“The New Testament misquotes and misinterprets the Old Testament. At times it manufactures verses to suit its purposes.”

The New Testament authors quoted the Hebrew Scriptures frequently. In fact, more than ten percent of the New Testament is made up of quotes or allusions from the Tanakh. Some scholars claim that one out of every three verses of the New Testament contains some kind of reference to the Hebrew Bible. The book of Revelation alone contains Tanakh imagery in 331 of its 404 verses.

With so many quotes, it is no surprise that not every New Testament reference to the Tanakh follows the same interpretive principle. Such an eclectic approach to the Hebrew Scriptures is not unprecedented, as we will see from our discussion of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Rabbinic writings. After we take a look at these writings, we will observe how the New Covenant Scriptures use the Tanakh.

In Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament, Joseph Fitzmyer postulates that there are four ways the Qumran writings use the Tanakh:

1. The “Literal or Historical Class” of citations comprises instances “in which the Qumran author quotes the Old Testament in the same sense in which it was used in the original writing” (Fitzmyer, Semitic Background of the New Testament, 17-18). An example of this can be found in CD 7:8-9 (quoting Num. 30:17) in the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS), with a New Testament parallel in John 6:31 (quoting Ps. 78:24).
2. The “Class of Modernized Texts” preserves the “same general sense of the Old Testament,” but applies it “to a new subject” (21-22). Fitzmyer cites CD 1:13-14 (quoting Hos. 4:16) and notes a New Testament parallel in Matthew 4:15-16 (quoting Isa. 8:23-9:1). Fitzmyer finds several New Testament instances of this class.
3. “Accommodated Texts” apply the Hebrew text to a new subject, but in this case, the Hebrew text is “wrested from its original context or modified somehow to suit the new situation” (33). Fitzmyer cites, among eleven other examples, 1QS 8:13-16 (quoting Isa. 40:3), and points to a New Testament parallel in Ephesians 4:8 (quoting Ps. 68:19).
4. The “Eschatological Class of Texts” “express in the Old Testament context a promise or threat about something still to be accomplished in the eschaton, which the Qumran writer cites as something still to be accomplished in the new eschaton of which he writes” (46). He cites, among nine other examples, CD 7:10-12 (quoting Isa. 7:17), and notes a New Testament usage in Romans 12:19 (quoting Deut. 32:35). Clearly, Qumran usage of the Tanakh mirrors the New Covenant writings’ use of the Hebrew Scriptures.

How do later Rabbinic writings use the Tanakh? Let’s look at some examples in the opening pages of the Berachot, the opening tractate of the Babylonian Talmud.

1. 2a cites Deuteronomy 6:7b (“when you lie down and when you get up”) and Genesis 1:5b (“And there was evening, and there was morning”) to explain why the Mishnah mention sevening recitation of the Shema before it mentions morning recitation.
2. The Talmud questions whether the expression we-taherin Leviticus 22:7 means that “he [the man] shall be clean” or “it [the day] shall be clean [or clear].” While scholars almost universally agree that the passage refers to the priest, the Talmud uses the opposite view to determine the appropriate time for the priest to consume his portion of the offering.
3. Nehemiah 4:15-16 iscited as a hint (zeker) rather than a proof (ra’ayah) that the appearance of the stars was the mark of night time.
4. 3b cites Judges 7:19 (referencing “the middle watch”) as evidence that there are three watches in the night. It then cites Psalm 119:62 and 148 to prove that there are four watches, a conclusion that seems unlikely at first glance.
5. Psalm 119:147, Proverbs 7:9, 1 Samuel 30:17, and Exodus 11:4 are used to establish the exact timing of midnight.
6. 3b-4a misquotes 1 Chronicles 27:34 by saying “Jehoiada, the son of Benaiah,” rather than, “Benaiah, the son of Jehoiada.” If we continue reading for several more pages, we find plays on words, a very common method of using the Scriptures in Rabbinic literature.

In this brief Talmudic sampling we find: (1) verses cited to support positions which barely relate to the discussions at hand; (2) verses cited in somewhat contrived ways to support various positions; (3) a verse cited, discussed, and ultimately interpreted contrary to its clear, contextual meaning; (4) a verse that is actually misquoted, with key names being reversed; (5) plays on words, with no attempt to elucidate the primary (or, original) meaning of the text. Rabbinic usage of the Hebrew Scriptures was often much freer than strict grammatical-historical interpretation. The Rabbis felt free to use biblical passages in differing contexts for various reasons. The Rabbinic writings also demonstrate the prevalence of copying errors. New Testament citations of the Hebrew Scriptures are not only valid, but they often evince greater care and caution for the biblical text than even the Rabbinic writings!

Rabbi Tovia Singer disagrees with the above assessment, concluding that the church “manipulated, misquoted, mistranslated, and even fabricated verses in Tanach”(“A Lutheran Doesn’t Understand Why Rabbi Singer Doesn’t Believe in Jesus: A Closer Look at the ‘Crucifixion Psalm,'” Outreach Judaism) to establish Jesus’ Messianic claims. Of particular concern to Singer are Matthew’s citations of the Hebrew Bible, which he claims are superficial and deceptive; however, in their exhaustive 2,300+ page commentary, W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison Jr. conclude that Matthew’s hermeneutics was sophisticated and that he “was not above scattering items in his Greek text whose deeper meaning could only be appreciated by those with a knowledge of Hebrew” (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew: Matthew 1-7, 279). Let’s take a closer look at the extreme aspersions leveled against the New Testament. We will first consider some general issues before analyzing some of the New Testament’s Tanakh quotations.

The following textual forms of the Tanakh existedin Jesus’ day: Hebrew texts, Aramaic translations/paraphrases, and at least one Greek translation (the Septuagint or LXX). All of these recognized Jewish texts contained variations from the original writings. Some may argue that the only authoritative text is the Masoretic (MT); however, while the Masoretic tradition evidences meticulous care and preservation, it nonetheless represents several thousands of manuscripts, no two of which are identical despite the incredible harmony of these manuscripts. We also have the DSS, which represent four different textual traditions. The variant readings of the DSS are sometimes more accurate than those of the Masoretic tradition. For instance, the MT rendering of 1 Samuel 1:24 states that Hannah brought three bulls for sacrifice. However, the LXX and DSS say that she only brought one bull. In this case, the LXX and DSS maintain the correct reading, for the next verse tells us that one bull was slaughtered.

New Testament citations of the Hebrew Biblefall into one of four categories: (1) the MT or another ancient Hebrew tradition, (2) the LXX, (3) the author’s own paraphrase from the Hebrew original, and (4) an interpretation of the text found in the Aramaic Targums. None of these usages violates the meaning of the biblical text. As the great medieval scholar Abraham Ibn Ezra observed, even the prophets of Israel didn’t always “preserve the exact wording”of the Scriptures (The Secret of the Torah: A Translation of Abraham Ibn Ezra’s Sefer Yesod Mora Ve-Sod Ha-Torah, 27-28). The New Testament authors always maintain the substance of the original, while sometimes adding further insight and observations. Here are some examples of Tanakh citations in the New Testament:

• Mark 4:12 follows a rendering of Isaiah 6:10 later foundin the Aramaic Targum, which reads, “they repent and be forgiven,” rather than the Hebrew, “it [the nation] repents and is made well.”
• Matthew 8:17 literally translates the Hebrew of Isaiah 53:5, noting that the Messiah “took up our infirmities and carried our diseases.” Matthew does not follow the spiritualizing renditions found in the LXX and the Targum.
• Mark 1:3 cites the LXX (which also agrees with the DSS), “A voice of one calling in the desert, ‘Prepare the way for the Lord,” while the MT reads, “A voice of one calling: ‘In the desert prepare the way for the Lord.'” The LXX was the most accessible version of the Hebrew Scriptures at the time since Greek was the most common language of the day; this is why the New Testament authors quote the LXX so frequently.
• Hebrews 1:6 cites the LXX rendering of Deuteronomy 32:43 (which agrees with the DSS), a verse that doesn’t exist in the MT.
• Romans 10:6-8 cites Deuteronomy 30:12-13. This is a key example of a homiletical interpretation (a free-form use of the biblical text). The text from Romans reads, “But the righteousness that is by faith says: ‘Do not say in your heart, “Who will ascend into heaven?” (that is, to bring Messiah down) or “Who will descend into the deep”‘ (that is, to bring Messiah up from the dead). But what does it say? ‘The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,’ that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming.” Paul’s use of Deuteronomy 30 is analogous to the Talmudic interpretation of the same passage (viz., God is no longer giving legal revelation from heaven and the “word of faith” is the Oral Torah).
• Ephesians 4:8 seems to cite an Aramaic translation of Psalm 68:18. Walter C. Kaiser, Peter H. Davids, F. F. Bruce, and Manfred T. Brauchnote, “The Hebrew text would not have made [Paul’s] point” (Hard Sayings of the Bible, 77).
• Sometimes, the New Testament author adds words to the Hebrew text to explain it, such as in Acts 2:17, in which Peter adds, “In the last days,” to his quotation of Joel 2:28 (3:1).

Kaiser, Davids, Bruce, and Brauch offer two important considerations concerning the New Testament authors: “(1) [I]t could be that they may indeed have a better reading for the text in question than we have in our Bibles and (2) . . . the Spirit of God who inspired the Old Testament text has every right to expand on its meaning” (Hard Sayings of the Bible, 78). In light of this, let’s look at three other significant New Testament passages to see if the authors mishandle or misquote the Tanakh.

Romans 11:26-27 quotes Isaiah 59:20, “The deliverer will come from Zion”; however, the Hebrew reads, “The redeemer will come to Zion.” Paul is not quoting from the LXX, which reads, “The redeemer will come for Zion.” The most likely scenario is that Paul conflates Isaiah 59:20 with Psalm 14:7a, “Oh, that salvation would come out of [or, from] Zion! When the LORD restores the fortunes of his people, let Jacob rejoice and Israel be glad!” Both passages refer to Zion and Jacob in the context of Israel’s national salvation and both use the root shuv (“turn back”). The Siddur, the Jewish prayerbook, takes a similar approach in conflating Psalm 20:2 and Isaiah 59:20-21.

Matthew 21:5 quotes Zechariah 9:9 (and part of Isaiah 62:11):

Say to the Daughter of Zion,
“See, your king comes to you,
gentle and riding on a donkey,
on a colt, the foal of a donkey.”

Verse 7 notes that the disciples “brought the donkey and the colt, placed their cloaks on them, and Jesus sat on them.” Critics find in this text the absurd idea that Jesus rode both the donkey and the colt. It’s obvious that, when the text says, “Jesus sat on them,” it means that he sat on the cloaks, not on the donkey and the colt.

Critics also allege that Matthew’s citation demonstrates a faulty understanding of Hebrew parallelism. In Zechariah 9:9, the “donkey” in the second-to-last line is the same animal as the “colt, the foal of a donkey” in the last line. Critics argue that, since Matthew refers to “the donkey and the colt” in verse 7, he sees two separate animals in Zechariah’s prophecy. Of course, such a conclusion is unlikely in light of Matthew’s extensive knowledge of Hebrew shown elsewhere in the book (e.g., his citation of Isa. 53:4a in Matt. 8:17). There’s also a compelling tradition that Matthew originally wrote his Gospel in Hebrew. Even if Matthew does use Zechariah 9:9 to prove the presence of two animals, he may be following a hyper-literal Rabbinic interpretation. If this is the case, his citation of Zechariah 9:9 isn’t the result of a misunderstanding, but of a thorough knowledge of both the text and the Rabbinic interpreters!

A final example is Matthew 22:37, which contains Jesus’ quotation of the greatest commandment: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.” The Shema, Judaism’s fundamental prayer of confession, reads, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.”How could any literate Jew misquote the Shema?

