept the possibility that the Messiah actually arrived two thousand years ago, but “because our iniquities were many” we did not recognize him?

Many well-respected scholars believe that when Jesus went around announcing that the kingdom of God was at hand, he was expressing a generally held belief at the time that the appointed hour for the Messiah had come. While this was the general sentiment in the early first century, things changed in the second half of the century. Following the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, and after the failure of Simeon Bar Kochba’s revolt in 135 CE, many Talmudic rabbis found they could only hold onto their Messianic expectations by revising their chronology of events. They did this by assuming that the Messianic era had begun on time (with the destruction of the Temple), but that a further four hundred years would pass before the Messianic era would be fulfilled.

There are Talmudic traditions which imply that it was our unworthiness that kept our people from recognizing Yeshua as the Messiah when he arrived. There are also traditions acknowledging that in the forty-year period before the destruction of the Temple, the annual atonement sacrifices were no longer accepted. These traditions indicate that although the Messiah had been expected to come before the destruction of the Temple, something terrible happened which led to the postponement his arrival.

As a Messianic Jew, I must admit that I find certain rabbinic expectations and assumptions to be lacking; the destruction of the Temple should be received as a sign that our people failed to acknowledge the arrival of the Messiah. When you think about it, doesn’t it make you wonder why the Temple was destroyed forty years after the death of Yeshua? This destruction left our people without a central place for sacrifices, without any other means for national atonement. Shouldn’t you be asking whether the fact that thousands of years have passed without our people welcoming the arrival of the Messiah might actually be an indication that we have been waiting for the wrong Messiah? Is it possible that twenty centuries ago, the real Messiah did appear, and we missed him? The Talmud raises questions and leaves hints that we should not ignore.

It may be that you prefer to rest your assumptions and expectations not on what the tradition says, but on the testimony of the Hebrew Scriptures themselves. If that’s the case, let’s see what the Word of God has to say about the timing of the arrival of the Messiah, especially in relation to the Second Temple.

Haggai 2:6-9 indicates that both the glory and the peace of the Second Temple would be greater than those of the First. As the rabbis noted, this announcement seems to contradict the fact that so many elements were missing from the Second Temple that were present in the First Temple, including the ark and mercy seat, the divine fire, the Shekhinah, the Holy Spirit, and the Urim and Thummim. The most common Rabbinic explanations for ascribing a superior glory to the Second Temple have to do with the length of time it existed or the physical beauty of the building, but these explanations do not account for the presence of the glory of God that marked the dedication of the First Temple but seemed absent in the Second Temple. They also do not explain how the period of the Second Temple, which saw plenty of war and turmoil, deserves the description of being especially “peaceful.”

Malachi 3:1-5 declares that the Second Temple would receive a visitation from the Lord, preceded by his messenger, who would purify some of his people and bring judgment on others. The medieval Jewish commentators Radak (David Kimchi) and Metsudat David assumed that “the Lord” referred to none other than “King Messiah,” though they paid little attention to the fact that it was the Temple of Malachi’s day that the Messiah was to visit. Was Malachi’s prophecy fulfilled? Did this special visitation actually happen? If so, then it must have taken place before the destruction of that Temple in 70 CE; if not, then God’s Word is false.

What about the idea that the Second Temple would serve as the location for the granting of an extraordinary peace? In asking this question, we return to the objection that sparked our conversation in the first place, i.e.the role of the Messiah as the bringer of peace. Although the primary role of the Messiah during his initial arrival was not to establish a universal peace on earth, he is still rightly called the Prince of Peace in the Scriptures for the following three reasons: (1) he offers peace to all who will embrace him and turn from sin, (2) he makes peace between hostile sinners and a holy God, and (3) he brings peace to his people who follow him. Jesus’ sacrificial death on the cross will ultimately lead to worldwide peace when he returns to establish the kingdom of God on earth.

While there is no scholarly consensus on when the book of Daniel was composed, we know that the author situates the historical context of the narrative at the end of the Babylonian exile in the 530s BCE. Daniel 9:24-27 plainly indicates that during the 490 year period. It mentions sin would be atoned for and righteousness would be ushered in. It is clear that this would have had to have taken place before the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE.

Malachi prophesied that the Lord would visit his Temple and Daniel prophesied that there would be atonement before the destruction of the Temple. Who brought the glory of God to the Temple before its destruction if it was not the Messiah? Who else could have atoned for sins other than the Messiah? If this visitation is not explained by the arrival of the Messiah, these prophetic promises are empty. Can you explain how the Lord can be said to have visited the Second Temple in a “personal” way if it was not by means of his Messiah?

The simplest solution to these problems is that the Messiah came almost two thousand years ago; otherwise, the biblical prophets were lying. The good news is that it is not necessary to leave the Scriptures behind. If you accept that the Messiah arrived right on time in keeping with the biblical prophecies, doing all he was intended to do during his first visit to earth, you do not have to lose faith in the Word of God.

Hosea prophesied that our people would live without God and the Davidic Messiah and without king, prince or sacrifice (3:4-5)—in other words, our people would experience the “silence” of God. The Scriptures show us that our people have known other silences or “gaps” in God’s dealing with us. The calendar given to us by God provides a prime example of this. There is a gap of four months between the cluster of holy days at the beginning of the year (Passover, Firstfruits, and Shavu’ot, the Feast of Weeks) and the next intense cluster of religious activity (Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur, and Sukkot, the Feast of Tabernacles). These holy days are filled with prophetic meaning and significance which are only able to be unlocked by an understanding of the Messiah.

Passover reminds us that it was the blood of the lamb that saved the lives of the Israelites from death; it was at the time of the Passover that the Messiah laid down his life as a sacrificial Lamb to save us from death and ultimate destruction. The celebration of First Fruits was fulfilled when, three days after his death, the Messiah was raised to new life, a token of the resurrection of the righteous at the end of the age. Fifty days after the resurrection of Jesus from the dead (during the Feast of Weeks when our people celebrate the reception of the Law on Mount Sinai), the Holy Spirit was poured out on the followers of the Messiah. This event fulfilled the prophecy of Joel 2:28-32.

What is the meaning of the second cluster of holy days, which takes place after a significant period of silence? Several New Testament authors maintained that Jesus’ return would be announced with a rousing trumpet blast, like that of the shofar on Rosh Hashanah. Zechariah 12:10-14 can be interpreted in relation to Yom Kippur, offering a description of the Messiah’s return, when our people will recognize him for who he really is and repent of having rejected him for so long. This passage announces that after repenting, our people will experience atonement. The fourteenth chapter of Zechariah refers to the day when Yahweh arrives in Jerusalem to avenge his people by destroying those nations that have proven hostile to them. Those who survive the attack will go up to Jerusalem to worship the Lord and participate in the Feast of Tabernacles – this will be the sign that the prophecy regarding this holy day has been fulfilled (Zech. 14:1-5, 16).

The gap between the first coming of the Messiah and his return reflects the gap between the holy days of our calendar. After almost two thousand years, we are about to experience the consummation of history, which is signified by Rosh Hashanah. The return of the Messiah will be announced with the blast of the shofar, and our people will recognize him, repent and receive atonement. We are about to witness the day when all people will stream into Jerusalem to worship the Lord. What an amazing time that will be! Our waiting for that day to come is like the time of waiting in our calendar, which revolves around the cycle of the harvest; this “gap” before the Messiah’s return is moving toward the time of the ingathering (the harvest) of souls, both Jewish and Gentile, into the kingdom of God.

One of the biggest problems that has kept our people from recognizing Yeshua as the Messiah is that the scriptural description of the priestly role of the Messiah has been virtually eliminated from traditional Judaism’s laws, lore, and liturgy. Psalm 110:4 declares that the Davidic king “would be a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.” There are passages providing examples of the priestly activities carried out by David himself, which indicate that he is a prototype of the Messiah (see 2 Sam. 24:25). Not only was David said to be a priest, but Scripture also calls David’s sons priests (2 Sam. 8:17). Zechariah 3:8; 6:11-13 speaks of the Messiah (“the Branch”) — who we all know is the son of David — as a crowned high priest ruling on his throne as king.

Even though traditional Judaism has overlooked the fact that the Hebrew Bible describes the Messiah as having a priestly role, there are some Jews who have paid attention: Those who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls captured this dual role in their anticipation of two Messianic figures (the Messiahs of Aaron and Israel), and those who wrote the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs spoke in highly exalted terms about a priestly Messiah.

Though it may seem like a trivial matter, this idea that the Messiah would be a priestly king is paramount. Before peace could be established on earth, there had to be peace between God and humanity. The Messiah first had to deal with our sins and establish God’s rule in our hearts before he could establish God’s rule over the whole world. How can there be lasting peace on earth without a way for people to repent and receive forgiveness from God?

Our Scriptures lead us to believe that the Messiah was supposed to come almost two thousand years ago. Let me assure you, Yeshua, the Messiah, arrived right on schedule and fulfilled those prophecies that described him as both priest and king by offering himself as sacrifice for our sins, making a down payment for our souls, and establishing the Lord’s rule in the hearts of many. Because he has done this, we are confident in the promise of his return to complete his work, which will establish lasting peace on earth.

It is a tragedy that for the past twenty centuries, most Jews have believed that the Messiah has not yet come. From time to time, hopes have gathered around particular figures such as Bar Kochba, Shabbetai Zvi or the Lubavitcher Rebbe, but these hopes have not resulted in anything enduring. It is time we realized as a people that Yeshua is the Messiah. It is time we received him with reverence and joy, for the good of our people and the glory of our God.

There is not much time left — the return of the Messiah is drawing nearer every day. Let’s be sure we’re waiting for Yeshua when he comes back to usher in the age of universal and everlasting peace!

For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 1, pp. 69-88.

“Why have wars, famines, and human suffering only increased since Jesus came?“

We are living in a time of transition. Though many Jews believe that the day of universal peace will be ushered in immediately after the Messiah arrives, this day will only come when the Messiah returns. Four thousand years ago, God initiated a process that will culminate in the return of Jesus, and in the time between his first and second comings, things will be anything but peaceful. You are right in observing that wars, famines and human suffering have increased since Jesus came, but far from being an argument against the Messiahship of Jesus, it actually reinforces the position that the Jewish Messiah has already come and that his return is imminent.

Ever since God called Abraham four thousand years ago to be a blessing to all peoples on earth (see Gen. 12:2, 3b), he has been calling humanity back to him. He never gives up on us though we continually sin against him. God wants people to know him, to live in his light, and to enjoy his goodness. It was God’s plan to bless all the peoples of the earth through the descendants of Abraham, and among his descendants, the preeminent one was to be the Messiah, who was to come through the line of Israel, Judah, and David. There were about a thousand years between Abraham and David, and another thousand between David and the arrival of Yeshua the Messiah. That may strike you as a very slow way to operate, especially because during those two thousand years, very few people had the chance to know and serve the God of Israel. Not even the majority of Israel obeyed the Lord during this time.

It may seem to you that very little has changed in the last two thousand years since the arrival of the Messiah; however, there are some very important happenings in connection with the God of Israel. While the kingdom of God advances one person at a time, in recent decades the numbers have been increasing more rapidly. During the twentieth century alone, more than one billion people placed their faith in the God of Israel through Jesus the Messiah! In the time it has taken you to read this paragraph, several dozen people have stepped into the light, been freed from their sins, and with joyful hearts, have begun to serve their Creator out of love.

If you’re like me, you’ve probably wondered why God hasn’t chosen to work even more quickly. Granted, we don’t know everything about God’s plans, but it is clear that God has decided to work through us to unfold his plan of redemption, and our participation (or lack thereof) affects the progress of his Word spreading to all parts of the world. There is something significant about the end of another millennium. During the twentieth century, world events started happening very quickly. The century was full of wars and atrocities perpetrated by notorious mass murderers who refused to submit to the God of Israel and let their hearts be changed by Jesus. Granted, the church also lent a hand to the spread of violence, hatred and persecution of Jews (and non-Jews too) insofar as it strayed from its biblical foundations, deviated from the Messiah’s teachings of love, compassion, and sacrifice, and clung to human traditions; however, you can’t hold Jesus responsible for the suffering that was caused either by those who rejected him outright or those who wrongly claimed to be his followers.