Ironically, this passage is further testimony to Matthew’s extensive knowledge of Hebrew. His use of the Greek preposition en corresponds more accurately to the Hebrew text than the use ofek in Mark and the LXX. The discrepancy in the Shema may indicate that the regular recitation of both Deuteronomy 6:4 and 6:5 was not established in Yeshua’s day. The Talmud concludes that the recitation of v. 4 is a Torah obligation,but that the recitation of v. 5 is a Rabbinic obligation (b. Ber 21b), making the inclusion of v. 5 a later practice. Also, Mark’s rendition reads, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength” (Mark 12:30). Mark uses the Greek ischus to translate the Hebrewme’od (“strength”). Matthew may have omitted the one word in Mark’s text not found in the LXX (the LXX reads dunamis rather than ischus) so as to restore the three-fold emphasis of the original Hebrew. Paul Foster’s extensive study concludes that Matthew’s rendering of the great commandment could not have been undertaken by a person who did not possess linguistic competence in both Hebrew and Greek, as well as a knowledge of the Hebrew biblical text. . . . The redactional reworking of the sources shows a sophisticated editor who attempted to produce greater conformity with existing biblical tradition but also did not wish to deviate from this well-known Jesus saying in too radical a fashion. (“Why Did Matthew Get the Shema Wrong? A Study of Matthew 22:37,” 333)

For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 4, pp. 3-21.

“Matthew 2:23 says that when Jesus moved to the town of Nazareth, this “fulfilled what was said through the prophets: ‘He will be called a Nazarene.'”There’s only one problem. The prophets never said this! Matthew actually made it up.”

Whenever Matthew connects an event in Yeshua’s life to a particular biblical prophecy, he usually says that the event took place “to fulfill what was said” by a specific prophet (Matt. 1:22; 2:15; 2:17; 4:14; 8:17; 12:17; 13:35; 21:4; 27:9); however, a different formula is used in Matthew 2:23: “So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: ‘He will be called a Nazarene.'” Matthew isn’t quoting a particular prophet (since no specific prophet is mentioned), but is giving a common theme throughout the prophetic writings.

Matthew 2:23 is connected to a larger Messianic theme found in the book of Isaiah. Matthew 1:23 cites Isaiah 7:14 and Matthew 4:12-16 cites Isaiah 9:1-2. Both of the Isaiah passages are part of a larger Messianic section in chapters 7-11. These chapters reach a climax in 11:1, which refers to the netser (“Branch”) that “will bear fruit.” There’s a play on words between netser and the Hebrew word for Nazareth. It is apparent that Matthew 2:23 points to (1) the larger Messianic context of Isaiah 7-11,(2) the common Messianic title “the Branch,” and (3) the humble origins of the Messiah revealed in his connection to lowly Nazareth.

A parallel to Matthew 2:23 is Ezra 9:10-12, in which Ezra quotes the Lord as saying, “The land you are entering to possess is a land polluted by the corruption of its peoples . . . . Therefore, do not give your daughters in marriage to their sons or take their daughters for your sons. Do not seek a treaty of friendship with them at any time.” Ezra does not directly quote the Tanakh, but summarizes its consistent prophetic message. Matthew’s similar citation reveals his extensive knowledge of Hebrew prophecy and demonstrates the complexities of God’s redemptive plan.

For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 4, pp. 24-27.

In response to this accusation, we will offer a general analysis of the New Testament’s reliability, followed by an analysis of two specifically Jewish objections and a brief look at Stephen’s speech in Acts 7. First, consider the testimony of Sir William M. Ramsay (1851-1939), an Oxford-trained scholar and archaeologist, who travelled through biblical lands to prove the untrustworthiness of the New Testament documents. Ramsay’s findings ultimately proved the exact opposite; his writings are still used to defend biblical reliability to this day. This former skeptic observed that the New Testament author Luke “is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy; he is possessed of the true historic sense. . . this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians” (Ramsay, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament, 239.

We will use Eric Snow’s three tests to establish New Testament trustworthiness: the bibliographical test, the internal evidence test, and the external evidence test.

The bibliographical test. This test analyzes a given document according to two criteria: (1) the number of existing handwritten manuscripts,and (2) the antiquity of the oldest existing manuscript (i.e., its nearness to the original writing). Critical scholars once claimed that many New Testament writings were non-existent until one hundred years after Jesus’ resurrection. These claims were based not on evidence, but on biases against the text. F.F. Bruce deduces that, from the “evidence available in our own day . . . a first century date for most of the New Testament writings cannot be reasonably denied, no matter what our philosophical presuppositions may be.”He also observed, “The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which no one dreams of questioning.” In fact, “if the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt,” but because the New Testament claims to be the Word of God, it is subject to greater scrutiny than other works.

How abundant is the evidence in favor of the New Testament? According to F.F. Bruce, there are about 5,000 partial or complete Greek New Testament manuscripts, including Codices Vaticanus (ca. 350 CE), Sinaiticus (ca. 350 CE), Alexandrinus (ca. 5th century CE), and Bezae (ca. 5th-6th century CE). There are also earlier papyri fragments, such as the Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri (ca. 3rdcentury CE), the Bell and Skeat papyri (ca. 150 CE), the Rylands papyrus (ca. 130 CE, the earliest existing fragment of the New Testament), and the Papyrus Bodmer II (ca. 200 CE). Furthermore, the Apostolic Fathers (ca. 90-160 CE) cite most of the New Testament books in their writings. These writings include the Epistle of Barnabas (ca. 100 CE), the Didache (ca. 96 CE), the letters of Ignatius to Antioch (ca. 115 CE), and Polycarp’s letter to Philippians (ca. 120 CE). Only a handful of existing reliable manuscripts testify to ancient works such as Caesar’s Gallic War, the Roman History of Livy, the Histories and Annals of Tacitus, the History of Thucydides, and the History of Herodotus; these copies are typically dated hundreds of years (and in the case of Thucydides, 1300 years) later than the original writings, yet the authenticity of the originals is never doubted.

There are certainly variants among the existing New Testament manuscripts. The more abundant the manuscript evidence is for a document, the more potential there is for copyist errors. At the same time, such evidence also increases the possibility of deciphering the original readings. Scholars known as textual critics have been able to analyze the abundant manuscript evidence of the New Testament and make significant progress in reconstructing the original documents. Bruce notes, “The variant readings about which any doubt remain among textual critics of the New Testament affect no material question of historic fact or of Christian faith and practice.”

The New Testament easily passes the bibliographical test, much more so than any other ancient Greek and Latin works. You might argue, “But the Tanakh has also been preserved with great care.” While this is true, were it not for the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the earliest manuscript of the Tanakh would date to over 1,300 years after the writing of its last book! The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls revealed minor variants and differing textual traditions underlying the Hebrew Bible. The textual traditions reflected in the DSS include the Masoretic, the Septuagint, and the Samaritan Pentateuch. The Tanakh and the New Testament both demonstrate God’s careful preservation of these sacred texts, even amidst differing readings and traditions in the extant copies.

The internal evidence test. This test analyzes a document based on two criteria: (1) the author’s nearness in time and place to the events he describes, and (2) the presence of “contradictions and self-evident absurdities” (Snow, Zeal for God, 20). In regard to the first criterion, the New Testament authors are predominantly eyewitnesses of the events they recount. Craig S. Keener observes,

On the continuum between more and less careful writers, the writers of the Gospels are among the most careful. . . . the first Gospels were written when eyewitnesses were still in positions of authority in the church and oral tradition could be checked, and this supports their reliability; biographies of roughly contemporary characters were normally far more accurate than those concerning heroes of the distant past. (The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, 39-40)

The New Testament authors reveal a strong acquaintance with the culture of their time. They often use Hebrew and Aramaic expressions unfamiliar to later audiences (e.g., Matt. 5:22; 6:24; Mark 14:36), along with precise details of local geography and customs (e.g., Matt. 27:6-8; Mark 11:1; Luke 19:29; John 1:28). They cite legal disputes that took place between Jesus and the Jewish religious leaders, disputes that would fit well into an early first-century context when Jewish law reflected more diversity and fluidity. The New Testament easily passes the first criterion of the internal evidence test.

In regard to the second criterion, there are four considerations. (1) The New Testament authors provide an astonishingly honest account, even to the point of revealing embarrassing blemishes in their lives. The Gospels consistently portray the weaknesses and failures of the disciples, including those of Peter, the chief leader of the early Christian movement. The Acts of the Apostles even points out an unresolved conflict between Paul and Barnabas (Acts 15:36-41). (2) The authors accurately record Jesus’ statements about his return, statements often misinterpreted to refer to an event that would take place in the disciples’ lifetimes. (3) Even when the authors record miracles, they do so carefully and with restraint. J. N. D. Anderson asks in regard to some of the New Testament miracles, “Who can read these stories and really think they’re legend? They are far too dignified and restrained; they are far too true to life and psychology. The difference between them and the sort of stories you find in the apocryphal gospels . . . is a difference between heaven and earth” (“The Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” Christianity Today, 29 March 1968, 6, cited in Snow, Zeal for God, 76).(4) No effort is made to fix apparent contradictions in the Gospels (e.g., Matt. 17:1, “after six days,” and Luke 9:28, “about eight days after”). Supposed discrepancies can be resolved when we consider that each Gospel writer approaches Yeshua’s life from a unique perspective. The New Testament also passes the second criterion of the internal evidence test.

The external evidence test. We must consider whether a document is in harmony with other writings of the time and with archeological findings. The power of external evidence was sufficient to convert Sir William Ramsey from a skeptic to a believer. Luke, the New Testament’s primary historian, repeatedly demonstrates historical accuracy. As Snow observes, “Whenever Luke could be checked, he has repeatedly proven to be correct” (Zeal for God, 90).

You might say, “I thought that there were all kinds of inaccuracies in the New Testament!” Supposed historical discrepancies in the New Testament are inevitably resolved when further evidence comes to light. F. F. Bruce cites two specific examples that are representative of many other apparent difficulties which, upon further investigation, actually confirm New Testament reliability.

1. Critics have pointed to Luke 2:2, which states that Quirinius was governor of Syria at the time of the Messiah’s birth, as an historical error. Quirinius, as Bruce states, “is known to have become imperial legate of Syria in AD 6, to have supervised in that year the enrolment mentioned in Acts v. 37” (86-88). Today however, many scholars acknowledge that Luke 2:1ff. describes an earlier enrollment than the one in 6 CE. Sir William Ramsay suggests that Quirinius was appointed first as “an additional and extraordinary legate for military purposes” (Bruce, 86-88). Other evidence suggests that Quirinius’s first governorship may have been in Galatia rather than Syria. The best translation of Luke 2:2 may be, “This census was before that which Quirinius, governor of Syria, held,” which would allow for the possibility that Quirinius was not actually governor of Syria at the time of the census.
2. Luke 3:1 says that Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene in the fifteenth year of Tiberius (27-28 CE). Although it has been alleged that the only Lysanias of Abilene in ancient history was executed in 34 BCE, the discovery of an ancient temple inscription has revealed a later Lysanias. There are many other examples of compelling evidence, and in some cases, such examples have converted skeptics.

We will now address three perceived historical inaccuracies in the New Testament: (1) the depiction of Pontius Pilate,(2) the depiction of the Jews in Yeshua’s day,and (3) the inaccuracies in Stephen’s speech (Acts 7).

In regard to Pontius Pilate, critics argue that the New Testament authors portray him as an indecisive leader eager to release Jesus. By contrast, history reveals him to be, as Rabbi Shmuley Boteach argues, “the cruelest Proconsul the Romans ever put into Judea.” Critics fail to recognize that Acts 4:27 and 1 Timothy 6:13, along with the early church creeds, clearly ascribe blame to Pontius Pilate. The New Testament authors don’t exonerate Pilate and they certainly don’t blame the Jews exclusively for Jesus’ death. As D.A. Carson says, “Both the Sanhedrin trial and the trial before Pilate were necessary for capital punishment” (“Matthew,”8:560).

Carson also notes that the reason for Pilate’s willingness to release Jesus may not be sympathy “for Jesus,” but spite “against the Sanhedrin” (EBC, 8:560). Pilate ordered Jesus to be scourged, a punishment that could nearly kill a man, and gave the order for crucifixion even while believing that Jesus was innocent. The New Testament view of Pilate is no milder than the images of him revealed in other historical documents.

What about the New Testament depiction of Jews in Yeshua’s day? Critics argue that the New Testament authors often twisted the facts to make the Jews seem worse than they really were. For instance, critics say that, in Matthew 22:33ff., Matthew edits Mark’s account (12:28ff.) of the great commandment to make the Jews look bad. In Mark, there’s allegedly a friendly exchange; the scribe who asks about the greatest commandment is deemed “not far from the kingdom of heaven.” Matthew portrays the question as springing from a contentious rabbinic plot to entrap Jesus. Mark also repeatedly notes the conflict between Jesus and the religious leaders (e.g., 3:6; 7:1-13; 8:11-12; 8:15; 10:2-9). The Mark and Matthew accounts are simply complementary depictions of the same event.

Acts 9:22-25 and 2 Corinthians 11:31-32 also offer complementary accounts of Paul’s escape from a violent protest. Critics allege that while the 2 Corinthians passage attributes the violence to a pagan king, Acts attributes it to Jewish protestors. What is the truth of the matter? The king likely persecuted Paul after the Jewish protestors reacted adversely to his preaching. Earlier in the same chapter, Paul vividly describes the persecution he endured from the Jews (v. 24, “five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one”). The New Testament authors never edited their writings to reflect anti-Semitic sentiments.

Finally, what about the apparent errors in Stephen’s speech? Three observations are in order. (1) Some supposed “errors” in Stephen’s speech are not really errors at all. Stephen says that seventy-five people in Jacob’s family left for Egypt, while Genesis 46:27 (MT) reports that there were only seventy; however, the LXX and a Qumran scroll both report that there were seventy-five, indicating a strong precedent for Stephen’s figure. (2) Stephen draws on a rich exegetical tradition that developed in his nation over hundreds of years. James Kugel, professor at the Orthodox Jewish Bar Ilan University, believes that such features as the angel who “spoke to [Moses] at Mount Sinai” and the “law delivered by angels” (Acts 7:38, 53 RSV) “might . . . be shown to reflect other well-known exegetical motifs” (218) from Jewish tradition. (3) Even if we concede that Stephen’s speech contains historical inaccuracies (a debatable claim), their presence does nothing to undermine biblical inerrancy. Under divine inspiration, Luke accurately records Stephen’s speech, even if some parts of the speech represent varying Jewish traditions. Inerrancy holds that Luke’s account of the speech is without error, not that the speech itself is without error.

Some of the greatest minds this world has ever seen have devoted their entire lives to the careful study of the New Testament text; some of history’s greatest skeptics have attacked it. There is nothing new that today’s critics will discover. The New Covenant has endured the test of time, and it continues to be worthy of our faith.

For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 4, pp. 41-59.

“None of the important historical writers of the period—Roman or Jewish—makemention of Jesus. It’s questionable whether he even existed.”

Yohanan ben Zakkai was perhaps the most significant influence in Rabbinic Judaism following the Roman siege of Jerusalem (67-70 CE). The Jewish Encyclopedia says, “He did more than any one else to prepare the way for Israel to rise again” (7:216). In spite of Rabbi Yohanan’s influence, he is never referenced in any external sources, including Josephus’s writings. Even so, to assert that Rabbi Yohanan didn’t exist would be ridiculous. To assert that Jesus didn’t exist would be even more ridiculous since numerous historical records mention him.

The following significant classical writers make reference to Jesus: Greek historian Thallus (ca. 55 CE), Roman senator and lawyer Pliny the Younger (ca. 61-113 CE), Roman lawyer Suetonius (ca. 70-140 CE), and Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus (ca. 56-120 CE). There are also less significant writers who testify of Jesus’ existence, including Mara bar Serapion (after 73 CE), Lucian of Samosata (ca. 115-200 CE), and Celsus (after 175 CE). These writers deal with Jesus from varying perspectives (sympathetic, hostile, and neutral) and languages (Greek, Latin, and Syriac).

Why aren’t there more references to Jesus in the literature of his day? Robert Van Hoorst suggestsseveral possibilities. Most classical works in Jesus’ day have been nearly destroyed. The surviving works demonstrate that classical historians were often hesitant to be the first to report a particular account. Furthermore, Christ wasn’t a major issue to Roman historians until Christianity became a threat to Rome. The testimony that does exist is compelling.

Josephus, the most important Jewish historian of the first century, also testifies to the existence of Jesus, John the Immerser, and Jacob (or James), Jesus’ brother. Nearly all of the Josephus manuscripts we have demonstrate expansion by later Christians; however, it is widely believed that some sections original to Josephus testify of Jesus. Antiquities 20.9.1, § 200 references James as “the brother of Jesus called Christ,” and Antiquities 18.3.3 § 63-64 calls Jesus “a worker of amazing deeds and a teacher of the people” condemned to the cross by Pilate.

There are also references to Jesus in the Talmud, some of whichare disputed, such as mentions of “Balaam,” “Ben Stada,” and “Yeshu.” There are, nonetheless, some passages that indisputably refer to Jesus, such as an account noting that “Jesus the Nazarene” was “hanged” on “the eve of Passover” (b. Sanh43a; t. Sanh10:11; y. Sanh7:16, 67a).

Moses Maimonides (1135-1204) also testifies of Jesus, noting that he “aspired to be the Messiah and was executed by the court” (Hilchot Melachim 11:4). The citations of Maimonides and the Talmud should settle the question of Jesus’ existence for all devout Jews. You should focus not on whether Jesus existed, but on who he really was.

Isaiah 53:2 speaks to the humble life of the Messiah; he would grow up “like a tender shoot” with “no beauty or majesty to attract us to him.” After prophesying the Messiah’s affliction and death, Isaiah expresses God’s promise, “I will give him a portion among the great and he will divide the spoils with the strong” (53:12). We conclude with the words of a noteworthy essay:

Here is a man who was born in an obscure village, the child of a peasant woman. He grew up in another village. He worked in a carpenter shop until He was thirty. Then for three years He was an itinerant preacher.

He never owned a home. He never wrote a book. He never held an office. He never had a family. He never went to college. He never put His foot inside a big city. He never traveled two hundred miles from the place He was born. He never did one of the things that usually accompany greatness. He had no credentials but Himself . . .

While still a young man, the tide of popular opinion turned against him. His friends ran away. One of them denied Him. He was turned over to His enemies. He went through the mockery of a trial. He was nailed upon a cross between two thieves. While He was dying His executioners gambled for the only piece of property He had on earth—His coat. When He was dead, He was laid in a borrowed grave through the pity of a friend.

Nineteen long centuries have come and gone, and today He is a centerpiece of the human race and leader of the column of progress.

I am far within the mark when I say that all the armies that ever marched, all the navies that were ever built; all the parliaments that ever sat and all the kings that ever reigned, put together, have not affected the life of man upon this earth as powerfully as has that one solitary life. (Graham Pockett, “One Solitary Life”)

For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 4, pp. 59-66.

“Jesus was not born of a virgin. In fact, we have traditions that actually tell us who Jesus’ real father was—and it wasn’t Joseph! Anyway, the idea of a god being born to a virgin is just one of several pagan myths that made its way into the New Testament.”

If your fiancée came to you and said that she was pregnant, but that she hadn’t lost her virginity, how seriously would you take her story? Perhaps you can imagine how Joseph felt when he discovered that Miriam was with child. Joseph determined that he would quietly divorce Miriam so as to avoid making a public mockery of her (Matt. 1:19). After an angel appeared to Joseph, he decided to go through with the marriage, but he avoided intercourse with Miriam until after Jesus’ birth (vv.24-25). To say that the virgin birth was hard to swallow is an enormous understatement!

Joseph’s account of an angel visitation wasn’t wishful thinking; the Torah did provide a way to confirm the virginity of a newlywed young lady (Deut. 22:13-21). The Law mandated that a woman be stoned to death if she couldn’t prove her virginity upon the accusation of her new husband. If Joseph doubted his wife’s account, he could have simply gone ahead with the marriage, slept with Miriam, and then checked to see whether she had bled. The culture in Joseph’s day was much different from our own; he would never have gone through with the marriage if he had determined that Miriam was no longer a virgin. Nevertheless, the subsequent birth, life, death, and resurrection of Miriam’s child left little room for doubt that he was virgin born. Yeshua’s virgin birth explains how he could be both human and divine.

Some people erroneously conclude that the virgin birth account was simply a cover-up of Miriam’s adultery; however, the common rumor circulating at the time wasn’t that Jesus was illegitimate, but that he was “the carpenter’s son” (Matt. 13:55) or “Joseph’s son” (Luke 4:22; John 1:45-46; 6:41-42). Jewish accounts of Jesus’ illegitimacy actually arose because of the New Testament’s virgin birth account. The Gospel writers wouldn’t concoct a story about a virgin birth knowing it wasn’t true; they surely knew that such an account would likely lead to rumors of illegitimacy. Rumors of this sort would do little to bolster the claims of the Gospel writers!

What about the claim that the virgin birth reflects pagan mythology? First, no major cult or religion (not even one that twists many practices and teachings from the Bible) in the last 1,900 years has ever claimed a virgin birth for its founder. Some cult leaders have claimed the ability to rise from the dead, but none were so foolish as to assert a virgin birth. Second, pagan mythology contains no parallels to the virgin birth. W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, Jr., authors of an exhaustive commentary on Matthew, argue, “Conception without a male element in some form, parthenogenesis in the strict sense, does not seem to be attested. . . .None of the proposed parallels, either pagan or Jewish, seemingly accounts for the story we find in the New Testament.” Pagan gods who take on human form and sexually seduce a woman hardly provide a parallel to the Gospel accounts. Pagan accounts of creation and the flood bear far greater resemblance to their biblical counterparts than do any purported parallels to the virgin birth.

Finally, there are those who claim that the New Testament authors as a whole didn’t seem to know about Yeshua’s virgin birth. To the contrary, both Matthew and Luke describe the virgin birth in great detail (Matt. 1-2; Luke 1-2). While Mark and John don’t discuss Jesus’ birth, they do ascribe divine titles to him (e.g., “Son of God” and “Word made flesh”). Furthermore, Paul also refers to Jesus as God’s Son (Rom. 1:3-4) and claims that he “appeared in a body” (1 Tim. 3:16). The above authors account for 95% of the New Testament writings, making it untenable to conclude that the New Testament authors were unaware of the virgin birth.

For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 4, pp. 70-76.

“Jesus cannot be the Messiah, because he is a descendant of King Jehoiachin. God cursed both this king and his offspring, saying that none of his descendants would ever sit on the throne of David.”

Matthew 1:12 traces Yeshua’s ancestral line through Jeconiah (or Jehoiachin). This grandson of Josiah reigned in Jerusalem for a mere three months prior to the Babylonian exile. The Lord placed this curse on Jeconiah, “Record this man as if childless, a man who will not prosper in his lifetime, for none of his offspring will prosper, none will sit on the throne of David or rule anymore in Judah” (Jer. 22:30). Some New Testament scholars would argue that Jeconiah’s curse prohibits any of his future descendants from reigning on David’s throne, and that therefore the only solution is the virgin birth. We need not accept this argument because (1) the Tanakh strongly indicates that the curse was reversed and (2) the curse may only have dealt with Jeconiah’s immediate offspring.