Our focus should be on what God is doing through Jesus the Messiah, who promised that the end would come only when his message had been spread throughout the whole world. The end must be getting closer because the Word of God has spread with remarkable speed. The Bible has been translated into at least 2000 different languages, a number which has increased over 5700% since 1500 CE! It’s also amazing to think that at least one-third of the entire expansion of the kingdom of God on earth has taken place in just the last thirty-five years. Currently, about one-third of the world’s population believes in Jesus as Messiah. There is an average of 125,000 new followers each day and 16,000 new congregations each week. It’s spiritual harvest time!

Two thousand years ago, Jesus warned his followers that an increase in persecution would precede his return (see Matt. 24:6-8). This prophecy has come true: tens of thousands of Christians are killed each year because of their belief in Jesus. Our planet is beginning to react to generations of moral and spiritual pollution (not to mention ecological pollution). This widespread upheaval is a sign that God is beginning to judge the sinfulness of humankind. Satan knows that his time is growing short, so he is beginning to pour out his destructive fury against humanity. The prophet Hosea predicted that after the destruction of the Second Temple, before final redemption could take place, there would be a long period of spiritual darkness (see 2.1). This conflict between good and evil will increase to a climax, intensifying until Jesus returns (see Rev. 12:12 and Isa. 60:1-3). At that time, Jesus will definitively establish the kingdom of his Father.

In traditional Judaism there is a belief that each generation produces a potential Messiah; the fact that the Messiah has not yet been revealed indicates that there has not yet been a generation worthy of him (or able to recognize him). The Lubavitcher Grand Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson (d. 1994) was hailed as the Messiah by his followers. They believed his death atoned for sins, and are awaiting his resurrection and return. You tell me whether it makes more sense to believe in Schneerson, who is a virtual unknown outside of Lubavitch circles, or to believe that Yeshua, who fulfilled the Scriptures, is the one and only Messiah promised in the Scriptures? Some day there will be a generation of Jews and Gentiles who will recognize him as the Messiah in a significant enough way that he will return. Yeshua, the Jewish Messiah, came two thousand years ago and his return is imminent—thereis no need to look for any other Messiah.

Let me assure you, things are right on schedule as predicted in our Scriptures. Knowledge of God is spreading and people are flocking to Jesus the Messiah. At the same time, those who reject God continue to wreak havoc on the planet. The good news is that this time of transition is nearly over. Are you ready for that the Messiah’s return?

For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 1, pp. 88-98.

“There was no Jewish expectation in the first century that the Messiah would be some great miracle worker, so all of Jesus’ alleged miracles were of no interest to the first century Jewish leaders, and they are of no interest to me.”

Somewhere along the line you’ve got your facts wrong. It was because first-century Jews had this expectation that the people who saw or heard about Jesus’ miracles began to wonder whether he might be the one promised in the Torah and prophets (see Matt. 12:22-23, Luke 7:20-23). Jesus described his mission using the words of the prophet Isaiah, “The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because He has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor” (Luke 4:16-17, quoting portions of Isa. 61:1-3a). The expectations for a miracle-working Messiah were nurtured through reading the Hebrew Scriptures (see Isa. 35:5-6), and these same expectations can be found in Talmudic literature (see Sukkah 52a). The reported miracles of the Talmudic sages (i.e.,Honi the Circle Drawer and Hanina Ben Dosa) were understood as signs of divine favor, and the Lubavitcher Hasidim pointed to alleged miracles as a sign that their Rebbe was the Messiah. The first-century expectation continues to this day because performing miracles is part of the Messiah’s job description.

You claim to have no interest in miracles yourself, but imagine you were faced with the suffering of a loved one who had a serious illness; the gracious healing power of Jesus the Messiah would seem more relevant to you then. Followers of Jesus are certainly not exempt from the frailties and suffering that come with being human, however, they do experience the Messiah’s healing touch in a variety of wonderful ways. Many Jews have actually turned toward God in repentance and put their faith in Yeshua the Messiah after being healed from a serious physical or mental disorder.

The Messiah has performed many wonderful miracles and continues to work them today, and when he comes again to fully establish God’s kingdom on earth, he will perform even greater works than these.

For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 1, pp. 98-101.

“Jesus cannot be the Messiah, because more Jewish blood has been shed in his name than in any other name or for any other cause.”

You are right that much Jewish blood has been shed by those who claim to be followers of Jesus. As deplorable and inexcusable as this is, you must take into account that more Jews have been killed by those who have no connection to Jesus (e.g. Stalinists, Islamic terrorists, etc.) than by Christians. Furthermore, from a biblical perspective, the most common reason for the shedding of Jewish blood is that we as a nation have been unfaithful to God by disobeying his commandments, ignoring his prophets and rejecting his Messiah, thereby earning us curses instead of blessings.

Your objection raises the thorny issue of Christian anti-Semitism, which I will address as openly and honestly as I can in the next few answers. I want to start by drawing attention to Jesus’ own agony over the sufferings of his people. He was aware that his Messiahship would be rejected and that there would be difficult consequences for the nation as a result (see Luke 19:41-44, Matt. 23:37-39, Luke 23:27-32). This rejection was part of a larger pattern of our nation’s rejection of the Torah and the prophets as described in the Hebrew Scriptures (e.g., 2 Kings17:13-20). Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28 explain that as a reward for national obedience, our people could expect to be blessed in this world; however, disobedience would result in judgment and curses being brought upon the nation.

Our suffering as a people is primarily the result of our own sins. It’s not just others who are to blame, but we as a people are partly responsible for our own suffering. If you don’t like this idea, it’s the Torah you’ll have to argue with, not me.

Although we bear some responsibility for our suffering, those who persecute us do not do so with impunity or without receiving God’s judgment on their sins. First of all, those who claim to be “Christians,” but persecute, torture, or kill other human beings in Jesus’ name, cannot really know Jesus and are falsely claiming to follow him. Not only does the Torah forbid murder, but Jesus himself pronounced a blessing upon the meek and those who seek peace, and he commanded his followers to love their enemies, to pray for those who persecute them, and to do good to those who hate them (see Matt. 5:44; Luke 6:35). There are many examples in the New Testament that show that the true followers of Jesus are not those who do the persecuting, but those who are persecuted for their faith in him. Jesus warned that there would be disingenuous people who would be his followers in name only since their actions would betray their hardened hearts and evil deeds (see Matt. 7:21-23). God is very aware of the utter hypocrisy of these false followers of his Messiah and will judge them accordingly.

Secondly, even though the Bible informs us that God’s punishment on the disobedient people of Israel is often meted out through the actions of other nations (see Isa. 10:5-7, 12), this does not mean that those nations are given free reign over us. When they punish us too severely, they become the recipient of God’s wrath on behalf of his people (see Zech. 1:15) so that the punishers are punished by God.

Until we return to God in repentance and acknowledge the Messiah, we remain vulnerable to the malicious attacks of those who hate the Jewish people, and these Jew-haters, who by their very actions prove that they too do not know the Messiah, will be judged by God as well.

The fact that we as a nation suffer at the hands of those who claim to be followers of Jesus cannot be used as an excuse for rejecting Jesus himself since part of this suffering is a consequence of our rejection of him. The only way to reverse this pattern of judgment is for our people to come to him in faith. I tell you with complete confidence: Jesus is the cure of our every problem, individually and nationally, not the cause of our every problem.

For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 1, pp. 101-108.

“Christianity is actually a religion of hate, not love. Its bad fruit proves that it is a bad tree, even according to Jesus’ own criteria (see Matt. 7:15-20; Luke 6:43-45).”

If you really want to know what “Christianity” teaches and advocates, you need to consider the words of Jesus and his followers as found in the New Testament; only then will you have any real standpoint for determining whether someone is a hypocrite or true believer.

When adherents of a religion don’t live up to its standards,this only proves their hypocrisy, not that this particular religion is false. If a religion such as Islam advocates violenceand its adherents practice violence, they are acting faithfully, but if the religion condemns violence (e.g., “Christianity”) and its adherents disregard this, then they are denying their faith. Just as you would point to the Talmud if you felt someone had grossly misinterpreted Judaism, so it is necessary to consult the New Testament to determine whether Christianity really is a “religion of hate” or not.True faith in Jesus does not result in hate.

Jesus himself advocated love of enemies, prayer for persecutors, and returning kindness for hatred. He commanded his followers to do to others what they would want others to do to them (see Luke 6:31-37). Before you insist that no one does what Jesus commanded, tell me, just how many followers of Jesus do you actually know? Have you spoken to any Messianic Jews that survived the Holocaust and forgave those who had tortured or killed their loved ones? Do you know Christian missionaries who have returned to those hostile places in which their families or friends had been killed, willing to give their own lives to reach those people with the Messiah’s love? What justification do you have for quickly dismissing all followers of Jesus as hypocrites?

Are you aware that when you argue that Christianity must be bad because of the fruit it bears, you are actually threatening Judaism with the same description? If the Christian faith derives from Judaism, then how can you avoid the assumption that the tree (i.e., Judaism) from which this “bad fruit” derives must therefore be a “bad tree”? I can anticipate your reply that Christianity’s badness is the result of Jesus and his followers breaking away from the good roots of Judaism; however, Jesus did not break away from the biblical Jewish faith. Furthermore, your argument proves that those who deviate from the true faith are the ones who give the faith a bad name.

Of course, it is necessary to acknowledge that there has been some “bad fruit”; however, it is only when a tree normally produces good fruit that the rotten fruit stands out as something unusual. This is the case with Christianity since it is only when some of Yeshua’s “followers” do bad things that they stand out.

To be fair, it’s also not difficult to find plenty of bad fruit along with the good in the history of the Jewish people. Some have sincerely tried to live the Torah, but others have rejected it and left a lot of suffering in their wake. Nevertheless, it would be unfair to judge the truth of the faith from their example, just as it’s unfair to judge “Christianity” based on the words and deeds of those who reject the teachings of Jesus.

You might still be struggling to see, based on the church’s treatment of our people, how it can be claimed that the basic pattern is good, and that the evil is a deviation from that pattern. I agree that we Jews have suffered twice—for our own sins, and for the sins of the church persecuting us for not believing its message. This question of the church and the Jews deserves special attention, and I address it in more detail elsewhere (see 2.6-2.8). In contrast to the anti-Semitism of a small group of Christians stand the many instances of philo-Semitism (special love for the Jewish people), including those “Righteous Gentiles” who risked their lives to save their Jewish neighbors from the Holocaust.

Belief in Jesus has brought about much good fruit. Sinners are reforming their lives, murderers are repenting, and addicts are giving up their addictions because of Jesus.He inspires unconditional love for others, a love which has led to a tremendous outpouring of humanitarian care all over the world, especially among some of the poorest and most vulnerable peoples.Find out for yourself how good the fruit is which is produced by Jesus the Messiah.

For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 1, pp. 109-116.

“Jesus himself taught that he did not come to bring peace but a sword. We Jews have felt the edge of this sword for more than 1500 years now!“

When Jesus made this statement (see Matt. 10:34), he was actually quoting from the prophet Micah (7:5-6). Far from advocating the use of the sword against those who do not believe in him (which he completely renounced), he was simply acknowledging that his identity as the Jewish Messiah would cause divisions—even among family members—over loyalty to God. (This interpretation of Micah’s prophecy is very similar to that of the Mishnah, which refers to this passage in relation to the expectations surrounding the advent of the Messiah.)

Jesus is also rightly referred to as the Prince of Peace, for, in addition to his role in establishing universal and complete peace when he returns, he brings the peace of God to those who believe in him here and now. Yeshua knew that his people would reject his Messiahship, and with it their chance for peace in God’s presence. He was deeply distressed that this choice would bring his people much suffering (see Luke 19:41-44), and was aware that his people’s rejection of him would lead to not only his own death, but also to the rejection and persecution (even to the point of death) of his followers. His predictions were right; from the beginning, Jesus’ followers—Peter, Paul, Thomas, to name but a few—were put to death because of their faith.