In the curse on Jehoiachin, the Lord specifically addresses “his [Jehoiachin’s] lifetime” along with the lifetimes of his “offspring.” Neither Jehoiachin nor his sons would enjoy restoration to the throne in their lifetimes. According to Walter Kaiser, an archaeological finding proves that all seven of Jehoiachin’s sons were made eunuchs after they were taken to Babylon (Hard Sayings of the Bible, 310). In his commentary on Jeremiah, John Bright concludes, “The figure is that of a census list. Jehoiachin is to be entered as childless since, as far as throne succession was concerned, he was as good as that” (Jeremiah,Anchor Bible).

A similar passage (Jer. 36:30) prophesies that Jehoiakim (Jehoiachin’s father) “will have no one to sit on the throne of David.” However, Jehoiachin did sit on David’s throne for three months prior to the Babylonian exile. It’s best to take Jeremiah 36:30 as a promise that Jehoiachin would enjoy nothing more than a brief reign devoid of divine blessing. Unfortunately, the interpretation of Jeremiah 22:30 is needlessly pushed much further than that of Jeremiah 36:30.

There’s no indication of a perpetual curse, and even if the curse were intended to be perpetual, there’s evidence that Jehoiachin repented and reversed the curse. Jeremiah 52:31-34 indicates that the king of Babylon began to show Jehoiachin unusual favor after 37 years of exile, even allowing him to “eat regularly at the king’s table.” In light of the divine fury directed against Jehoiachin in Jeremiah 22:24-29, this reversal of circumstances is quite striking, suggesting that the king had a change of heart. Also, God addresses Jehoiachin’s grandson Zerubbabel, governor of Judah after the exile, by saying, “I will take you, my servant Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel . . . and I will make you like my signet ring, for I have chosen you'” (Hag. 2:23). Note the contrast in God’s pronouncement upon Jehoiachin in Jeremiah 22:24: “As surely as I live . . . even if you, Jehoiachin . . . were a signet ring on my right hand, I would still pull you off.” The signet ring signified a close and personal connection with God. Haggai 2:23 strongly indicates a reversal of the curse for Jeconiah’s descendants.

Rabbinic writings cite the above texts as evidence that Jehoiachin repented. Pesikta de Rav Kahana 24:11 cites the Rabbis as saying, “Great is the power of repentance, which led God to set aside an oath even as it led Him to set aside a decree.” The Rabbis concluded that Jehoiachin’s repentance led God to set aside the curse. The Rabbinic text, translated by William G. Braude and Israel J. Kapstein, goes on to say, “God consulted the heavenly court, and they released Him from His oath” (Pesikta de-Rab Kahana, 316). The Rabbinic account emphatically suggests a belief in Jehoiachin’s repentance.

Anti-missionaries continue to cite Jeconiah’s curse as evidence against Jesus’ Messianic claims; however, in doing so, they contradict Rabbinic tradition! Even though they are well-versed in the Rabbinic writings, their use of this argument demonstrates hypocrisy and inconsistency.

For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 4, pp. 97-102.

“The Messiah is David’s son. If Jesus were really born of a virgin, then Joseph was not his father and he is really not a descendant of David, even according to Matthew’s genealogy. And if you claim that Luke’s genealogy is that of Mary, Jesus still doesn’t qualify, since the genealogy in Luke goes through David’s son Nathan, whereas the Messianic promises must go through David’s son Solomon. Therefore, Jesus cannot be the Messiah.”

The Jews for Judaism argue that Joseph could not have passed on his genealogy to Yeshua, for “there is no Biblical basis for the idea of a father passing on his tribal line by adoption.” They also argue that Jesus could not claim Davidic descent through his mother Miriam because: a) “There is no evidence that Mary descends from David”; b) “Tribal affiliation goes only through the father, not mother”; and c) “Messiah must be a descendent of David through his son Solomon.” (They also address Jeconiah’s curse, an issue we deal with elsewhere on this site.)

The claim that an adopted father cannot pass along the tribal line is immaterial because: (1) Luke’s genealogy goes through Miriam, not Joseph,(2) a good case can be made for genealogical descent through a woman when there are no male heirs, and (3) the Messiah is both David’s son (a physical descendant) and his lord (more than a physical descendant).

In regard to the third point, the Messiah’s superiority to David is demonstrated both by the Tanakh and by Rabbinic tradition. Sanhedrin 98a says that, if we are worthy, the Messiah will come in the clouds (Dan. 7:13-14), but if we are unworthy, he will come riding on a donkey (Zech. 9:9). The difficulty is that both Daniel 7 and Zechariah 9 represent prophecies that must be fulfilled. The only way to resolve the apparent difficulty is through the virgin birth!

The Tanakh presents the Messiah as the son of David (e.g., Isa. 11:1-6); however, it also presents him as superior to David. Daniel 7:13-14 portrays the Messiah as an exalted, heavenly figure worthy of worship and service, and in Psalm 110, David addresses the Messiah as his “lord.” (While this interpretation is disputed, it does have precedent in Rabbinic sources [e.g., Midrash Tehillim 2:9; 18:29].) Other Rabbinic traditions assert the Messiah’s preexistence, his communion with God, and his superiority to Abraham, Moses, and the angels.

The virgin birth provides the solution to the conundrum that the Messiah is both David’s son and his lord. Jesus is a physical descendant of David through Miriam, yet he is also descended from the heavenly throne. Yeshua’s human and divine natures indicate that, while he is indeed a son of David, he is also greater than David. (See Luke 3:22-23; Luke records God’s pronouncement of Jesus as “Son” and proceeds to give his physical genealogy.)

There is compelling evidence that Luke’s genealogy goes through Miriam rather than Joseph. (1) Early sources don’t reveal any debate about Yeshua’s Davidic lineage. (2) The angel Gabriel’s announcement indicates that Miriam was a descendant of David: “He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David” (Luke 1:32).(3) The New Testament authors and scribes wouldn’t have preserved two contradictory ancestries. It’s more likely that one refers to Joseph, while the other refers to Miriam. (4) The Greek construction of Luke 3:23 certainly allows for the genealogy to be that of Miriam, stating, in effect, that Yeshua was thought to be the son of Joseph but was actually the (grand)son of Heli.(5) No evidence indicates that the genealogy isn’t Miriam’s.

Does tribal affiliation come only through the father? The Tanakh indicates that it does not. When a father died after bearing only daughters, the daughters and their husbands passed on the inheritance (a distinct but related concept to genealogy) as long as their husbands were part of the same tribe (Num. 27:1-11; 36:1-12; Ezra 2:61). Miriam and Joseph were both from the tribe of Judah and the Davidic line. John Nolland shares U. Holzmeister’s proposal:

Holzmeister argues that Mary was an heiress (i.e., had no brothers) whose father Eli, in line with a biblical tradition concerned with the maintenance of the family line in cases where there was no male heir (Ezra 2:61 = Neh 7:63; Num 32:41 cf. 1 Chr 2:21-22, 34-35; Num 27:3-8), on the marriage of his daughter to Joseph, adopted Joseph as his own son. Matthew gives Joseph’s ancestry by birth, Luke that by adoption. (170)

Additionally, 1 Chronicles 2:34-36 says, “Sheshan had no sons—only daughters. He had an Egyptian servant named Jarha. Sheshan gave his daughter in marriage to his servant Jarha, and she bore him Attai. Attai was the father of Nathan, Nathan the father of Zabad.” Even though Sheshan’s daughter married an Egyptian servant, she continued to perpetuate the family name since Sheshan had no sons.

The Tanakh also refers to some of David’s mighty men as “sons of Zeruiah” (1 Chron. 2:13-16; 2 Sam. 2:13; 1 Sam. 26:6, et al.). We don’t know precisely why Zeruiah is listed in the genealogical record rather than her husband; nevertheless, this example (along with that of Sheshan) shows clear biblical precedent for citing the mother rather than the father in the ancestral registry.

Must the Messiah come through Solomon? Let’s look at God’s covenant with David:

When your days are over and you rest with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, who will come from your own body, and I will establish his kingdom. He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with the rod of men, with floggings inflicted by men. But my love will never be taken away from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me; your throne will be established forever. (2 Sam. 7:12-16)

God unconditionally promised David that his “house” and “kingdom” would “endure forever” (2 Sam. 7:16); however, note the contrast in God’s promise to Solomon: “I will establish his kingdom if he is unswerving in carrying out my commands and laws” (1 Chron. 28:7). Solomon’s claim to the Davidic promises was conditioned upon his obedience. Solomon married many foreign women and embraced idols; he failed to meet the condition established by God (1 Kings 11:1-8).As a result of Solomon’s rebellion, his throne did not endure forever (1 Kings 11:9-13). Some Rabbinic traditions assert that Solomon lost the throne in his own lifetime (y. Sanh 2:6; b. Meg. 11b)! Yes, Solomon’s descendants continued to rule over the southern kingdom, but once the monarchy was exiled in 586 BCE, there’s no evidence that subsequent rulers would need a Solomonic lineage.

Anti-missionaries conveniently avoid discussion of 1 Kings 9:4-9, where God tells Solomon,

“As for you, if you walk before me in integrity of heart and uprightness, as David your father did, and do all I command and observe my decrees and laws, I will establish your royal throne over Israel forever, as I promised David your father when I said, ‘You shall never fail to have a man on the throne of Israel.’ But if you or your sons turn away from me and do not observe the commands and decrees I have given you and go off to serve other gods and worship them, then I will cut off Israel from the land I have given them and will reject this temple I have consecrated for my Name. Israel will then become a byword and an object of ridicule among all peoples. And though this temple is now imposing, all who pass by will be appalled and will scoff and say, ‘Why has the LORD done such a thing to this land and to this temple?’ People will answer, ‘Because they have forsaken the LORD their God, who brought their fathers out of Egypt, and have embraced other gods, worshiping and serving them—thatis why the LORD brought all this disaster on them.'”

Hebrew scholar Ziony Zevit interprets 1 Kings 9:4-9 as a refusal of Solomon’s request in 1 Kings 8:25-26 for an unconditional guarantee. God tells Solomon that failure to meet divine conditions would result in exile and the Temple’s destruction. God promised unconditional faithfulness to David’s line, not Solomon’s line. The Tanakh consistently refers to the “throne of David” rather than the “throne of Solomon.”

Rabbinic tradition also offers no evidence of the Messiah’s Solomonic descent and the Talmud and Law Codes never state that Messiah must descend from Solomon. The only time Rabbinic literature uses the phrase “son of Solomon” is in reference to Solomon’s direct offspring, Rehoboam. Moses Maimonides makes no reference to Solomonic descent in the Mishneh Torah. We don’t even find the Solomonic argument in the medieval Christianity/Judaism debates or in the anti-missionary classic Hizzuk Emunah (“Faith Strengthened”).

Finally, anti-missionaries reference 2 Kings 11:11. In this passage, Athaliah eradicates all possible heirs to the throne by destroying only the royal family males. Anti-missionaries cite this as proof that Davidic descent couldn’t come through the mother. Athaliah was only eliminating immediate heirs so that she could become queen. She wasn’t focused on God’s ultimate promises to the Davidic dynasty, and she likely didn’t consider the more complex issues related to genealogy and inheritance.

For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 4, pp. 83-97.

“The genealogies of Jesus given by Matthew and Luke are hopelessly contradictory.”

While some claim that the genealogies deal a serious blow to New Testament reliability, Matthew and Luke cite them for two reasons: (1) they serve as critical evidence of Jesus’ Messianic claims and (2) they’re true! Still, there are apparent discrepancies when we place the two accounts side-by-side beginning with David (the alleged problems are underlined):

Matthew: David, Solomon, Rehoboam, Abijah, Asa, Jehoshaphat, Jehoram, Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah, Manasseh, Amon, Josiah, Jeconiah, Shealtiel, Zerubbabel, Abiud, Eliakim, Azor, Zadok, Akim, Eliud, Eleazar, Matthan, Jacob, Joseph, Jesus.

Luke: David, Nathan Mattatha, Menna, Melea, Eliakim, Jonam, Joseph, Judah, Simeon, Levi, Matthat, Jorim, Eliezer, Joshua, Er, Elmadam, Cossam, Addi, Melki, Neri, Shealtiel, Zerubbabel, Rhesa, Joanan, Joda, Josech, Semein, Mattathias, Maath, Naggai, Esli, Nahum, Amos, Mattathias, Joseph, Jannai, Melki, Levi, Matthat, Heli, Joseph (?), Jesus.

First, Matthew lists 26 names between David and Jesus, while Luke lists 41. This contrast is not without precedent in the Tanakh. William Henry Green did an extensive comparison of the priestly genealogies in 1 Chronicles 6:3-14 and Ezra 7:1-15 and found that Ezra’s version was significantly abridged. In Matthew, the term “son” doesn’t always indicate immediate offspring (Yeshua is called “son of David” and “son of Abraham”). Furthermore, Matthew’s division of his genealogy into groups of fourteens (1:17) reveals either a mnemonic or a symbolic purpose.

Matthew connects Yeshua to Solomon’s line, while Luke connects him to Nathan’s line. This too is no difficulty, for Matthew gives Joseph’s ancestry, while Luke gives Miriam’s.

What about Shealtiel, father of Zerubbabel? Why does Matthew list his father as Jeconiah, while Luke lists him as Neri? Glenn Miller suggests that there are two separate Shealtiels in view, observing that they have “different parents” and “different children,” being descendants of “different sons of David.” He offers three evidences for this suggestion:

1. Zerubbabel was a common name from the early Persian period (539-331bc.), as shown by cuneiform inscriptions from Babylonia (see ZPEB , V. 1057)
2. The genealogies themselves have numerous names that repeat WITHIN the genealogy (e.g. Joseph, Mattathias, Judah) without being the same individuals; These names could also be common names.
3. The names in the genealogies are standard, common, everyday names. We have NUMEROUS people named Levi, Amos, Nahum, etc. in the OT accounts. There is just NO REASON to associate the S+Z of Luke with the S+Z of Matthew. (And even the pattern of S-followed-by-Z doesn’t carry much weight–families often honored prominent people this way.) (“Problems in the Genealogies of Jesus”)

There’s no hard evidence against Miller’s conclusion. Luke’s Gospel demonstrates careful research (1:1-4); he wouldn’t be likely to stray from his sources (1 Chron. 3 and possibly Matt. 1).

This discrepancy may also be due to a levirate marriage (i.e., a marriage in which a childless widow marries her deceased husband’s brother to continue the family name). In such cases, the genealogy lists the name of either the deceased husband or the biological father. A levirate marriage may also explain a similar discrepancy in the Tanakh in which Zerubbabel is called the son of both Shealtiel (Ezra 3:2; Neh. 12:1; Hag. 1:1) and Pedaiah (1 Chron. 3:17-19). Miller’s suggestion and the possibility of levirate marriage are both plausible explanations for this conundrum.

The problems in the Gospel genealogies are actually easier to resolve than similar issues in the Hebrew Bible. For instance, Genesis 11 records that Terah “became the father of Abram, Nahor and Haran” when he was 70 years old (v. 26) and died at 205 (v. 32). These figures would make Abram 135 years old when he left Haran, not 75 as the text records (Gen. 12:4). Walter Kaiser suggests that Genesis 11:26 refers to Terah’s age when he began having children, not to his age when Abram was born.

In 1 Samuel 17:55-58, after David slew Goliath, Saul tells Abner, “Find out whose son this young man is.” In the previous chapter however, Saul makes David one of his armor-bearers (16:14-23). Rashi interprets 1 Samuel 17:55, “Our Rabbis said: Did he not recognize him? Is it not stated: ‘And he became his weapon bearer’ (supra 16:21)? But, (rather this is the explanation): he saw him behaving in a kingly manner.”

If we gladly grant some leeway to deal with apparent contradictions in the Tanakh, why can we not do the same with New Testament issues? There are more problems with the genealogies in the Tanakh than there are in the New Testament. Before you harshly criticize the New Testament genealogies, perhaps you should try to resolve all of the apparent issues in the Tanakh’s genealogies first!

Did the Gospel writers have access to accurate ancestry records? D. A. Carson cites examples from Josephus, Rabbi Hillel, and Eusebius that clearly demonstrate the accessibility of Davidic ancestry records in Yeshua’s day. It was much easier to validate Davidic descent in New Testament times (before the Temple was destroyed) than it is to validate it today.

For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 4, pp. 76-83.

“The genealogies of Jesus given by Matthew and Luke are hopelessly contradictory.”

While some claim that the genealogies deal a serious blow to New Testament reliability, Matthew and Luke cite them for two reasons: (1) they serve as critical evidence of Jesus’ Messianic claims and (2) they’re true! Still, there are apparent discrepancies when we place the two accounts side-by-side beginning with David (the alleged problems are underlined):

Matthew: David, Solomon, Rehoboam, Abijah, Asa, Jehoshaphat, Jehoram, Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah, Manasseh, Amon, Josiah, Jeconiah, Shealtiel, Zerubbabel, Abiud, Eliakim, Azor, Zadok, Akim, Eliud, Eleazar, Matthan, Jacob, Joseph, Jesus.

Luke: David, Nathan Mattatha, Menna, Melea, Eliakim, Jonam, Joseph, Judah, Simeon, Levi, Matthat, Jorim, Eliezer, Joshua, Er, Elmadam, Cossam, Addi, Melki, Neri, Shealtiel, Zerubbabel, Rhesa, Joanan, Joda, Josech, Semein, Mattathias, Maath, Naggai, Esli, Nahum, Amos, Mattathias, Joseph, Jannai, Melki, Levi, Matthat, Heli, Joseph (?), Jesus.

First, Matthew lists 26 names between David and Jesus, while Luke lists 41. This contrast is not without precedent in the Tanakh. William Henry Green did an extensive comparison of the priestly genealogies in 1 Chronicles 6:3-14 and Ezra 7:1-15 and found that Ezra’s version was significantly abridged. In Matthew, the term “son” doesn’t always indicate immediate offspring (Yeshua is called “son of David” and “son of Abraham”). Furthermore, Matthew’s division of his genealogy into groups of fourteens (1:17) reveals either a mnemonic or a symbolic purpose.

Matthew connects Yeshua to Solomon’s line, while Luke connects him to Nathan’s line. This too is no difficulty, for Matthew gives Joseph’s ancestry, while Luke gives Miriam’s.

What about Shealtiel, father of Zerubbabel? Why does Matthew list his father as Jeconiah, while Luke lists him as Neri? Glenn Miller suggests that there are two separate Shealtiels in view, observing that they have “different parents” and “different children,” being descendants of “different sons of David.” He offers three evidences for this suggestion:

1. Zerubbabel was a common name from the early Persian period (539-331bc.), as shown by cuneiform inscriptions from Babylonia (see ZPEB , V. 1057)
2. The genealogies themselves have numerous names that repeat WITHIN the genealogy (e.g. Joseph, Mattathias, Judah) without being the same individuals; These names could also be common names.
3. The names in the genealogies are standard, common, everyday names. We have NUMEROUS people named Levi, Amos, Nahum, etc. in the OT accounts. There is just NO REASON to associate the S+Z of Luke with the S+Z of Matthew. (And even the pattern of S-followed-by-Z doesn’t carry much weight–families often honored prominent people this way.) (“Problems in the Genealogies of Jesus”)

There’s no hard evidence against Miller’s conclusion. Luke’s Gospel demonstrates careful research (1:1-4); he wouldn’t be likely to stray from his sources (1 Chron. 3 and possibly Matt. 1).

This discrepancy may also be due to a levirate marriage (i.e., a marriage in which a childless widow marries her deceased husband’s brother to continue the family name). In such cases, the genealogy lists the name of either the deceased husband or the biological father. A levirate marriage may also explain a similar discrepancy in the Tanakh in which Zerubbabel is called the son of both Shealtiel (Ezra 3:2; Neh. 12:1; Hag. 1:1) and Pedaiah (1 Chron. 3:17-19). Miller’s suggestion and the possibility of levirate marriage are both plausible explanations for this conundrum.

The problems in the Gospel genealogies are actually easier to resolve than similar issues in the Hebrew Bible. For instance, Genesis 11 records that Terah “became the father of Abram, Nahor and Haran” when he was 70 years old (v. 26) and died at 205 (v. 32). These figures would make Abram 135 years old when he left Haran, not 75 as the text records (Gen. 12:4). Walter Kaiser suggests that Genesis 11:26 refers to Terah’s age when he began having children, not to his age when Abram was born.

In 1 Samuel 17:55-58, after David slew Goliath, Saul tells Abner, “Find out whose son this young man is.” In the previous chapter however, Saul makes David one of his armor-bearers (16:14-23). Rashi interprets 1 Samuel 17:55, “Our Rabbis said: Did he not recognize him? Is it not stated: ‘And he became his weapon bearer’ (supra 16:21)? But, (rather this is the explanation): he saw him behaving in a kingly manner.”

If we gladly grant some leeway to deal with apparent contradictions in the Tanakh, why can we not do the same with New Testament issues? There are more problems with the genealogies in the Tanakh than there are in the New Testament. Before you harshly criticize the New Testament genealogies, perhaps you should try to resolve all of the apparent issues in the Tanakh’s genealogies first!

Did the Gospel writers have access to accurate ancestry records? D. A. Carson cites examples from Josephus, Rabbi Hillel, and Eusebius that clearly demonstrate the accessibility of Davidic ancestry records in Yeshua’s day. It was much easier to validate Davidic descent in New Testament times (before the Temple was destroyed) than it is to validate it today.

For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 4, pp. 76-83.

Both Matthew and Luke describe the virgin birth in great detail (Matt. 1-2; Luke 1-2). While Mark and John don’t discuss Jesus’ birth, they do ascribe divine titles to him (e.g., “Son of God” and “Word made flesh”). Furthermore, Paul also refers to Jesus as God’s Son (Rom. 1:3-4) and claims that he “appeared in a body” (1 Tim. 3:16). The above authors account for 95% of the New Testament writings, making it untenable to conclude that the New Testament authors were unaware of the virgin birth.

“Jesus didn’t fulfill any of the Messianic prophecies. We know that the New Covenant writers actually reconstructed the life of Jesus so as to harmonize it with certain predictions made by the prophets.”

We establish Jesus’ fulfillment of all pre-70 CE Messianic prophecies elsewhere, but we offer three further observations here.

1. Yeshua died under the Romans as an ‘asham (“guilt offering”) who atoned for the world’s sins. The Tanakh predicted that the Messiah’s own people would refuse him (Isa. 53:3-5), but that the Gentiles would globally embrace him (Isa. 42:1-7; 49:3-7; 52:13-15). It’s easy to think that the disciples would have been discouraged after Yeshua’s death, so much that they might have tried to recreate the events of Yeshua’s life in light of biblical prophecy, but how do you explain the fulfillment of biblical prophecy today as Gentile crowds worldwide find redemption in the crucified and risen Jesus? This factor gives great credence to the New Testament authors’ claims.
2. The disciples never shy away from Jesus’ identity as King of the Jews (Matt. 2:2; 27:11, 39, 37) in spite of their bewilderment at his death. The disciples couldn’t understand how Jesus’ suffering and death would fit into a biblical picture of Messiah’s majestic rule. Luke records Zechariah, John the Immerser’s father, as saying,

   Praise be to the Lord, the God of Israel,
   because he has come and has redeemed his people.
   He has raised up a horn of salvation for us
   in the house of his servant David
   (as he said through his holy prophets of long ago),
   salvation from our enemies
   and from the hand of all who hate us—
   to show mercy to our fathers
   and to remember his holy covenant,
   the oath he swore to our father Abraham:
   to rescue us from the hand of our enemies,
   and to enable us to serve him without fear
   in holiness and righteousness before him all our days. (Luke 1:68-75)

    

   The Gospel writers could have noted from the beginning that Jesus was fulfilling different prophecies than those related to the Messiah’s glorious reign, but instead they portray the disciples’ confusion as to how Jesus could fulfill the prophecies.