This persecution of Jesus’ followers has continued throughout the centuries to this day. In the past few decades, more than a million Sudanese Christians have been killed by Sudanese Islamic extremists, thousands of Coptic Christians have lost their lives in Egypt, entire families of Christians have been tortured and killed in Indonesia, and in communist countries such as China and Vietnam, Christians have been subjected to torture and imprisonment for sharing and publicly expressing their faith. Although today there are about two billion believers in Jesus, somewhere between 100,000 and 300,000 believers are killed for their faith every year. We who follow Jesus are not the ones taking up swords against our enemies, imprisoning them and torturing our religious opponents, and forcing them to convert under penalty of death. God forbid! Rather, it is the true followers of Jesus—despite our great numbers—who are despised, rejected, beaten and martyred for their faith, just as Jesus foretold.

For hundreds of years after the Messiah’s death and resurrection, there was not one instance of a Jewish person being put to death for refusing to believe the gospel. This kind of persecution only developed gradually over a thousand years, as the church began to move away from the true Messianic faith. The first “church-inspired” violent persecutions against Jews took place at the end of the fourth century (e.g. in Callinicum, Mesopotamia in 388 CE), but these actions were not regular occurrences. It was only at the outset of the Crusades at the end of the eleventh century that more sustained violent persecutions began to happen. I maintain that this was a complete aberration of what the gospel is about and is the result of the church (or perhaps more appropriately, Christendom) losing sight of its Jewish roots (I’ll speak more about this in 2.7.).

Jesus the Messiah is rightly referred to as the Prince of Peace. Although complete and universal peace will not be established until he returns, he is able to create peace between human beings and God, and among human beings, when people turn to him in repentance and receive forgiveness for their sins. People who were once hostile enemies can be joined through faith in him into a single, spiritual family. In spite of the sword of separation and persecution that often comes against the Messiah’s people, in him we have peace. When the Messiah returns to establish his earthly kingdom and root out the wicked and the rebellious, the whole world will be filled with peace.

For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 1, pp. 116-124.

There have been many people falsely calling themselves Christians who have hated and persecuted the Jewish people, and this anti-Semitic spirit has affected other believers in Jesus, discrediting the faith they profess, but the relationship between Jews and Christians is more complex than many have been led to believe. There are also many Christians who hold the Jewish people in high regard and cannot imagine the world now—or the world to come—without them.

Since it’s impossible to tell the story about this two-thousand-year-old relationship in just a few paragraphs, I’ll highlight some of the important elements that serve as the basis for your objection and for its rebuttal.

From the second to the sixth centuries, several prominent church leaders, including John Chrysostom, promulgated the idea that the Jews were an indecent, lawless people, who, because of their rejection and murder of Jesus, were cursed and beyond redemption, having forfeited all God’s promises, which now belonged to the church. Once the Christians came into power in the late fourth century, they began to implement anti-Jewish legislation, depriving Jews of certain rights to property, work, trade and travel. Towards the goal of conversion, Jews were also forced to listen to Christian sermons in their synagogues.

In the Crusades of the eleventh century, the church in Europe gave the Jewish “infidels” living among them the “choice” between baptism and death (many chose the latter). When the Crusaders reached Jerusalem, they didn’t just drive out the Muslims, but also rounded up the Jews and burned them alive in the great synagogue. It was during the Middle Ages that many of the rumors began that Jews were killing Christians and using their blood to make Passover bread, or that they were desecrating the communion elements in order to get back at Jesus. Many Jews were put to death as a result of these lies. There were also attempts to force Jews to renounce all connections to the faith of their ancestors when they joined the church. During the four-hundred-year period of the Inquisition, Christians attempted to expose Jews who continued to practice Jewish customs and traditions after outwardly converting to Christianity. As a result, these Jews were mercilessly tortured and often executed. In 1492, all Jews who refused to be baptized were driven out of Spain.

In the sixteenth century, Martin Luther, one of the most famous reformers of the church, responded to Jewish refusal to accept Jesus as their Messiah by writing the treatise called Concerning the Jews and their Lies, in which he proposed several methods for solving the Jewish “problem,” including burning synagogues, destroying homes, taking away prayer books and Talmuds, and threatening the rabbis with death if they continued to teach their faith. Although this work was largely refuted or ignored at the time, it was reintroduced when the Nazis were looking for support for their ideology. During the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, inflammatory Easter sermons instigated pogroms against the “Christ killers”—destruction and injury, even murder, were carried out in the name of Christianity. In the twentieth century some Christian theologians tried to prove that Jesus wasn’t really Jewish and suggested ways of dealing with the Jewish problem by depriving them of particular rights and designating them as having an inferior status. Even after all that had happened in the Holocaust, Polish Christians persecuted and even killed returning Jewish survivors. Some church leaders in our day have consistently sided with the PLO and against the Jewish people in virtually every land and security-related issue in the State of Israel.

These are just some of the so-called “Christian” persecutions of the Jewish people, yet this is only one side of the story. Before we consider other elements, let me pause a moment to explain that the church strayed so far from its Jewish roots that it ended up persecuting and killing not only Jews, but also many true Christians who dared to challenge or try to address its corruption. John Hus, John Wycliffe and William Tyndale are just a few of these Christian martyrs.

Clearly, the church had ignored Paul’s warnings in the eleventh chapter of his letter to the Romans in which he had tried to ensure that those who believed inYeshua would not become arrogant and assume that they had replaced the non-believing Jews as God’s chosen people. Paul described the church as a new branch that had been grafted on to an older tree, and he also insisted that it would be easy enough for the original and broken branch to be grafted back on when the time was right. Paul had proclaimed that God’s gifts and calling are irrevocable and declared that someday all Israel would be saved. However, the church of Christendom was acting as though Israel’s hardening was universal and permanent. Paul had also warned the church of the dangers of cutting themselves off from the mercy and favor of God if they gave into their arrogance and refused to show mercy and compassion to Israel. Given these clear warnings, we must conclude that only a deviant church could treat the Jews the way it did!

Before I move on, let me clear up a couple of things. First of all, my short history of the church’s violent persecution of the Jews could lead you to believe that this was the constant norm in all ages, but this is not true. As mentioned in a previous answer (see 2.6), during the first few centuries after the death and resurrection of Jesus, there were no violent persecutions of Jews, which means that Christianity is not essentially anti-Jewish. Though there were plenty of polemical treatises written during this time, they did not lead to violence against the Jews.

Christians do not believe in forcing people to convert. This principle was challenged, however, when Christians came into power with the rise of Emperor Constantine, and the Roman Empire was “Christianized.” Some church leaders such as Augustine suggested that the state might be justified in forcibly keeping people already in the church from leaving or causing divisions, though forced conversions of others were adamantly rejected. Augustine also urged the church not to boast against the Jews, but to remember that Christians were only counted among God’s people because of the grace of God. Even Thomas Aquinas, the most influential theologian of the Middle Ages, argued against coerced conversions, allowing for certain freedoms for Jews to worship and raise their children as they saw fit.

Though the anti-Jewish work of Martin Luther has already been mentioned, what needs to be emphasized is that it was actually his pro-Jewish literature that had more of an influence until the Nazis came to power. His treatise That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew pointed out that Jesus was Jewish and condemned the horrendous behavior of many church leaders who had treated the Jews badly. Luther also argued that the death of Jesus should not be blamed on the Jews, but falls upon the shoulders of humanity in general. Unfortunately, Luther’s treatise did not result in the influx of Jews into the church that he had hoped for, and when this disappointment was followed by being shown some exceptionally vulgar, anti-Christian writings disseminated by Jews, Luther responded with his anti-Jewish writings. These were not well-received, however, and they were repudiated by Luther’s evangelical contemporaries and by Christians in the centuries to follow. In fact, near the end of the nineteenth century, the Lutheran theologian Friedrich Lezius accused Luther’s anti-Jewish arguments of not being in the spirit of the New Testament and the Reformation. For him, true Christianity and anti-Semitism were utterly incompatible, a view shared by many church leaders during the past five hundred years.

The claim that “Christians have always hated and persecuted the Jewish people” is a sweeping statement that simply is not true since there have been many Christians who have loved the Jews.

On the flip side, Christians have been hated and persecuted by Jews in the past; does this mean that Jews have always hated Christians? Not only the New Testament (see e.g., Acts 7, 14, 17),but also the Talmud (b. Sanhedrin 43a, t. Hullin 2:22-23) and the Jewish historian Josephus refer to violent actions perpetrated by Jews against the followers of Jesus. In the first century, Jewish followers of Jesus were driven out, harassed and persecuted in other ways. In certain martyrdom accounts in the early church, Jews are described as actively siding against the Christians, even encouraging that they be put to death. On some occasions when Christians attacked synagogues, mobs of Jews would retaliate by attacking Christians. During the first thousand years of the Common Era, a whole body of anti-Jesus literature was created by Jewish leaders. The Jewish persecution of Christians is the other side of the story, and it often gets overlooked by Jews.

Until the modern State of Israel was founded, Jews were never in a position of power, so it’s hard to tell how they would have reacted if the tables had been turned. Since 1948, there have been several incidents in Israel involving ultra-Orthodox Jews (called Haredim) where they acted against Christians. Some of them have perpetrated violence against Messianic Jews and sought to create legislation restricting the activities of these believers in Jesus. What do the Haredim say in response? “Don’t’ judge the whole community by the actions of a few!” This is exactly what I’ve been saying to you about the subject of “Christian” anti-Semitism!

Acknowledging that persecution of both Jews and Christians has happened during the past two thousand years is important, but it does not tell the whole story. The philo-Semites also need to be mentioned. There have always been followers of Jesus who have had a special love for the Jews, some who were even willing to die for them if need be.

This philo-Semitism can be found in all eras of the church. In the fourth century, Ambrosiaster affirmed that the Jews would be received with joy by God when they return to the faith, and Cyril of Alexandria in the fifth century declared that the Jews would be saved when the time was right. In the seventeenth century, several prominent Puritan leaders such as Samuel Rutherford, John Owen and Robert Leighton, expressed a special affection for the Jewish people and maintained that God’s purposes would not be fulfilled without them. Nineteenth-century Bishop Moule expected a great revival in the universal church once the Jews have finally been gathered in, and Scottish Presbyterian Andrew Bonar referred to Israel as the “everlasting nation” and sang glorious praises in honor of the restoration of Israel. Philo-Semitism is a genuine expression of the ethos of the church whereas anti-Semitism is not since it contradicts the Word of God.

Are you aware that today there are Christians around the world who are utterly shocked to hear that any follower of Jesus could hate or persecute the Jews? I’ve had a few experiences of this myself when people found out I was a Jew. When I visited a home in Andhra Pradesh, India, the man of the family uttered a greeting that I will never forget: “You are the second Jew to come to my house. The first was Jesus Christ!” I met other Indian Christians on that trip who told me they fasted and prayed regularly for God’s blessing upon Israel and the Jewish people, even though they had never actually met a Jewish person before me. In Kenya, I met a young Christian who was distributing tapes from America that encouraged followers of Jesus to pray for Jews worldwide.

I have a full arsenal of these very moving stories of personal encounters with Christians—in Korea and in Italy, Africa and Asia, the Ukraine and Finland and Sweden, and America—all full of love and concern for the Jewish people. In fact, an Iranian Christian I met in Maryland, who had been baptized by a Jewish Christian in Iran, said emphatically: “If someone hates the Jews, he is not a Christian.” He is right.

The spirit of the true church is the spirit of philo-Semitism, not anti-Semitism. Whenever the church has faithfully sought a true expression of the New Testament faith, philo-Semitism has flourished and anti-Semitism has not gained a foothold. I would argue that it is no more possible to speak of Christian anti-Semitism than it is to speak of dry water or a godly murderer or a two-eyed Cyclops. The adjective “Christian” does not fit with anti-Semitism! That’s why Bible-believing Christians are Israel’s staunchest and most loyal supporters today.

Have Christians always hated and persecuted the Jewish people? Absolutely not! Get to know some real, sincere Christians and find out for yourself. You’ll be pleasantly surprised to see how gracious and respectful they are toward you when they find out that you, like their Savior, are a Jew. If they want to share their faith with you, it’s just an expression of love, their way of repaying their debt to you as a member of the Jewish people. How could they do anything less?

For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 1, pp. 124-145.

There have been many people falsely calling themselves Christians who have hated and persecuted the Jewish people, and this anti-Semitic spirit has affected other believers in Jesus, discrediting the faith they profess, but the relationship between Jews and Christians is more complex than many have been led to believe. There are also many Christians who hold the Jewish people in high regard and cannot imagine the world now—or the world to come—without them.

Since it’s impossible to tell the story about this two-thousand-year-old relationship in just a few paragraphs, I’ll highlight some of the important elements that serve as the basis for your objection and for its rebuttal.

From the second to the sixth centuries, several prominent church leaders, including John Chrysostom, promulgated the idea that the Jews were an indecent, lawless people, who, because of their rejection and murder of Jesus, were cursed and beyond redemption, having forfeited all God’s promises, which now belonged to the church. Once the Christians came into power in the late fourth century, they began to implement anti-Jewish legislation, depriving Jews of certain rights to property, work, trade and travel. Towards the goal of conversion, Jews were also forced to listen to Christian sermons in their synagogues.

In the Crusades of the eleventh century, the church in Europe gave the Jewish “infidels” living among them the “choice” between baptism and death (many chose the latter). When the Crusaders reached Jerusalem, they didn’t just drive out the Muslims, but also rounded up the Jews and burned them alive in the great synagogue. It was during the Middle Ages that many of the rumors began that Jews were killing Christians and using their blood to make Passover bread, or that they were desecrating the communion elements in order to get back at Jesus. Many Jews were put to death as a result of these lies. There were also attempts to force Jews to renounce all connections to the faith of their ancestors when they joined the church. During the four-hundred-year period of the Inquisition, Christians attempted to expose Jews who continued to practice Jewish customs and traditions after outwardly converting to Christianity. As a result, these Jews were mercilessly tortured and often executed. In 1492, all Jews who refused to be baptized were driven out of Spain.

In the sixteenth century, Martin Luther, one of the most famous reformers of the church, responded to Jewish refusal to accept Jesus as their Messiah by writing the treatise called Concerning the Jews and their Lies, in which he proposed several methods for solving the Jewish “problem,” including burning synagogues, destroying homes, taking away prayer books and Talmuds, and threatening the rabbis with death if they continued to teach their faith. Although this work was largely refuted or ignored at the time, it was reintroduced when the Nazis were looking for support for their ideology. During the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, inflammatory Easter sermons instigated pogroms against the “Christ killers”—destruction and injury, even murder, were carried out in the name of Christianity. In the twentieth century some Christian theologians tried to prove that Jesus wasn’t really Jewish and suggested ways of dealing with the Jewish problem by depriving them of particular rights and designating them as having an inferior status. Even after all that had happened in the Holocaust, Polish Christians persecuted and even killed returning Jewish survivors. Some church leaders in our day have consistently sided with the PLO and against the Jewish people in virtually every land and security-related issue in the State of Israel.

These are just some of the so-called “Christian” persecutions of the Jewish people, yet this is only one side of the story. Before we consider other elements, let me pause a moment to explain that the church strayed so far from its Jewish roots that it ended up persecuting and killing not only Jews, but also many true Christians who dared to challenge or try to address its corruption. John Hus, John Wycliffe and William Tyndale are just a few of these Christian martyrs.

Clearly, the church had ignored Paul’s warnings in the eleventh chapter of his letter to the Romans in which he had tried to ensure that those who believed inYeshua would not become arrogant and assume that they had replaced the non-believing Jews as God’s chosen people. Paul described the church as a new branch that had been grafted on to an older tree, and he also insisted that it would be easy enough for the original and broken branch to be grafted back on when the time was right. Paul had proclaimed that God’s gifts and calling are irrevocable and declared that someday all Israel would be saved. However, the church of Christendom was acting as though Israel’s hardening was universal and permanent. Paul had also warned the church of the dangers of cutting themselves off from the mercy and favor of God if they gave into their arrogance and refused to show mercy and compassion to Israel. Given these clear warnings, we must conclude that only a deviant church could treat the Jews the way it did!

Before I move on, let me clear up a couple of things. First of all, my short history of the church’s violent persecution of the Jews could lead you to believe that this was the constant norm in all ages, but this is not true. As mentioned in a previous answer (see 2.6), during the first few centuries after the death and resurrection of Jesus, there were no violent persecutions of Jews, which means that Christianity is not essentially anti-Jewish. Though there were plenty of polemical treatises written during this time, they did not lead to violence against the Jews.

Christians do not believe in forcing people to convert. This principle was challenged, however, when Christians came into power with the rise of Emperor Constantine, and the Roman Empire was “Christianized.” Some church leaders such as Augustine suggested that the state might be justified in forcibly keeping people already in the church from leaving or causing divisions, though forced conversions of others were adamantly rejected. Augustine also urged the church not to boast against the Jews, but to remember that Christians were only counted among God’s people because of the grace of God. Even Thomas Aquinas, the most influential theologian of the Middle Ages, argued against coerced conversions, allowing for certain freedoms for Jews to worship and raise their children as they saw fit.

Though the anti-Jewish work of Martin Luther has already been mentioned, what needs to be emphasized is that it was actually his pro-Jewish literature that had more of an influence until the Nazis came to power. His treatise That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew pointed out that Jesus was Jewish and condemned the horrendous behavior of many church leaders who had treated the Jews badly. Luther also argued that the death of Jesus should not be blamed on the Jews, but falls upon the shoulders of humanity in general. Unfortunately, Luther’s treatise did not result in the influx of Jews into the church that he had hoped for, and when this disappointment was followed by being shown some exceptionally vulgar, anti-Christian writings disseminated by Jews, Luther responded with his anti-Jewish writings. These were not well-received, however, and they were repudiated by Luther’s evangelical contemporaries and by Christians in the centuries to follow. In fact, near the end of the nineteenth century, the Lutheran theologian Friedrich Lezius accused Luther’s anti-Jewish arguments of not being in the spirit of the New Testament and the Reformation. For him, true Christianity and anti-Semitism were utterly incompatible, a view shared by many church leaders during the past five hundred years.

The claim that “Christians have always hated and persecuted the Jewish people” is a sweeping statement that simply is not true since there have been many Christians who have loved the Jews.

On the flip side, Christians have been hated and persecuted by Jews in the past; does this mean that Jews have always hated Christians? Not only the New Testament (see e.g., Acts 7, 14, 17),but also the Talmud (b. Sanhedrin 43a, t. Hullin 2:22-23) and the Jewish historian Josephus refer to violent actions perpetrated by Jews against the followers of Jesus. In the first century, Jewish followers of Jesus were driven out, harassed and persecuted in other ways. In certain martyrdom accounts in the early church, Jews are described as actively siding against the Christians, even encouraging that they be put to death. On some occasions when Christians attacked synagogues, mobs of Jews would retaliate by attacking Christians. During the first thousand years of the Common Era, a whole body of anti-Jesus literature was created by Jewish leaders. The Jewish persecution of Christians is the other side of the story, and it often gets overlooked by Jews.

Until the modern State of Israel was founded, Jews were never in a position of power, so it’s hard to tell how they would have reacted if the tables had been turned. Since 1948, there have been several incidents in Israel involving ultra-Orthodox Jews (called Haredim) where they acted against Christians. Some of them have perpetrated violence against Messianic Jews and sought to create legislation restricting the activities of these believers in Jesus. What do the Haredim say in response? “Don’t’ judge the whole community by the actions of a few!” This is exactly what I’ve been saying to you about the subject of “Christian” anti-Semitism!

Acknowledging that persecution of both Jews and Christians has happened during the past two thousand years is important, but it does not tell the whole story. The philo-Semites also need to be mentioned. There have always been followers of Jesus who have had a special love for the Jews, some who were even willing to die for them if need be.

This philo-Semitism can be found in all eras of the church. In the fourth century, Ambrosiaster affirmed that the Jews would be received with joy by God when they return to the faith, and Cyril of Alexandria in the fifth century declared that the Jews would be saved when the time was right. In the seventeenth century, several prominent Puritan leaders such as Samuel Rutherford, John Owen and Robert Leighton, expressed a special affection for the Jewish people and maintained that God’s purposes would not be fulfilled without them. Nineteenth-century Bishop Moule expected a great revival in the universal church once the Jews have finally been gathered in, and Scottish Presbyterian Andrew Bonar referred to Israel as the “everlasting nation” and sang glorious praises in honor of the restoration of Israel. Philo-Semitism is a genuine expression of the ethos of the church whereas anti-Semitism is not since it contradicts the Word of God.

Are you aware that today there are Christians around the world who are utterly shocked to hear that any follower of Jesus could hate or persecute the Jews? I’ve had a few experiences of this myself when people found out I was a Jew. When I visited a home in Andhra Pradesh, India, the man of the family uttered a greeting that I will never forget: “You are the second Jew to come to my house. The first was Jesus Christ!” I met other Indian Christians on that trip who told me they fasted and prayed regularly for God’s blessing upon Israel and the Jewish people, even though they had never actually met a Jewish person before me. In Kenya, I met a young Christian who was distributing tapes from America that encouraged followers of Jesus to pray for Jews worldwide.

I have a full arsenal of these very moving stories of personal encounters with Christians—in Korea and in Italy, Africa and Asia, the Ukraine and Finland and Sweden, and America—all full of love and concern for the Jewish people. In fact, an Iranian Christian I met in Maryland, who had been baptized by a Jewish Christian in Iran, said emphatically: “If someone hates the Jews, he is not a Christian.” He is right.

The spirit of the true church is the spirit of philo-Semitism, not anti-Semitism. Whenever the church has faithfully sought a true expression of the New Testament faith, philo-Semitism has flourished and anti-Semitism has not gained a foothold. I would argue that it is no more possible to speak of Christian anti-Semitism than it is to speak of dry water or a godly murderer or a two-eyed Cyclops. The adjective “Christian” does not fit with anti-Semitism! That’s why Bible-believing Christians are Israel’s staunchest and most loyal supporters today.

Have Christians always hated and persecuted the Jewish people? Absolutely not! Get to know some real, sincere Christians and find out for yourself. You’ll be pleasantly surprised to see how gracious and respectful they are toward you when they find out that you, like their Savior, are a Jew. If they want to share their faith with you, it’s just an expression of love, their way of repaying their debt to you as a member of the Jewish people. How could they do anything less?

For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 1, pp. 124-145.

“The origins of anti-Semitism can be traced to the pages of the New Testament. From the negative depiction of the Pharisees to the charge of deicide, anti-Semitism is a Christian plague.”

The fact that today anti-Semitism can be found in Islamic, communist and even Japanese societies, demonstrates that it is not a purely Christian phenomenon. Even a cursory examination of history shows that anti-Semitism predates Christianity. It existed in Egyptian, Greco-Roman, as well as the wider Mediterranean and Persian cultures centuries before Jesus arrived on the scene. The presence of anti-Semitism in the pre-Christian world was first mentioned in our own Hebrew Scriptures in the book of Esther. Haman’s hatred for Mordecai expanded to a general hatred of the Jewish people, which resulted in a royal edict calling for the destruction of the Jews (see Esther 3:13). Another example of anti-Semitism that was recorded in Scripture happened after the return from the Babylonian exile,when the opponents of Israel pleaded Artaxerxes, King of Persia, to do something to prevent such a “rebellious people” from getting a foothold in the region again (see Ezra 4:12-15).

Anti-Semites through the ages have mined our own Scriptures to lend support to their characterizations of our people.”Stiffnecked,” “stubborn,” “defiant,” “wicked,” “rebellious,” “faithless,” “disobedient,” and “brazen” are descriptions of our ancestors drawn from passages in which either Moses or God is addressing Israel (e.g., Exod. 33:5a; Deut. 9:6; Deut. 31:27-29; Isa. 30:8-9; Ezek. 2:3-4a, 6b; 3:4-7). Why is it that Christianity gets the blame for being the source of anti-Semitism, when even more explicit passages can be found in our own Scriptures?

I can hear you protesting: “Yes, but those passages found in the Hebrew Scriptures depict inner-family conflicts; they are not meant to be heard by others.The New Testament, however, was designed to be read by Gentiles, and should not have depicted the Jews the way it did.” The Hebrew Scriptures were meant to be shared with others as we brought the light of the Lord to them. In addition to hearing those difficult descriptions, Gentiles would also have heard that the Israelites were chosen, elect, loved and cherished by God, called to bring salvation to the world.