3. The connection between an event and its prophetic antecedent is sometimes unclear. For instance, Jesus’ coming from Nazareth and the virgin birth don’t initially appear to be based on the Hebrew Scriptures, yet Matthew connects both of these events to the Tanakh. This means that it is only after the events of Jesus’ life that the New Testament authors gained insight into the meaning of the Scriptures; they did not fabricate details about Jesus’ life to fit the Messianic prophecies.

For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 4, pp. 106-109.

“Matthew claims that when Jesus died on the cross, “the tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus’ resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people” (Matt. 27:52-53). This is obviously complete nonsense, without any hint of historical support. If such an incredible event ever took place—something like “the night of the living dead” in ancient Jerusalem—someone would have recorded it.”

Is Matthew’s account beyond belief? What about the Tanakh’s accounts of the sun standing still (Josh. 10:12-14) or Elijah’s calling down of fire (1 Kings 18; 2 Kings 1)? What about Israel’s exodus out of Egypt, an event not recorded by Egyptian historians? What about the dead body that returned to life after being touched by Elisha’s bones (2 Kings 13:20-21), the moving back of the sundial as a sign of Hezekiah’s healing (Isa. 38:8), or the angel’s slaying of 185,000 Assyrian soldiers in one night (2 Kings 19:35)? If these events are credible, why is Matthew 27:52-53 not equally credible? If you can accept these events, why can’t you accept what Matthew has written? The fact that only Matthew records this event doesn’t mean that this resurrection didn’t happen. There are no archeological findings or historical accounts that would disprove Matthew’s report.

It’s unlikely that anyone outside of the Gospel writers (e.g., a Roman historian or a Rabbinic author) would have recorded an event like this. Such an account would go too far in establishing Jesus’ Messianic claims! There also aren’t many historical records still in existence from that time and place.

The Matthew 27 account has significant theological implications. Samuel Tobias Lachs describes the rising of the dead as “commonplace” event in “messianic times” (Rabbinic Commentary on the New Testament, 435). The New Testament connects the resurrection of the righteous with Jesus’ return (1 Cor. 15:50-52; 1 Thess. 4:13-17). John Nolland sees Matthew 27:52-53 as anticipatory of this future resurrection. Let’s look at Matthew’s description of this event:

From the sixth hour until the ninth hour darkness came over all the land. About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lamasabachthani?”–which means, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” When some of those standing there heard this, they said, “He’s calling Elijah.” Immediately one of them ran and got a sponge. He filled it with wine vinegar, put it on a stick, and offered it to Jesus to drink. The rest said, “Now leave him alone. Let’s see if Elijah comes to save him.” And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit. At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split. The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus’ resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people. (Matt. 27:45-53)

There is a notable parallel between the events of Matthew 27 and the phenomena associated with Jesus’ return (e.g., the sky’s darkening, the earthquake, the rending of the Temple curtain).

We can only speculate about what happened to the resurrected bodies in Matthew’s account. Perhaps they returned to the grave. More likely, they continued living and then died again or they were translated like Enoch and Elijah. It’s apparent that this event, in connection with Jesus’ resurrection, made quite an impact. Peter, an eyewitness of the account, preached about the Messiah’s resurrection not long after it happened, and 3,000 people came to faith as a result. In light of the miracles in the Tanakh and the eyewitness accounts of Jesus’ disciples, to believe that this event occurred is totally reasonable.

For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 4, pp. 119-123.

“The teachings of Jesus are impossible, dangerous, and un-Jewish (“Hate your mother and father”; “Let the dead bury their own dead”; “Give to whoever asks you”; etc.). There’s no way he should be followed.”

God is a jealous God who demands exclusive worship from his followers (Exod. 20:2-5). As God, he has the authority to demand such loyalty. This authority is demonstrated repeatedly throughout the Law. When Moses discovered the idolatry of the people while he was on Mt. Sinai, he called on the Levites to slay their idolatrous Israelite brothers (Exod. 32:35-29). Under the Law, Israelites were responsible for executing their own idolatrous family members:

If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again. (Deut. 13:6-11)

I wonder how some would react if these instructions came from Jesus’ lips! But note how the Ask Moses website renders these commands in modern language:

36. Not to missionize an individual to idol worship—Deuteronomy13:12
37. Not to love the missionary—Deuteronomy13:9
38. Not to cease hating the missionary—Deuteronomy13:9
39. Not to save the missionary—Deuteronomy13:9
40. Not to say anything in his defense—Deuteronomy13:9
41. Not to refrain from incriminating him—Deuteronomy13:9

Jesus teaches love, not hatred, calling on his followers to overcome evil with good, yet here, those who would criticize his teachings as extreme and dangerous advocate hatred towards those who are considered missionaries of idolatry.

When Jesus makes demands, they ultimately reflect those of his Father. “He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him” (John 5:23b). “He who receives me receives the one who sent me” (Matt. 10:40). Yeshua’s declaration, “Anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me” (Matt. 10:37), can hardly be considered extreme; he is the Messiah, God’s representative on earth. Replace “me” in Matthew 10:37 with “Torah” and you won’t find the passage to be nearly as extreme (for even the Talmud teaches that honoring the Sabbath comes before honoring one’s own parents).

Luke 14:25-33 is perhaps more controversial:

Large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and turning to them he said: “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes,even his own life—he cannot be my disciple. And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple. . . . In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple.” (Luke 14:25-27, 33)

Jesus didn’t want followers who were only interested in his miracles; he wanted committed disciples. But did such a commitment rightly entail hating parents, spouse, siblings, and self? It did, but let’s be sure that we correctly understand Jesus’ teaching.

We must keep Luke 14 in perspective with what Jesus says elsewhere:

You have heard that it was said, “Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.” But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (Matt. 5:43-48; see also, 5:38-42)

Jesus exemplifies the above teaching in his prayer on the cross, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they are doing” (Luke 23:34). Stephen echoes his Savior’s sentiments when he intercedes for his executioners, saying, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them” (Acts 7:60). Peter urges slaves with cruel masters to follow the example of the Messiah, who “did not retaliate” when attacked by others (1 Pet. 2:19-25). Paul instructs the Roman believers:

If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. On the contrary: “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. (Rom. 12:19-21)

What do we make of the command to “hate” one’s parents? Jesus denounces the Pharisees for refusing to honor their parents (Matt. 15:1-9) and as he dies, he entrusts John with Miriam’s care (John 19:26-27). The New Testament teaches love, not hatred, even for enemies and most certainly for one’s own parents.

What then does Jesus mean when he tells us to hate family and self? There are two considerations here. First, Jesus means that God deserves undivided loyalty. Jesus uses the word “hate” to stress the radical nature of commitment to God. Second, the Hebrew Bible sometimes uses “hate” to refer to being “unloved” or “rejected.” For instance, Deuteronomy 21:15-17 speaks of a man who “loves” one of his wives and “hates” the other. The idea isn’t that the man literally loathes one of his wives; the man simply favors one wife above the other. Also, Scripture says that God “hates” Esau (Malachi 1:2-3).This expression doesn’t mean that he loathes every inhabitant of Edom, but that he “rejects” Edom. (See the New Jewish Version renditions of these passages.)

There may also be a parallel with Deuteronomy 33:9, which praises the Levites for killing their idolatrous countrymen:

He said of his father and mother,
“I have no regard for them.”
He did not recognize his brothers
or acknowledge his own children,
but he watched over your word
and guarded your covenant.

If people will give up everything to pursue excellence in sports or music, it’s not too extreme for Jesus to demand the same from his followers Whatever Jesus’ followers lose in this life is nothing compared to the knowing the Messiah (Phil. 3:7-8). Jesus offers rest (Matt. 11:28-30) and the water of life (John 7:37). He’s the bread and the resurrection of life (John 6:35; 11:24-25). Millions are living examples of the Messiah’s ability to transform lives and families, and they testify that it’s worth it to follow Yeshua, even if the cost is high.

Let’s consider an even more difficult text:

As they were walking along the road, a man said to him, “I will follow you wherever you go.” Jesus replied, “Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head.” He said to another man, “Follow me.” But the man replied, “Lord, first let me go and bury my father.” Jesus said to him, “Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and proclaim the kingdom of God.” Still another said, “I will follow you, Lord; but first let me go back and say good-by to my family.” Jesus replied, “No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for service in the kingdom of God.” (Luke 9:57-62)

Jesus’ first reply indicates that his followers won’t always enjoy the finer things in life. His last reply indicates double mindedness on the seeker’s part, as demonstrated by the illustration of the plowman.

Jesus’ second reply remains perplexing to interpreters, since the burying of loved ones is valued in Jewish law. Nolland gives three possible interpretations: (1) The seeker wanted to stay at home until his aging, but healthy, father passed away;(2) he sought “permission to see out the secondary mourning period (perhaps a year after his death) which was terminated by a secondary burial of the bones”; and(3) he sought “permission to remain long enough to bury a dead or dying father, or to see out the primary seven days of mourning” (Gospel of Matthew, 367). Taking Yeshua’s words at the most extreme, what he was demanding would be similar to the situation of soldiers in battle who cannot stop to bury their dead because of the exigencies of war; it does not speak of a lack of honor but of a more pressing demand.

Consider some accounts of famous Rabbinic leaders. In a collection of stories compiled and edited by Rabbi Asher Bergman, Rabbi Elazar Menachem Man Shach favorably recounts a story in which a rabbi deliberately fails to deliver family letters to his diligent student immersed in study although these letters mentioned the passing of the student’s mother and his need to care for the siblings (The Rosh Yeshivah Remembers: Stories that Inspire the Yeshivah World, as Retold by Rabbi Elazar Menachem Man Shach, Shilta, 50-51). There is also the story of Rabbi Akiva, who was so engrossed in the Torah that he refused to tend to his deathly ill son (m. Semahot 8:13). I can only imagine the attacks that would ensue if these accounts were in the New Testament!

Devotion to Jesus isn’t the only practice that can cause tension within families. Ba’alei teshuvah (Jews who become observant later in life) often face resistance at home. Janet Aviad explains,

Relations between parents and children are upset on several grounds. A baal teshuvah finds it difficult to eat in the home of his parents who do not observe the dietary laws of Judaism. He finds it difficult to spend the Sabbath and holidays with his parents who violate the religious prescriptions regarding their observance. In most cases, baalei teshuvah moved out of the homes of their parents and set up their own apartments. (Return to Judaism, 116-117, cited in Riggans, Yeshua ben David, 199-200)

Riggans poses the question, “Would Orthodox rabbis and other spokespersons want to argue that the Torah itself must now be disqualified from being an authentic gift of God, etc., because observing it can break up Jewish homes” (Yeshua ben David, 200)? Certainly not, for Rabbinic teaching mandates ransoming your Torah teacher from captivity before your own father (unless your father is also a Torah scholar; b. B.M. 33a)! How then can you take issue with Yeshua’s teaching?

Some people considersome of Jesus’ teachings to be impossible or dangerous. Consider Luke 6:27-37:

But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you. If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even ‘sinners’ love those who love them. And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even ‘sinners’ do that. And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even ‘sinners’ lend to ‘sinners,’ expecting to be repaid in full. But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.

Obedience to such teaching may seem “impossible,” but so is obedience to some commands in the Tanakh. God established a land Sabbath, requiring the land to rest every seventh year (Lev. 25:2-7). God promised to supply the needs of his obedient people in advance (Lev. 25:18-22). Obedience to the Levitical law required great faith; if God failed to keep his word, people would starve. Consider also the cancelling of debts that took place every seventh and fiftieth year (the year of Jubilee). God commanded the people not to withhold loans from the poor simply to avoid cancellation of debt (Deut. 15:1-11).

Many scholars believe that Jesus began his public ministry shortly before the Year of Jubilee at a time when many would disobey Deuteronomy 15. He gives no praise to people who lend only when they expect full repayment (Luke 6:34-37); he expects his followers to give even to their enemies (cf. Exod. 23:4-5; the Torah commanded the Israelite to help his enemy with a wandering donkey).

Note the result of obedience to Jesus’ teaching: “Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap” (Luke 6:38). It’s difficult to give when you expect nothing in return, but it’s also immensely rewarding.

The demand to turn the other cheek (also found in Matt. 5:39) isn’t a summons to avoid defending your family when they’re threatened. When we compare Jesus’ teaching to the situation described in the Mishnah (m. B. K. 9:6), it’s clear that he’s referring to legal retaliation. He refers to a backhanded slap (note the mention of the “right cheek” in Matt. 5:39) that called for double the compensation of other strikes. Yeshua gives his followers a higher standard, even when they have the legal right to exact payment.

Let’s look at one other controversial passage that is often called dangerous and un-Jewish:

You have heard that it was said, “Do not commit adultery.” But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell. (Matt. 5:27-30)

Jesus isn’t telling us to start whacking off body parts with a hatchet in order to enter heaven; he’s urging drastic and proactive action against sin. If your hand causes you to practice sin or your eye causes you to imagine sin, it’s far better to lose one of these than to lose your soul.

If this teaching is so dangerous, why haven’t millions of saints cut off their limbs? I am unaware of any Christian who has taken Jesus’ instructions here literally. Even common, ordinary believers are able to discern figures of speech.

Are Jesus’ words here “un-Jewish”? Note this passage from the Mishnah: “Every hand that makes frequent examination is in the case of women praiseworthy [meaning, examining the private parts, in order to check for ritual uncleanness] but in the case of men it ought to be cut off [for fear of masturbation]” (m. Nid 2:1). Jewish men haven’t taken this instruction literally. Furthermore, in spite of the Rabbinic interpretation of “eye for eye” as monetary compensation, the Talmud records that “Rav Huna had the hand cut off [of one who was accustomed to strike other people]” (b. Sanh 58b)!There is nothing un-Jewish or un-Rabbinic about Jesus’ teaching

In summary, it can be said that (1) some of the teachings of Jesus are only impossible for those who try to put them into practice without God’s supernatural help,(2) none of them are dangerous, and (3) they are thoroughly Jewish, even going beyond the best of our people’s traditions.

For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 4, pp. 123-147.

“The Jesus of the New Testament is hardly Jewish. In fact, he even refers to the Torah as “your Law”—precisely because it was not his own.”

In John 10:34, Jesus says, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are gods’.” Similarly, Jesus says in John 15:25, “But this is to fulfill what is written in their Law: ‘They hated me without reason.'” In both cases, Jesus addresses the Jewish leadership.

Jesus is in no way disowning the Torah. Against this conclusion, consider the following:(1) The entire Bible testifies to Yeshua: “You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life” (John 5:39-40); (2) Jesus indicates that both he and the religious leaders share Moses as part of their heritage (John 3:14-16; 7:19-23); (3) Jesus’ own disciples are credited with seeing him as the fulfillment of Moses and the prophets; (4) In the aforementioned passages, Jesus is quoting from the Psalms, not the Pentateuch. Jesus is essentially telling the religious leaders, “You’re hypocrites! You don’t even take your own Law seriously!”

According to the New Testament, the entire Hebrew Bible testifies toYeshua (John 1:45; 5:39-40). Before leaving earth, Jesus told his disciples, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and Psalms” (Luke 24:44-45). The early believers revered the Tanakh as their Bible until the writings of the New Testament were circulated. Nothing about the New Testament Jesus is un-Jewish!

For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 4, pp. 150-152.

“Jesus was a false prophet. He claimed that his apostles would live to see his return, a prediction he missed by 2000 years. He also predicted that not one stone in Jerusalem would be left standing when the Romans destroyed it. Well, have you ever heard of the Wailing Wall?“

The disciples asked Jesus, “When will this [the destruction of the Temple] happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age” (Matt. 24:3)? After discussing the immediate and distant future, Jesus replied, “I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened” (Matt. 24:34). Although many interpret this as a promise that Jesus would return within the disciples’ lifetimes, there are better ways to interpret Matthew 24:34. “This generation” could refer to (1) the final generation that sees the signs described in Matthew 24, (2) the generation that would see the destruction of the Temple rather than Jesus’ return (cf. Matt. 24:36, “no one knows the day or the hour”), or(3) a “race” rather than a generation or posterity. All of these options are far more likely than the willful perpetuation of error by New Testament authors and scribes.

Another passage in question is Matthew 16:28, in which Jesus tells his disciples: “I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” This isn’t a promise that Jesus will return in the disciples’ lifetimes, for the next chapter notes:

After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light. Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus. Peter said to Jesus, “Lord, it is good for us to be here. If you wish, I will put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah.” While he was still speaking, a bright cloud enveloped them, and a voice from the cloud said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!” When the disciples heard this, they fell facedown to the ground, terrified. But Jesus came and touched them. “Get up,” he said. “Don’t be afraid.” When they looked up, they saw no one except Jesus. (Matt. 17:1-8)

Matthew 17:1-8, which prefiguresJesus’ glorious return in kingdom power, is the fulfillment of Matthew 16:28. All of the Gospel writers (except for John, who doesn’t mention the event) place the Transfiguration immediately after the promise that some would see Yeshua coming in his kingdom (Matthew 16:27-17:8; Mark 8:38-9:8; Luke 9:26-36).

Three parables point to a delay in Jesus’ return. (1) In Matthew 24:45-51, Jesus tells a story about a wicked servant who tells himself, “My master is staying away along time,” and proceeds to “beat his fellow servants and to eat and drink with drunkards.” Jesus concludes that the master “will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of.” (2) In Matthew 25:1-13, the parable of the bridegroom and the ten virgins, Jesus mentions that the bridegroom “was a long time in coming” (v. 5). (3) In Matthew 25:14-30,Jesus compares the kingdom to a “man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his property to them” (v. 14). The man returns “after a long time” (v.19). Jesus urges his followers to be constantly expectant of his return.

What about Jesus’ prophecies that the Second Temple would be destroyed? The disturbing nature of the Temple’s destruction is well attested in Rabbinic literature (b. Ber 32b, 58b, 59a; b. Shab 33a; b. Ta’an 29a; b. Sotah 48a; b. Bab. Bathra 103a). Amos 3:7 declares, “Surely the Sovereign LORD does nothing without revealing his plan to his servants the prophets.” Many prophets warned about the destruction of the First Temple, but only Rabbi Yeshua warned of the Second’s destruction.

Jesus promised, “Not one stone here [of the Temple] will be left on another; every one will be thrown down” (Mark 13:2). Critical scholars believe that this prophecy is so accurate that it had to have been written after the fact. Others suggest that the prophecy was incorrect, for it would be impossible to so utterly decimate the temple that no stone would be left upon another! While the Romans completely destroyed the temple itself, they left part of the retaining wall in place.

This prophecy doesn’t reveal that Jesus is a false prophet (Deut. 18:22). Jeremiah frequently prophesied that, in the Babylonian siege, no inhabitants would be left in the cities of Judah (Jer. 2:15; 4:29; 9:10; 33:10; 34:22, etc.), yet history shows us that not all the cities were literally left desolate. Jeremiah’s prophecies are hyperbolic, using graphic examples that would take place in many cities to illustrate the total desolation.

If Jeremiah, a true prophet, can use hyperbolic language, why can’t Jesus do the same? As Steve Alt observes, no eyewitnesses of the Temple destruction would have cried out, “Jesus was a false prophet! Part of one wall remains standing.” Jesus’ prophecies of the Temple were remarkably accurate. His words have stood the test of time, as he said in Matthew 24:35, “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.”

For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 4, pp. 152-162.

“The teachings of the New Testament may have started out Jewish, but before long, they became totally pagan. This was done intentionally, since the Jews rejected Jesus as Messiah and only the pagans would listen to the message.”

The book of Acts never indicates that only pagans listened to the message. When Peter preached at Shavuot (Pentecost), 3,000 Jews in Jerusalem embraced Yeshua (Acts 2:41). The number increased to 5,000 shortly thereafter (Acts 4:4). Acts 6:7 records, “The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith.” Much later, elders in the Jerusalem church reported that “many thousands [Gk. “ten thousands” or “countless thousands”]” came to faith in the Messiah; these believers were “zealous for the law” (Acts 21:20). Scholars estimate that there were at least 100,000 Jewish believers in Yeshua by the end of the first century.

Paul certainly faced his fair share of opposition. As a result, he had to shift his focus from Jews to Gentiles in several cities: “We had to speak the word of God to you first. Since you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life, we now turn to the Gentiles” (Acts 13:46). However, in other cities, great numbers of Jews embraced Yeshua: “Paul and Barnabas went as usual into the Jewish synagogue. There they spoke so effectively that a great number of Jews and Gentiles believed” (Acts 14:1). Paul never permanently abandoned his Jewish outreach; he was instrumental in bringing many Jews to faith in Yeshua.

Additionally, the New Testament writers continued to observe Jewish holy days and customs. References to biblical holy days include Acts 27:9 (Yom Kippur), Acts 12:3-4 (Passover, not “Easter” as KJV erroneously translates), 1 Corinthians 16:8 (Feast of Weeks), and John 10:22 (Hanukkah).

Contrary to the claims of some, the New Testament doesn’t teach that the church replaces the Jewish nation. Paul clearly indicates that the nation will experience a future restoration:

I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:

“The deliverer will come from Zion;
he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.

And this is my covenant with them
when I take away their sins.”

As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable. (Rom. 11:25-29)

As Paul preached to the Gentiles, he hoped that he would motivate his own people to jealousy (Rom. 11:11-15).

Pagan practices didn’t enter the ranks of believers because of the early disciples; after the first century, however, the professing church strayed from its Jewish roots. As a result, pagan traditions began to influence believers. This is why Messianic Jews seek to restore distinctly Jewish expressions of worship.

For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 4, pp. 184-188.

“Jesus was really all right. He was a good Jew and a fine rabbi. It was Paul who messed everything up and founded Christianity.”

Historically, Messianic Jews have struggled to convince other Jews that Jesus was not an apostate founder of a new religion, but was actually the promised Messiah. For this reason, the “Jewish reclamation of Jesus” has been a positive development. More and more Jewish scholars are recognizing Jesus’ distinctive Jewishness. Many have shown increasing sympathy toward the New Testament depiction of Jesus, much more so than liberal Christian scholars.

Many who have recognized Jesus’ Jewish background have attacked Paul instead. Beth Moshe claims that Paul “shaped the Church in a manner which stripped away all links to Judaism and cursed it at the same time.” David Klinghoffer’s Why the Jews Rejected Jesus, based on Hyam Maccoby’sThe Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity, claims that Paul was a Gentile by birth with no knowledge of Hebrew. He charges Paul with forming an apostate pagan religion. Klinghoffer’s book contains some embarrassing errors, such as his citation of Acts 4:13 to prove that “the Jews regarded Paul as ‘uneducated'” (Klinghoffer, Why the Jews Rejected Jesus, 97). The original accusation in Acts was hurled at Peter and John, well before Paul was even a follower of Jesus! Klinghoffer correctly admits that his position is outside the mainstream of contemporary scholarship.