Are you aware of just how Jewish the New Testament really is? All of the authors, save one, were Jewish, and the New Testament contains about 330 direct quotations from the Tanakh and over 1000 allusions to the Hebrew Bible. If you want to understand the religious conflicts in the New Testament (e.g., healing on the Sabbath), you need to have a grasp of Jewish law and tradition. In fact, if you tried to remove the Jewishness from the New Testament, it wouldn’t make any sense. From the opening genealogy in Matthew to the closing passage about heaven in Revelation, the New Testament is thoroughly Jewish. The New Testament continues the story of the people of Israel, describing them as deeply loved by God and chosen out of all the peoples of the world to bear the light of God to the nations. As part of this story, it acknowledges that this people tended to reject him and those he sends. For this reason, the New Testament echoes the lamentations of the prophets over God’s people (e.g., Matt. 23:37-38, 24:2b; Acts 7:51-52; Rom. 9:1-4a; 11:1a, 11-12, 25-27).

While it is true that there have been many scholars (even Christian ones) who have claimed that the roots of anti-Semitism—and therefore the grounds for the Holocaust—can be found in the New Testament, there are many other scholars who disagree. The history of interpretation of difficult New Testament passages has not been straightforward, especially in the wake of the Holocaust, which has forced some very deep reflection on the matter by Jews and Christians alike. It is important that we carefully and honestly investigate this issue of anti-Semitism in the New Testament. We’ll do that by looking at it in its original Jewish context, and try not to read it in light of later horrendous events like the Crusades or the Inquisition. Anti-Semitism seems to raise its head only when the New Testament is wrongly interpreted or misrepresented.

Let’s take a look at some of the accusations that have been levied against the New Testament and see how they stand up.

First let’s consider the claim that Matthew propagated the view that all Jews in all subsequent ages should be held responsible for the death of Jesus. In Matthew’s Gospel, when Pilate wants to let Jesus go, the Jewish peoplecry out: “Let his blood be on us and on our children” (Matt. 27:24-25)! Sadly, this verse has been used to justify all kinds of terrible acts against our people. Far from being a verse that was simply written to spite those who rejected the Messiah, this verse had historical and cultural precedents in Judaism at that time. Since the crowd truly believed Jesus was guilty of blasphemy, they were willing to take responsibility for having him put to death. They were not calling down a curse on future generations; instead, they were taking responsibility for themselves (and those children standing by their side) for that particular decision being made there and then.

You might continue to protest the idea that Jews should bear any blame for the death of Jesus, claiming that this is just a myth that should be squelched. Why is it so difficult to admit that our people rejected Jesus (we have a long history of rejecting the Torah and the prophets) and participated in his demise? Neither the Talmud nor Moses Maimonides felt a need to hide the ways in which the Jewish court (the Sanhedrin) participated in the condemnation and handing over of Jesus to be killed (see b. Sanhedrin43a; t. Sanhedrin10:11; y. Sanhedrin7:16, 67a). It is a terrible tragedy that others have used this passage in Matthew to justify violence against our people, but that does not mean the passage itself is inherently anti-Semitic.

What about the demonization of ‘the Jews’ that seems to fill the pages of the Gospel of John? The Hebrew Scriptures use the phrase “the Jews” (hayehûdim in Hebrew) in several different ways. Sometimes this term means the “Judeans” (i.e., the inhabitants of Judea), while other times it refers the religious leaders (see Neh. 2:16). John uses the term in several ways too, sometimes referring to the population of Judea, while at other times referring only to the Jewish religious leaders who were hostile to Jesus; but he never seems to have all Jews in mind when he uses the phrase. Confusion over what is meant by “the Jews” can and should be addressed through more careful translation of the term. As for the harsh rhetoric that often accompanies this phrase in John’s Gospel, it helps to be aware that this was typical of inter-Jewish debates in the first century of this era—both the Dead Sea Scrolls and Josephus are even harsher when referring to their opponents! Unless you’re willing to admit that the latter are guilty of anti-Semitism, then you can’t insist that the Gospel of John is anti-Semitic.

What about the depiction of the Jewish religious leaders, and especially the Pharisees, as snakes and vipers, thoroughly corrupt hypocrites, deserving of hell? I’ve just explained that harsh polemic directed against opponents can be found in other first-century Jewish literature, and this seems to provide yet another example. Even the Talmud, which was carrying on the traditions of the Pharisees, has some pretty harsh things to say against Pharisaic hypocrites (see b. Sotah 22b [with parallels in y. Berakhot 67a]), so it shouldn’t be that surprising to find anger directed at hypocritical leaders in the gospels (see Matt. 3:7-10 and Matt. 23:1-37).

Here is the real question: Are these depictions accurate? In the Hebrew Scriptures, who was generally most vehemently opposed to the messages of the prophets? The political and religious leadership (see e.g., Jer.26 and Amos 7:10-17)! Why would a corrupt leadership view Jesus as a threat to their establishment? Jesus was clearly very charismatic—large groups of people followed him around, hung on his every word, and brought others to him to be healed (see Mark 6:53-56). It’s not difficult to see why the religious leaders would have been jealous and fearful of Jesus’ ability to attract others, and would have treated him with hostility. Many of Jesus’ difficult encounters with the Pharisees sprung out of a genuine difference of interpretation of the Law, but sometimes Jesus could see that these debates only masked the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, and he wasn’t afraid of telling them so (see e.g., Luke 13:15-17).

Granted, not all Pharisees or Jewish leaders are vilified in the New Testament writings—some are commended for being sympathetic to Jesus and even speaking on his behalf (e.g., Joseph of Arimathea). We also must not forget that Paul was a Pharisee and didn’t try to hide this even after he became a follower of Jesus. While it is true that the word “Pharisee” has become synonymous with “hypocrite” in the English language, and that this has its roots in New Testament references, these references should not be blamed for the way they were later used to lend support to anti-Semitic activities.

I’ve shown that the religious hostility of Jewish leaders towards those who posed a threat to their establishment is not unique to the New Testament writings; it can be found in the Hebrew Scriptures, and it continued in the persecution of the earliest followers of Jesus (see 2.7). I would argue that this hostility is still alive and well among certain Jewish leaders even today—I have personally experienced their aggressive behavior because of my faith in Jesus, as have some of my friends. You’ve also probably heard that there is a strong movement to ban proselytizing in Israel. Aggressive behavior toward those who pose a threat to the religious establishment can be found in many societies: Islam, Christianity and Judaism have all been guilty of it. I don’t find it hard to believe that many (though by no means all) Pharisees gave Jesus a hard time in his day.

Some people suggest that Paul provided support for anti-Semitism when he told the Gentiles that the Jews displeased God and were objects of his wrath, that they had killed both prophets and the Messiah, and that they were hostile to other people. This accusation is based on a quotation in one of Paul’s letters to the Thessalonians (see 1 Thess. 2:14-16). Those new Christians were suffering persecution at the hands of their own people, and Paul was trying to comfort and encourage them by letting them know he had also suffered the same kind of treatment from his own people. The Thessalonians needed to realize that what was happening in their region had already been going on for a long time among the Jews since some Jews believed in Yeshua whereas others did not. In previous generations, the unbelieving Jews had attacked the prophets; in this generation, they had rejected and killed the Messiah, and now they were busy persecuting those who believed in Yeshua and were trying to keep them from speaking about Yeshua to the Gentiles.

It could be that Paul is referring in this passage to an even more specific group of Jews who were hostile to Jesus’ followers: the Jewish leadership based in Jerusalem in Judea (in other words, “Jews” should be translated “Judeans”). Jerusalem and her religious leadership had a reputation for being hard on prophets and ignoring their calls to change their wicked ways. In either case, it seems clear that Paul is not speaking about Jews generally and in all times, but is thinking in terms of two groups—believers and non-believers. The same holds for Paul’s comments about the wrath of God. This needs to be held in tension with his insistence that the irrevocable plan was for all Israel to believe and be saved. This was his constant prayer for his fellow Jews (see Rom. 10:1-2).

What about the New Testament accusations of deicide directed against the Jews? I challenge you to point out exactly where that accusation can be found in the New Testament, but I’ll tell you right now that you won’t find it! You might counter by arguing that since the New Testament maintains Jesus is God and accuses the Jews of killing Jesus, according to logic of the New Testament the Jews are guilty of killing God. Let’s find out if this is true.

The New Testament is clear in attributing certain things to Yeshua: As Messiah, he willingly died to save us from our sins even while we were ungodly (see Rom. 5:6-8; 1 Cor. 15:3); the death of Jesus was ordained by God himself (see Rev. 13:8; Acts 2:23a); both Jews and Gentiles played roles in the death of Jesus (seeActs 2:23b; Acts 4:27-28); as he was being crucified, Jesus called out, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing” (Luke 23:34). This last statement deserves special emphasis since it demonstrates that Jesus never advocated avenging his death by punishing his own people. Jesus actually extended mercy to those who handed him over to be crucified, acknowledging that they did so out of ignorance (see Acts 3:17-20). Paul let his support to this statement during one of his synagogue sermons (see Acts 13:27) and proclaimed that Jesus came to forgive us all of our sins (Acts 13:38). This word of forgiveness is good news for all people!

What about the idea that Jesus is God? While the New Testament clearly depicts Jesus as a fully human, Jewish rabbi, it also refers to him as the Son of God; the mystery surrounding his divine nature is never removed. Jesus never explicitly claimed to be God, but instead spoke of God as his Father and as his God (see John 20:17), the same Father and God of those who were listening to him. It was only gradually, and after a great deal of reflection, that the followers of Yeshua began to understand more fully who he was. How do you hold two truths together: that God is One and that Jesus is God’s Son? There is a common misconception among many religious Jews and Muslims that Christians worship three gods. While a careful analysis of the New Testament and of Christianity clearly indicates that Christians do not worship three gods, there’s no easy way to describe God’s tri-unity. Nowhere do the New Testament authors suggestthat when their fellow Jews called for Jesus to be crucified, they were killing God. When talking to fellow Jews, these authors tended to emphasize the humanity of Jesus, not his divinity (Acts 2:22-23; Acts 2:36; Acts 3:13; Acts 5:30). The New Testament simply does not accuse our people of deicide.

Finally, let us take a look at the idea that God had had enough of the Jews and decided to replace the “synagogue of Satan” with the “true Jews” and the “New Israel,” i.e. Christianity. Although this doctrine—known as “replacement theology” or “supersessionism”—has been taught at different times by church leaders, it is an unbiblical concept. Paul never thought that God’s purpose for the Jews was over, even though some of their hearts had been partially and temporarily hardened (see Rom. 9-11). Paul looked forward to the day when all Israel would turn back to God in faith. In the meantime, there would always be some Jews who would believe in Jesus as Messiah. Paul taught that the Gentile believers in Jesus were brought into the household of God along with the Jews—but they remained Gentiles. Though he did use certain phrases in relation to the Gentiles that had been used to describe Israel, Paul never equated the church with Israel, and he never said that Israel had been replaced by the church. Paul was building on the teachings of Jesus who envisioned the twelve tribes of Israel gathered around him in the world to come, and who expected his followers to believe the same (see Matt. 19:28; Acts 1:6-8).

Some people have interpreted Romans 2:28-29, in which Paul is describing the “true Jew,” as presenting a contrast between Jews and Gentile Christians, when it is actually contrasting two kinds of Jews—those who are only “outwardly” Jews (circumcised in body) and those who are “inwardly” Jews (circumcised in spirit too). Paul declares that if physical circumcision is not also accompanied by a life of service to God, then that Jew is not really a Jew in God’s sight.

What about the phrase “synagogue of Satan”? I’ll grant that this has been used by anti-Semites against us, but it helps to look at its original context. The phrase appears only two times in the New Testament: Revelation 2:9 and 3:9. In both of these passages, Jesus uses this phrase to describe those who are actively persecuting his followers in the cities of Smyrna and Philadelphia who “claim to be Jews but are not.” It could be that Yeshua is referring to a sect that really has no legitimate affiliation with the Jewish people, but it is more likely that Jesus is using the same kind of hyperbole that God himself uses in Hosea1:9-10 where he expresses his exasperation at his people’s disobedience by speaking of them as if they were not his people.

The New Testament was written for a group (eventually called the “church”) that was comprised of both Jews and Gentiles. The Gentiles gradually began to outnumber the Jews and, as a result, began to forget the Jewish roots of their faith (see 2.7). In time, some so-called Christians even began to treat the Jews with hostility, interpreting selected texts as anti-Jewish, which were also used to lend support to racial anti-Semitism eighteen centuries after they were written. I am deeply saddened that my sacred Scriptures have been so misused by so-called Christians, and I hope that more sensitive translations can prevent future misinterpretations and abuses.

As a Jew, I agonize over the fact that our people as a whole missed the Messiah when he came and instead turned against him. How awful it is! We broke the Sinai covenant over and over again, we rejected prophet after prophet, even killing some, and then we rejected the Messiah, delivering him up to be crucified. Both the church and the Jewish people have sinned! I see only one way to make things right: Let everyone who claims to be a Christian demonstrate it by showing the love of the Messiah to his own Jewish people, utterly repudiating even the slightest hint of anti-Semitism, and let every Jewish person turn back to Yeshua—our one and only Messiah—in repentance and faith.

In almost thirty years in the church, I have rarely, if ever, met a Christian anti-Semite. In fact, when I have described the ways in which anti-Semitism has been found in the church at different points in its history, and when I’ve explained that some Jews believe that the New Testament is anti-Semitic, the Christians I’ve been addressing have been utterly shocked. I hope I can convince you that at this critical point in history, it is the Bible-believing, New-Testament-reading Christians who are Israel’s best friends. I know this is the opposite of what you have been taught, but it’s the truth.

For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 1, pp. 145-175.

“The origins of anti-Semitism can be traced to the pages of the New Testament. From the negative depiction of the Pharisees to the charge of deicide, anti-Semitism is a Christian plague.”

The fact that today anti-Semitism can be found in Islamic, communist and even Japanese societies, demonstrates that it is not a purely Christian phenomenon. Even a cursory examination of history shows that anti-Semitism predates Christianity. It existed in Egyptian, Greco-Roman, as well as the wider Mediterranean and Persian cultures centuries before Jesus arrived on the scene. The presence of anti-Semitism in the pre-Christian world was first mentioned in our own Hebrew Scriptures in the book of Esther. Haman’s hatred for Mordecai expanded to a general hatred of the Jewish people, which resulted in a royal edict calling for the destruction of the Jews (see Esther 3:13). Another example of anti-Semitism that was recorded in Scripture happened after the return from the Babylonian exile,when the opponents of Israel pleaded Artaxerxes, King of Persia, to do something to prevent such a “rebellious people” from getting a foothold in the region again (see Ezra 4:12-15).

Anti-Semites through the ages have mined our own Scriptures to lend support to their characterizations of our people.”Stiffnecked,” “stubborn,” “defiant,” “wicked,” “rebellious,” “faithless,” “disobedient,” and “brazen” are descriptions of our ancestors drawn from passages in which either Moses or God is addressing Israel (e.g., Exod. 33:5a; Deut. 9:6; Deut. 31:27-29; Isa. 30:8-9; Ezek. 2:3-4a, 6b; 3:4-7). Why is it that Christianity gets the blame for being the source of anti-Semitism, when even more explicit passages can be found in our own Scriptures?

I can hear you protesting: “Yes, but those passages found in the Hebrew Scriptures depict inner-family conflicts; they are not meant to be heard by others.The New Testament, however, was designed to be read by Gentiles, and should not have depicted the Jews the way it did.” The Hebrew Scriptures were meant to be shared with others as we brought the light of the Lord to them. In addition to hearing those difficult descriptions, Gentiles would also have heard that the Israelites were chosen, elect, loved and cherished by God, called to bring salvation to the world.

Are you aware of just how Jewish the New Testament really is? All of the authors, save one, were Jewish, and the New Testament contains about 330 direct quotations from the Tanakh and over 1000 allusions to the Hebrew Bible. If you want to understand the religious conflicts in the New Testament (e.g., healing on the Sabbath), you need to have a grasp of Jewish law and tradition. In fact, if you tried to remove the Jewishness from the New Testament, it wouldn’t make any sense. From the opening genealogy in Matthew to the closing passage about heaven in Revelation, the New Testament is thoroughly Jewish. The New Testament continues the story of the people of Israel, describing them as deeply loved by God and chosen out of all the peoples of the world to bear the light of God to the nations. As part of this story, it acknowledges that this people tended to reject him and those he sends. For this reason, the New Testament echoes the lamentations of the prophets over God’s people (e.g., Matt. 23:37-38, 24:2b; Acts 7:51-52; Rom. 9:1-4a; 11:1a, 11-12, 25-27).

While it is true that there have been many scholars (even Christian ones) who have claimed that the roots of anti-Semitism—and therefore the grounds for the Holocaust—can be found in the New Testament, there are many other scholars who disagree. The history of interpretation of difficult New Testament passages has not been straightforward, especially in the wake of the Holocaust, which has forced some very deep reflection on the matter by Jews and Christians alike. It is important that we carefully and honestly investigate this issue of anti-Semitism in the New Testament. We’ll do that by looking at it in its original Jewish context, and try not to read it in light of later horrendous events like the Crusades or the Inquisition. Anti-Semitism seems to raise its head only when the New Testament is wrongly interpreted or misrepresented.

Let’s take a look at some of the accusations that have been levied against the New Testament and see how they stand up.

First let’s consider the claim that Matthew propagated the view that all Jews in all subsequent ages should be held responsible for the death of Jesus. In Matthew’s Gospel, when Pilate wants to let Jesus go, the Jewish peoplecry out: “Let his blood be on us and on our children” (Matt. 27:24-25)! Sadly, this verse has been used to justify all kinds of terrible acts against our people. Far from being a verse that was simply written to spite those who rejected the Messiah, this verse had historical and cultural precedents in Judaism at that time. Since the crowd truly believed Jesus was guilty of blasphemy, they were willing to take responsibility for having him put to death. They were not calling down a curse on future generations; instead, they were taking responsibility for themselves (and those children standing by their side) for that particular decision being made there and then.

You might continue to protest the idea that Jews should bear any blame for the death of Jesus, claiming that this is just a myth that should be squelched. Why is it so difficult to admit that our people rejected Jesus (we have a long history of rejecting the Torah and the prophets) and participated in his demise? Neither the Talmud nor Moses Maimonides felt a need to hide the ways in which the Jewish court (the Sanhedrin) participated in the condemnation and handing over of Jesus to be killed (see b. Sanhedrin43a; t. Sanhedrin10:11; y. Sanhedrin7:16, 67a). It is a terrible tragedy that others have used this passage in Matthew to justify violence against our people, but that does not mean the passage itself is inherently anti-Semitic.

What about the demonization of ‘the Jews’ that seems to fill the pages of the Gospel of John? The Hebrew Scriptures use the phrase “the Jews” (hayehûdim in Hebrew) in several different ways. Sometimes this term means the “Judeans” (i.e., the inhabitants of Judea), while other times it refers the religious leaders (see Neh. 2:16). John uses the term in several ways too, sometimes referring to the population of Judea, while at other times referring only to the Jewish religious leaders who were hostile to Jesus; but he never seems to have all Jews in mind when he uses the phrase. Confusion over what is meant by “the Jews” can and should be addressed through more careful translation of the term. As for the harsh rhetoric that often accompanies this phrase in John’s Gospel, it helps to be aware that this was typical of inter-Jewish debates in the first century of this era—both the Dead Sea Scrolls and Josephus are even harsher when referring to their opponents! Unless you’re willing to admit that the latter are guilty of anti-Semitism, then you can’t insist that the Gospel of John is anti-Semitic.

What about the depiction of the Jewish religious leaders, and especially the Pharisees, as snakes and vipers, thoroughly corrupt hypocrites, deserving of hell? I’ve just explained that harsh polemic directed against opponents can be found in other first-century Jewish literature, and this seems to provide yet another example. Even the Talmud, which was carrying on the traditions of the Pharisees, has some pretty harsh things to say against Pharisaic hypocrites (see b. Sotah 22b [with parallels in y. Berakhot 67a]), so it shouldn’t be that surprising to find anger directed at hypocritical leaders in the gospels (see Matt. 3:7-10 and Matt. 23:1-37).

Here is the real question: Are these depictions accurate? In the Hebrew Scriptures, who was generally most vehemently opposed to the messages of the prophets? The political and religious leadership (see e.g., Jer.26 and Amos 7:10-17)! Why would a corrupt leadership view Jesus as a threat to their establishment? Jesus was clearly very charismatic—large groups of people followed him around, hung on his every word, and brought others to him to be healed (see Mark 6:53-56). It’s not difficult to see why the religious leaders would have been jealous and fearful of Jesus’ ability to attract others, and would have treated him with hostility. Many of Jesus’ difficult encounters with the Pharisees sprung out of a genuine difference of interpretation of the Law, but sometimes Jesus could see that these debates only masked the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, and he wasn’t afraid of telling them so (see e.g., Luke 13:15-17).

Granted, not all Pharisees or Jewish leaders are vilified in the New Testament writings—some are commended for being sympathetic to Jesus and even speaking on his behalf (e.g., Joseph of Arimathea). We also must not forget that Paul was a Pharisee and didn’t try to hide this even after he became a follower of Jesus. While it is true that the word “Pharisee” has become synonymous with “hypocrite” in the English language, and that this has its roots in New Testament references, these references should not be blamed for the way they were later used to lend support to anti-Semitic activities.

I’ve shown that the religious hostility of Jewish leaders towards those who posed a threat to their establishment is not unique to the New Testament writings; it can be found in the Hebrew Scriptures, and it continued in the persecution of the earliest followers of Jesus (see 2.7). I would argue that this hostility is still alive and well among certain Jewish leaders even today—I have personally experienced their aggressive behavior because of my faith in Jesus, as have some of my friends. You’ve also probably heard that there is a strong movement to ban proselytizing in Israel. Aggressive behavior toward those who pose a threat to the religious establishment can be found in many societies: Islam, Christianity and Judaism have all been guilty of it. I don’t find it hard to believe that many (though by no means all) Pharisees gave Jesus a hard time in his day.

Some people suggest that Paul provided support for anti-Semitism when he told the Gentiles that the Jews displeased God and were objects of his wrath, that they had killed both prophets and the Messiah, and that they were hostile to other people. This accusation is based on a quotation in one of Paul’s letters to the Thessalonians (see 1 Thess. 2:14-16). Those new Christians were suffering persecution at the hands of their own people, and Paul was trying to comfort and encourage them by letting them know he had also suffered the same kind of treatment from his own people. The Thessalonians needed to realize that what was happening in their region had already been going on for a long time among the Jews since some Jews believed in Yeshua whereas others did not. In previous generations, the unbelieving Jews had attacked the prophets; in this generation, they had rejected and killed the Messiah, and now they were busy persecuting those who believed in Yeshua and were trying to keep them from speaking about Yeshua to the Gentiles.

It could be that Paul is referring in this passage to an even more specific group of Jews who were hostile to Jesus’ followers: the Jewish leadership based in Jerusalem in Judea (in other words, “Jews” should be translated “Judeans”). Jerusalem and her religious leadership had a reputation for being hard on prophets and ignoring their calls to change their wicked ways. In either case, it seems clear that Paul is not speaking about Jews generally and in all times, but is thinking in terms of two groups—believers and non-believers. The same holds for Paul’s comments about the wrath of God. This needs to be held in tension with his insistence that the irrevocable plan was for all Israel to believe and be saved. This was his constant prayer for his fellow Jews (see Rom. 10:1-2).

What about the New Testament accusations of deicide directed against the Jews? I challenge you to point out exactly where that accusation can be found in the New Testament, but I’ll tell you right now that you won’t find it! You might counter by arguing that since the New Testament maintains Jesus is God and accuses the Jews of killing Jesus, according to logic of the New Testament the Jews are guilty of killing God. Let’s find out if this is true.

The New Testament is clear in attributing certain things to Yeshua: As Messiah, he willingly died to save us from our sins even while we were ungodly (see Rom. 5:6-8; 1 Cor. 15:3); the death of Jesus was ordained by God himself (see Rev. 13:8; Acts 2:23a); both Jews and Gentiles played roles in the death of Jesus (seeActs 2:23b; Acts 4:27-28); as he was being crucified, Jesus called out, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing” (Luke 23:34). This last statement deserves special emphasis since it demonstrates that Jesus never advocated avenging his death by punishing his own people. Jesus actually extended mercy to those who handed him over to be crucified, acknowledging that they did so out of ignorance (see Acts 3:17-20). Paul let his support to this statement during one of his synagogue sermons (see Acts 13:27) and proclaimed that Jesus came to forgive us all of our sins (Acts 13:38). This word of forgiveness is good news for all people!

What about the idea that Jesus is God? While the New Testament clearly depicts Jesus as a fully human, Jewish rabbi, it also refers to him as the Son of God; the mystery surrounding his divine nature is never removed. Jesus never explicitly claimed to be God, but instead spoke of God as his Father and as his God (see John 20:17), the same Father and God of those who were listening to him. It was only gradually, and after a great deal of reflection, that the followers of Yeshua began to understand more fully who he was. How do you hold two truths together: that God is One and that Jesus is God’s Son? There is a common misconception among many religious Jews and Muslims that Christians worship three gods. While a careful analysis of the New Testament and of Christianity clearly indicates that Christians do not worship three gods, there’s no easy way to describe God’s tri-unity. Nowhere do the New Testament authors suggestthat when their fellow Jews called for Jesus to be crucified, they were killing God. When talking to fellow Jews, these authors tended to emphasize the humanity of Jesus, not his divinity (Acts 2:22-23; Acts 2:36; Acts 3:13; Acts 5:30). The New Testament simply does not accuse our people of deicide.

Finally, let us take a look at the idea that God had had enough of the Jews and decided to replace the “synagogue of Satan” with the “true Jews” and the “New Israel,” i.e. Christianity. Although this doctrine—known as “replacement theology” or “supersessionism”—has been taught at different times by church leaders, it is an unbiblical concept. Paul never thought that God’s purpose for the Jews was over, even though some of their hearts had been partially and temporarily hardened (see Rom. 9-11). Paul looked forward to the day when all Israel would turn back to God in faith. In the meantime, there would always be some Jews who would believe in Jesus as Messiah. Paul taught that the Gentile believers in Jesus were brought into the household of God along with the Jews—but they remained Gentiles. Though he did use certain phrases in relation to the Gentiles that had been used to describe Israel, Paul never equated the church with Israel, and he never said that Israel had been replaced by the church. Paul was building on the teachings of Jesus who envisioned the twelve tribes of Israel gathered around him in the world to come, and who expected his followers to believe the same (see Matt. 19:28; Acts 1:6-8).

Some people have interpreted Romans 2:28-29, in which Paul is describing the “true Jew,” as presenting a contrast between Jews and Gentile Christians, when it is actually contrasting two kinds of Jews—those who are only “outwardly” Jews (circumcised in body) and those who are “inwardly” Jews (circumcised in spirit too). Paul declares that if physical circumcision is not also accompanied by a life of service to God, then that Jew is not really a Jew in God’s sight.

What about the phrase “synagogue of Satan”? I’ll grant that this has been used by anti-Semites against us, but it helps to look at its original context. The phrase appears only two times in the New Testament: Revelation 2:9 and 3:9. In both of these passages, Jesus uses this phrase to describe those who are actively persecuting his followers in the cities of Smyrna and Philadelphia who “claim to be Jews but are not.” It could be that Yeshua is referring to a sect that really has no legitimate affiliation with the Jewish people, but it is more likely that Jesus is using the same kind of hyperbole that God himself uses in Hosea1:9-10 where he expresses his exasperation at his people’s disobedience by speaking of them as if they were not his people.

The New Testament was written for a group (eventually called the “church”) that was comprised of both Jews and Gentiles. The Gentiles gradually began to outnumber the Jews and, as a result, began to forget the Jewish roots of their faith (see 2.7). In time, some so-called Christians even began to treat the Jews with hostility, interpreting selected texts as anti-Jewish, which were also used to lend support to racial anti-Semitism eighteen centuries after they were written. I am deeply saddened that my sacred Scriptures have been so misused by so-called Christians, and I hope that more sensitive translations can prevent future misinterpretations and abuses.

As a Jew, I agonize over the fact that our people as a whole missed the Messiah when he came and instead turned against him. How awful it is! We broke the Sinai covenant over and over again, we rejected prophet after prophet, even killing some, and then we rejected the Messiah, delivering him up to be crucified. Both the church and the Jewish people have sinned! I see only one way to make things right: Let everyone who claims to be a Christian demonstrate it by showing the love of the Messiah to his own Jewish people, utterly repudiating even the slightest hint of anti-Semitism, and let every Jewish person turn back to Yeshua—our one and only Messiah—in repentance and faith.

In almost thirty years in the church, I have rarely, if ever, met a Christian anti-Semite. In fact, when I have described the ways in which anti-Semitism has been found in the church at different points in its history, and when I’ve explained that some Jews believe that the New Testament is anti-Semitic, the Christians I’ve been addressing have been utterly shocked. I hope I can convince you that at this critical point in history, it is the Bible-believing, New-Testament-reading Christians who are Israel’s best friends. I know this is the opposite of what you have been taught, but it’s the truth.

For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 1, pp. 145-175.

“Without the long, ugly history of Christian anti-Semitism, the Holocaust would never have occurred.”

For the most part I agree with you. It’s true that many so-called Christians and Christian leaders participated in the creation of the hostile atmosphere that led to the Holocaust; however, no Christian leader has ever tried to get rid of the Jewish people, and any anti-Judaism the church has expressed in its history is very different from Hitler’s racial anti-Semitism. The true Christians were those who helped the Jews during the Holocaust, often risking their own lives (see 2.6 and 2.7).

Did you know that the fact that Messianic Jews believed in Jesus and attended churches made absolutely no difference to the Nazis and did not save them from the destruction of the Holocaust? All that mattered was that they had at least some Jewish blood in their veins. Nothing about the Holocaust was “Christian” in any sense of the word!

For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 1, pp.175-177.

This is a deep and agonizing question, and there are so many different ways to analyze what led to the Holocaust. No one will ever understand the whole mystery; nevertheless, it is important to attempt to understand what God might have been doing (or not doing).

Although there have been a number of Jewish responses to the Holocaust, there are some general perspectives, which I will summarize below. These views were elaborated by Steven Katz (1975) and Yosef Roth (1998).

• The Holocaust joins the long list of tragedies that continue to raise the age-old question of theodicy and the “problem of evil,” but does not add anything new to the discussion.
• The Holocaust is best interpreted using the Jewish doctrine of mi-peneihata’einu (“because of our sins we were punished”). In other words, the Holocaust is a just punishment for the sins of Israel. Exactly what sins are being punished varies, but the list includes failure to observe Torah and Jewish traditions, and attitudes to the establishment of the State of Israel.
• The Holocaust is an act of vicarious atonement, and Israel plays the role of the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53.
• The Holocaust should be understood as a “divine treatment” rather than punishment. It is redemptive in that it either leads to the end of exile and the establishment of the State of Israel, or because it helps cleanse impurity and prepare Israel for salvation. God cannot bring about evil, and some spiritual good can be found in every evil and act of suffering.
• The Holocaust, like the sacrifice of Isaac (Akedah), is a test of faith.
• The Holocaust is an instance of God turning his face away (hesterpanim), or a temporary “Eclipse of God.”
• The Holocaust proves that “God is dead,” otherwise he would have intervened.
• The Holocaust is a great exhibition of human evil—one of the consequences of human freedom. The evil capacity of humanity is highlighted by this event whereas God’s existence or perfection isn’t affected by it.
• The Holocaust is a summons for Jewish survival and an affirmation of the identity and mission of the Jewish people.
• The Holocaust is an instance of the “birth pangs of the Messiah,” part of the time of suffering and upheaval which precedes the arrival of the Messiah.
• The Holocaust is a mystery that transcends human understanding—the only appropriate responses are faith and silence.

Do any of these positions resonate with you? Do any of these positions repel you? Maybe you’ve got your own point of view. With every perspective, there is an imperative not to remain at the level of the abstract, but to speak as if to the victims of the Holocaust.

In the very beginnings of the Holocaust, before the massive loss of life could be factored in, Orthodox Jews were interpreting the growing restrictions set down by the Nazis as God’s way of judging them for their failure as a people to keep the teachings and precepts of the Torah. Their perception had biblical foundations; they knew that willful disobedience of God’s covenant would result in judgment and punishment. As Elie Wiesel notes, there was a similar response by many Jews as they entered the concentration camps; they assumed that they were there because they were being punished for their sins.

It is scriptural to view the Holocaust, at least to some extent, as an act of divine judgment. If we as a nation were in good standing with God, then why did such a terrible thing happen to us? I cannot believe that God was doing nothing during the Holocaust; there must have been an element of judgment. Even as I say this, I want to be very clear on one point: I am not saying that the Holocaust happened because Jews didn’t believe in Jesus. That is not what I’m saying, and it is not what I believe. Why would God wait 1900 years to punish that particular sin? What I am trying to communicate here is that our people has a long history of forsaking God’s laws and rejecting God’s messengers and I think that this perennial disobedience resulted in our being removed from God’s protection at that time in history. This observation begs the question, why was there such an extreme judgment, such an enormous degree of suffering at that particular time? Were the sins of the people significantly greater than they had ever been before?

What my reading of the Scriptures has led me to believe is that something more than judgment was happening in the Holocaust. I believe that we were being attacked by Satan, who had detected both our vulnerability in losing God’s protection, and had seen that we were on the verge of re-gathering as a nation. For these reasons, he decided it was time to eliminate us. If he had succeeded, not only would he have stopped us from returning to our homeland, but he would have been able to have demonstrated God’s untrustworthiness. I believe that because of their special calling by God, Jews found themselves in the middle of a cosmic, spiritual battle.

None of this excuses or downplays the human side of the Holocaust. We are still left with many questions about the nature of humanity: How could so many people have committed so many utterly inhuman, unspeakably evil acts? Is there any hope for us as a race if human beings have the capacity to do such terrible things? If so many could participate in cold-blooded murder, could it be that such ugliness exists potentially in all of us?

The answer to these questions, something that Christians hold as a core belief, is that human beings are essentially not good; by nature we are corrupt (see 1.10 and vol. 2, 3.20). Christians believe that we need to be saved because we are sinners. Not only do we harbor the potential for doing horrendous things, quite often we actually do them. All too often we tend either to deny or to downplay the seriousness of our sinfulness, and all too often we assume that we are still capable of improving ourselves, or that praying for forgiveness when we fall short will restore the balance. When we do this, however, wedeny the depth of the corruption in even the most “average” person, let alone the Nazi murderer. The Holocaust forces us to confront the question of how any of us can ever hope to be righteous, and I believe that in Yeshua we find the answer: God himself had to reach down into this deep pit of human evil in order to save us from our sins, including the sins of the Holocaust; without him taking this initiative, we would be totally lost.

One of the interpretations of the Holocaust presented in the list above had to do with the identification of the Jewish people with Isaiah’s Suffering Servant who gives his life in atonement for sin so as to bring healing and wholeness to others. Respected author Rabbi Ignaz Maybaum has even suggested that the Holocaust represented the crucifixion of the Jewish people. He explains that in order to awaken the conscience of the Gentiles, the Jews needed to speak in the language of the Gentiles, the language of the cross, by collectively losing their lives for others, just as the individual Jesus had done. Through the sacrificial shedding of blood, the Holocaust was meant to reveal the mercy of God, encouraging the Christians to become Christian again, and thereby advancing human society.

This image points to the real key for understanding the tragedy of the Holocaust; however, it was not the Jewish people as a whole who fulfilled the role of Isaiah’s Suffering Servant (see especially Isaiah 52:13-53:12, and see vol. 2, 3.15 and vol. 3, 4.10-4.22); it was Yeshua, the only truly righteous Jew. The suffering of the Jewish people points us back to the suffering and death of the Messiah, asking us to reinterpret that event.

The words of Basilea Schlink (originally Dr. Klara Schlink), the German Gentile Christian founder of the Evangelical Sisterhood of Mary, overflow with anguish, concern, grief and repentance for the horrendous persecution of the Jewish people that took place in the Holocaust. She has taken the full weight of Germany’s sin—including the sins of every professing Christian in the land—and she has confessed that sin, repented of that sin, and dedicated her life to making restitution for that sin. Schlink saw in the suffering of the Jewish people a reflection of her Savior, Jesus, the Messiah, and in response, she declares: “We as Christians are to hold in high esteem this people who bears such a close resemblance to Jesus. . . . It may well be that [God] often feels closer to His people Israel than to those proud Christians who believe in Him and yet refuse to acknowledge their guilt towards the Jews, their heartlessness in passing their brother in desperate need” (Schlink, Israel My Chosen People, p. 34).

Why is it that so many Jewish scholars and philosophers refuse to think of Jesus as Isaiah’s Suffering Servant or to make concrete connections between Yeshua and the Jewish people? Jesus is like us. He knows our pain. He can identify with our sufferings. He understands intimately what it means to be left alone in this world, abandoned, and handed over to die a terrible death at the hands of wicked people.The identification is clear.

Although there are certainly similarities between the suffering of Jesus and that of the Jewish people in the Holocaust, there are also some profound differences. Whereas the Jews suffered unwillingly, Jesus willingly chose to suffer and to give his life as a ransom for us all (see Matt. 26:53-54; Mark 10:45; 1 Pet. 2:24). Furthermore, while we Jews suffered for our own sins, Jesus, being entirely guiltless, suffered entirely for the sake of others. Finally, whereas the suffering of the Jews in the Holocaust has not brought healing but rather judgment on the nations that caused the suffering, the suffering of Jesus has brought healing to millions of people, both Jews and Gentiles, who have found mercy, forgiveness, deliverance, redemption, and restoration through his wounds. His shed blood has become a fountain of purification and cleansing to all who recognize his love.

Elie Wiesel describes a boy hanging on the gallows in the concentration camp, who died a slow, painful death. “Where is God?” people asked. Wiesel knew that the answer was that God was there, hanging on the gallows. While Wiesel’s image of the boy on the gallows evokes sympathy, it does not offer any hope, unlike Jesus on the cross, whose suffering and death brings resurrection and life. The cross is a symbol of humiliation and pain, suffering and death, of being forsaken by God and human beings, and of sacrifice, atonement, and hope even for the worst of sinners. This image for which our Messiah is known, should draw—not repel—our Jewish people, especially in light of the Holocaust.

The suffering of the Jewish people in the Holocaust was not redemptive. It didn’t save anyone, it didn’t improve human nature, it didn’t end wars or racial conflicts—it didn’t even eradicate anti-Semitism which, in some places in the world, continues to build. The suffering of Jesus, however, has made and continues to make a profound difference. Not only does Jesus on the cross signify the wickedness of humanity and our inability to change without God’s intervention, but it also demonstrates the grace and mercy of God who has chosen to provide what is needed to address human evil. In other words, Jesus is the Messiah that we need!

My hope is that you will be able to accept this profound connection between the suffering of Jesus and that of the Jewish people and realize that he is one of us! I pray that whatever burdens regarding the Holocaust (or life in general) you carry, you will be able to hand them over to Yeshua, so that he can offer you rest and genuine freedom in the presence of God.

For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 1, pp.177-196.

“The main reason Christians are so zealous to convert Jews to their beliefs is to legitimize their faith. The fact that Jesus’ own people rejected him is a real problem to Christianity.”

I have met a lot of Christians, and I can tell you that I’ve never met one who felt his faith needed to be propped up by getting Jews to believe in Jesus. In fact, most of them are not all that surprised that Jews as a nation rejected Jesus. Christians have read the Hebrew Scriptures and know that time and again Israel rejected God’s messengers and God’s law; why would they expect Israel to treat the Messiah any differently?

It is certainly encouraging when others come to accept your point of view, especially if they’ve previously scorned you for it. Christians and Messianic Jews rejoice when they hear that a Jew has been “born anew” through faith in Jesus as Messiah, especially if that person is an Orthodox rabbi or brilliant agnostic, but what would be the use of a faith that is utterly dependent on whether someone else believes or not? Followers of Jesus around the world endure great hardship—even to the point of martyrdom—without denying their faith; they remain believers whether or not the Jewish nation has accepted their Messiah.

Christians reach out to Jews because their love for their Jewish Messiah has led them to have a special love for the Jewish people, and they are saddened to know that many of his people have not recognized him as their Messiah. Many Christians are anticipating Jesus’ return and know that a widespread recognition of Jesus by the Jewish people will be a powerful sign that his return is near. Most of the missionary time and energy goes into reaching the two billion people who have never even heard of Jesus, and despite the rumors you may have heard, most of the mission funding goes toward these causes, not toward Jewish evangelism.

For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 1, pp.196-199.

“Although Jews have been forced to hold public debates with Christians in the past, Jews have won every debate. You can even check the Christian records for verification.”

Debates about Jesus have been going on since the beginning, and it is clear from the earliest records that the Messianic Jews were more persuasive. Paul and some of his co-workers debated publicly in synagogues, and they are described as baffling those who heard them (see Acts 9:22, 17:2-3, 18:28).

Granted, there were forced debates in the Middle Ages, which reflected badly on the church—I would be more than happy if the Jewish debaters had won over those so-called “Christian” leaders. The famous Barcelona debate between Rabbi Moses ben Nachman (Ramban or Nachmanides) and a Catholic Jew (renamed Pablo Christiani) is often held up as an example of Jewish debating victory—but why continually refer to that triumph, if there are supposedly so many others to choose from?

I have debated a number of rabbis and anti-missionariesabout whether Yeshua is the Jewish Messiah promised in the Hebrew Scriptures, and all of those debates have been made available for public access. I want Jews to be able to hear strong arguments made by both sides so that they can have what they need to make up their own minds about Yeshua. We have nothing to hide, and we believe that honest dialogue will lead to the truth. All too often those I have debated are not willing to distribute those debates to others. What does this tell you?

For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 1, pp. 199-201.

“Within two generations, the Jewish followers of Jesus (under the influence of Paul) had largely given up their Jewish practices, setting a precedent that has remained the same right up until today: Jews who become Christians totally lose all connection to Judaism within two generations.“

There were Sabbath-keeping, Hebrew-reading, Torah-revering Jewish followers of Jesus for at least the first four hundred years of church history. The prayer against the heretics, which became part of the synagogue service in 90 CE as a way of exposing Messianic Jews, proves that followers of Jesus were still attending synagogues more than sixty years after the Messiah’s death and resurrection. Eventually, the Messianic Jews were kickedout of the synagogues by other Jews; they didn’t leave of their own accord.

As the church gradually became overwhelmingly Gentile, to the point that the Jewish roots of the faith were ignored or forgotten, the Jewish believers (Nazarenes) began to be viewed with suspicion, precisely because they were holding on to the Torah, as well as the gospel; however, in spite of the difficulties presented by both the synagogue and the church, Messianic Jews steadfastly maintained their faith and their heritage for centuries.

There is no question that through the ages there have been Jewish Christians who have assimilated into the surrounding culture, but in the earliest days of the church, this was not the norm. In recent decades Messianic Jews have made aliyah to Israel, and their children and grandchildren have become deeply embedded in the society and have served in the military. Even in America you can find at least four generations of Jewish followers of Jesus.

It is sad that although many true Christians are beginning to rediscover and celebrate the Jewish roots of their faith, Jewish Christians still face the pain of ostracism and hardship from their own people. Those who accuse Messianic Jews of abandoning their heritage are actually driving them away through their hurtful words and deeds.

Have you ever considered the possibility that traditional Judaism may not be God’s Judaism? It has rejected its Messiah and the followers of the Messiah. Perhaps you should reconsider what it means to be a true Jew and what it means to be faithful to our heritage.

For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 1, pp. 201-205.

“Just look at the church! Who’s right? The Protestants, the Roman Catholics, the Greek Orthodox, the Mormons, the Messianic Jews? Even so-called Christians can’t agree among themselves.”

Ironically, you accuse the church of having numerous divisions even though there are many branches of Judaism. Although there are differing views, true believers all share the same fundamental beliefs.

Not everyone who calls himself a Christian is a real Christian. Some Christians are genuine believers while others are believers in name only. If you look at Christianity from the outside, the diversity seems to make it impossible to discern the real thing, but from the inside, it’s easier to find the commonalities. The New Testament both warns about false believers and offers ways to discern the truly faithful from the fraudulent. Those who don’t accept the fundamentals of the faith are not really Christians. These are some of the core Christian beliefs:

• Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, the fulfillment of the Hebrew Scriptures, and Savior not only of the Jews, but of the whole world.
• Jesus lived a sinless life and died for our sins.
• Jesus’ sacrificial death provides the only acceptable means of forgiveness of sins.
• Through faith in Jesus, even the worst sinner can find reconciliation with God and begin a transformed life.
• True Christians are recognized by the good fruit their lives produce.
• Those who believe in Jesus will live forever in heaven, while those who refuse to believe will spend eternity in hell.

Even when there are recognizably different “Judaisms,” there are still certain core beliefs that unite them (i.e., one God, special calling of Jewish people, belief in the Torah, etc.). Let me point out that Messianic Judaism has always shared those same core beliefs. Even within a single expression of Judaism today you’re going to find disputes over details and legal rulings—the same holds for the church: although believers may hold to the same fundamentals, there will still be differences of interpretation regarding other matters.

Across the world, no matter the background of the believers, you will find followers of Jesus gathered around the core beliefs. In fact, this unity of the church, which can only be described as supernatural, is one of the strongest signs that faith in the Messiah is warranted.

For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 1, pp. 205-208.

“Christianity is just another great world religion, like Islam, Hinduism or Buddhism. But it is certainly not the true Messianic faith and the only way to find God. In fact, I find it to be the height of arrogance that Jesus claimed to be the only way to the Father. This is small-minded conceit at its worst.”

It may seem arrogant to you when you hear that the only way to be in right relationship with God is through Jesus, but let’s reason this through. Doesn’t it make sense that if there is only one God, one Creator of all things, that he alone would be justified in deciding how it is that people can be in right relationship with him? Couldn’t it be possible that there is only one divinely ordained way to approach the Father? There may be all kinds of lovely customs and commendable teachings in the many religions of the world, but unless they are endorsed by God, they remain human creations. The truth of a religion is not based on the sincerity of its believers.

All religions cannot be equally true since they believe contradictory things. Islam believes there is only one God, while Hindus believe in many: Can they both be right? If some are wrong, then isn’t it possible that one may be right?

Is it really more arrogant to claim that Jesus is the only way for people to get right with God than it is to say that Jesus cannot possibly be the only way? When you say that, you’re declaring Christianity to be wrong. Either way, millions of people are sidelined as false believers. Don’t we believe that we as a people have been uniquely singled out, specially chosen by God out of all the peoples of the world to bring his light to all? Why doesn’t that represent the height of arrogance?

The real question is not who is being the most arrogant, but what grounds do we have for claiming that only faith in Yeshua can reconcile people to God? Yeshua willingly sacrificed himself to pay the penalty for our sins, thereby satisfying God’s justice and securing eternal life for us. All religions seem to acknowledge that human beings have somehow fallen short and become alienated from God, and they describe many ways to address that problem, but apart from Jesus, there is no certainty that forgiveness of sins has been accomplished and our relationship with God has been restored. Without Jesus, there may be hope, but no certainty.

This perspective distinguishes Christianity from all other religions, and it is this good news of certain forgiveness and reconciliation with God that motivates his followers to introduce others to Yeshua.

For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 1, pp. 208-211.

“We dealt with Christianity 1900 years ago. There were great Jewish leaders alive in Jesus’ day and in the decades following. They watched him, they watched his followers, and they rejected the whole thing for good reason. There’s nothing to discuss.”

Then what has led you to this site? Were you aware that many Jewish scholars are revisiting their old ideas about Yeshua? Did you know that throughout the centuries, there have been many Jewish leaders (even prominent rabbis) who have changed their minds about Yeshua and placed their faith in him as the Jewish Messiah? The fact is, our forefathers who rejected Yeshua made a wrong turn and got off track. Now, there’s only one thing for you to do: Turn around!

For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 1, p. 211.