Paul never turned Jesus’ movement into a pagan religion – Gentile customs and beliefs came well after Paul’s time. Many well-respected Jewish scholars attest to Paul’s Jewish credentials. Joseph Klausner (1874-1958), former professor at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, argues, “Paul . . . was also a typical Jew in his thinking and in his entire inner-life. For Saul-Paul was not only a ‘Pharisee, a son of Pharisees,’ but also one of those disciples of the Tannaim who were brought up on the exegesis of the Torah and did not cease to cherish it to the end of their days” (Klausner, From Jesus to Paul, 453-54). Alan F. Segal describes Paul as a “trained Pharisee who became an apostle to the Gentiles” (Paul the Convert: The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee, xi-xii). Daniel Boyarin takes “Paul at his word” and acknowledges him as “a member of the Pharisaic wing of first-century Judaism” (A Radical Jew: Paul and the Politics of Identity, 2). Orthodox Rabbi Jacob Emden (1679-1776) describes Paul as “well-versed in the laws of the Torah” (cited by Harvey Falk, Jesus the Pharisee, 18).

Many New Testament scholars who are well-versed in early Jewish scholarship also testify to Paul’s Jewish credentials. According to Peter J. Tomson, “Paul had an openly avowed knowledge of Hebrew and of Pharisaic tradition” and “his mother tongue, quite probably, was . . . the Hebrew and Aramaic of Jerusalem” (Paul and the Jewish Law, 52-53). Critical New Testament scholar John Dominic Crossan and archaeologist Jonathan L. Reed conclude that “Paul was Jewish born and bred, understood Hebrew, was a Pharisee, and was proud of all that lineage” (In Search of Paul, 4). The Dictionary of Paul and His Letters cites Paul’s use of Midrash in Romans 9:6-29 as a “highly sophisticated composition” evidencing a “formal education in the Judaism of the time” (Stegner, “Paul the Jew,”506). Esteemed church history scholar Jarislov Pelikan notes that, in modern times, scholars have “rediscovered the Jewishness of the New Testament, and particularly of the Apostle Paul” (Jesus through the Centuries, 18).

James D.G. Dunn, one of the world’s top scholars in his field, concludes that Maccoby’s claims are “wildly fanciful” and show “no sensitivity to Paul’s whole argument in Romans” (Romans 9-16, 635-36). Esteemed scholars simply don’t take claims like Klinghoffer’s and Maccoby’s seriously.

Was Paul really unable to read Hebrew? Several factors argue against this conclusion. The Jewish scholars we’ve just cited clearly recognize Paul’s fluency in the language. Furthermore, Paul doesn’t always quote from the LXX; passages like Romans 1:17 and Galatians 3:11 demonstrate his familiarity with the Hebrew text. Even Paul’s LXX citations (as many as 50 out of 100) demonstrate some variance from the translation, and it’s quite possible that he revised the LXX text based on the Hebrew. Finally, Paul’s writings demonstrate a thorough knowledge of the Tanakh.

if Paul abandon the Jewish roots of Yeshua’s movement and start a pagan religion? David Wenham has addressed these claims in his books Paul and Jesus: The True Story and Paul: Follower of Jesus or Founder of Christianity? Wenham observes Paul’s strong “familiarity with Jesus’ teaching on the Second Coming, on ethical issues, such as divorce, and on ministry issues, such as apostleship” (Paul and Jesus, 181). He also finds an “overall similarity of Jesus’ kingdom preaching to Paul’s gospel . . . . Both men proclaimed the dawn of God’s promised day of salvation. Both believed that God was intervening to bring righteousness, healing and reconciliation to the world. Both called on people to respond to the good news in faith” (Paul: Follower of Jesus?, 70). Wenham finds that Paul’s Christology is in complete accord with what Yeshua says about himself. While many of Paul’s other teachings generated significant controversy among Yeshua’s followers, “there is no hint that his view of Jesus as Messiah, Lord, and Son of God was seen as inadequate or unorthodox” (Wenham, Paul: Follower of Jesus?, 124).

Wenham finds noteworthy “hints” of Pauline doctrine in Yeshua’s anticipation of the crucifixion (Paul: Follower of Jesus?, 155). Jesus emphasized that he would have to be crucified (e.g., Matt. 16:21) and even pointed to Isaiah 53 (Luke 22:37). All the sermons in Acts focus on Jesus’ death and resurrection (e.g., Acts 2:22-24; 3:13-15; 5:30-31; 7:52; 13:26-31). Although Paul emphasizes the same things in his preaching, he goes beyond Jesus by speaking of the necessity of Christians participating in the suffering and death of Christ. Paul’s fuller teaching stems from his different perspective, one that comes after the cross. It’s understandable that Paul would build on the foundation of Jesus’ and the other apostles’ teachings.

Although Paul’s teachings on community have a slightly different focus than those of Jesus, Wenham notes that both sets of teachings have “considerable theological continuity, with Jesus looking for a universal kingdom and Paul recognizing the priority of the Jews” (Paul: Follower of Jesus?, 190). Concerning Jesus’ return, they “both have a very strong sense that the last days have come. Both see Jesus’ death and resurrection as key events in the coming of the future kingdom. Both associate the coming kingdom with the heavenly coming of Jesus. Both decline to specify when the future kingdom will actually arrive, but suggest that its coming will be preceded by a period of witness, suffering, and judgment on the Jewish nation [To this it could be added that both look forward to Israel’s final salvation!]” (Paul: Follower of Jesus?,304).

Wenham observes Paul’s strong familiarity with Yeshua’s ministry:

Paul may well have been familiar with much of the gospel “story” as we know it. He certainly knew resurrection traditions, very probably a form of the passion narrative, and also traditions of Jesus as a miracle worker. He probably knew about Jesus’ baptism, about his style of ministry and life, and (a little less certainly) about the transfiguration. He may have known the stories of Jesus’ infancy similar to those found in Matthew and Luke, the story of Jesus’ temptation, and possibly an ascension story. (Paul: Follower of Jesus?, 371)

These findings demonstrate that Maccoby’s thesis is incredibly disingenuous. Paul’s writings reveal an intimate familiarity with the teachings, life, death, and resurrection of Yeshua. When Saul initially heard about Jesus, he passionately persecuted his followers. After a mystical encounter withYeshua on the road to Damascus, he was embraced by Yeshua’s disciples. The leaders in the early church acknowledged Paul’s important role (Acts 15) and he dispelled any doubts about his teaching and personal practices (Acts 21). Rather than putting forth his own teachings as dogma, he consciously distinguished between his own opinions and the commands of the Lord. Far from fabricating Christianity, he passed on what he received (1 Cor. 11:23; 15:3). In fact, his teachings were considered so sound and inspired that other New Testament writers regarded Paul’s writings as “Scripture” (2 Pet. 3:16). Furthermore, the second generation of Yeshua’s followers generally accepted Paul’s teachings as authoritative. The focal points of Paul’s preaching reflect those of Jesus himself. All of this goes to show that Paul’s teachings are in line with the teachings of Jesus and that he was not the inventor of Christianity.

I am going to give Paul the last word:

Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Messiah died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James [Jacob], then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born [meaning, born out of due time].

. . . this is what we preach, and this is what you believed. (1 Cor. 15:1-8, 11)

For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 4, pp. 188-202.

Maimonides claims that Yeshua’s movement “caused . . . the Torah to be altered.” Jesus did not do away with the Torah, but instead fulfilled it. Jesus’ fulfillment of the Torah can be demonstrated by analyzing his famous Sermon on the Mount. The core teaching of the sermon is found in Matthew 5:17-7:12. The phrase “law and [or] prophets,” found in both 5:17 and 7:12, forms an inclusio or envelope around the body of the sermon.

Consider Matthew 5:17-20:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus’ coming didn’t annul the Law or the Prophets. In fact, not even “the least stroke of a pen” will be abolished from the Law “until heaven and earth disappear.” Jesus exalts the entirety of the Tanakh, both the Law and the Prophets and came to fulfill (Greek, pleroo) them. Jesus himself is the completion or goal of Tanakh. The same verb (pleroo) is used elsewhere in Matthew to indicate Jesus’ fulfillment of prophecy (Matt. 1:15; 2:15, 17, 23; 4:14, etc.).

Jesus’ teaching indicates that some parts of the Torah would reach their intended goal before “heaven and earth disappear” (note the term until that appears twice in v. 18). Laws related to sacrifice, atonement, ritual cleansing, priesthood, and tabernacle/Temple have found their purpose in the Messiah. For Messianic Jews, the destruction of the Temple poses no serious problem for worship. Although the disciples continued to participate in Temple functions after Jesus’ crucifixion, they recognized that the aforementioned aspects of the Law had already accomplished their objective. Messianic Jews have a Redeemer who has atoned for sin, but Rabbinic Jews have no Redeemer, no Temple, and no means to offer sacrifices. Rabbinic Jews are incapable of fully obeying the Tanakh as written.

Did Jesus make changes to the Law? Even Rabbinic Judaism has made changes to the Law. According to traditional Jews, when Moses received the written Torah on Mt. Sinai, he also received the oral tradition, which had the dual function of explaining and applying the written text. Rabbis maintain that they have power to create new laws (takkanot, enactments, and gezerot, decrees). For traditional Jews, the Torah is a living document that can be adapted (within strict guidelines) to changing times.

One example of Rabbinic Judaism’s adaption of the Torah is related to Numbers 15:37-42, which commands the people of Israel to wear blue tassels (or, fringes) on the corners of their garments. In ancient times, these tassels had four “corners” and were worn out rather than tucked in. Traditional Jews have adapted this command to contemporary culture since the dye used to make the tassels is no longer available andsince clothing styles have changed. Jewish men today wear white tassels with 613 knots (the traditional number of Torah commandments) and wear tallit katans underneath their shirts. If a modern Jew disregarded this newer tradition and produced a garment identical to the one prescribed by the writtenTorah, he would be guilty of breaking the Law! The oral tradition carries equal authority to the written Torah.

The Mishnah notes other changes to the written Law:

When murderers increased in number, the rite of breaking the heifer’s neck was abolished [see Deut. 21:1-9] . . . . When adulterers increased in number, the application of the waters of jealousy ceased [see Num. 5:11-31]; R. Jochanan ben Zakkai abolished them, as it is said, I will not punish your daughters when they commit idolatry nor your daughters-in-law when they commit adultery [Hos. 4:14].

Sometimes, the rabbis simply annulled Torah legislation altogether. Hillel issued an infamous annulment called the prosbul. The Torah required Jews to forgive debts every Sabbatical year (Deut. 15:1-2, 9). Because so many people disobeyed this law, the poor were often unable to receive loans. Hillel believed that maintaining the legislation would result in more harm than good, so he abrogated the law to uphold the rights of the poor.

I’m not ridiculing Rabbinic Judaism; I’m simply observing that changes to the Law are often necessary due to changing circumstances. The Jews are a dispersed people with no Temple, priesthood, or sacrificial system, and the oral tradition serves to guide the people in shifting times and situations.

Although traditional Jews have the oral tradition, Jesus offers us a better way. Observe his approach to the Torah. In Matthew 5:21-48, Jesus applies the Torah on a much deeper level than the Torah actually prescribes. The condemnation of murder applies to hateful words and thoughts (5:21-26), the prohibitionof adultery applies to lust (5:27-30), the provision for divorce applies only in the case of sexual immorality (5:31-32), swearing is forbidden – ourword must be our bond (5:33-37), we must set aside our right to retaliation (lex talionis) (5:38-42), and the command to love our neighbor is extended to include even our enemies (5:43-48).

In 6:1-18, Jesus gives his teaching onalmsgiving (6:2-4), prayer (6:5-15), and fasting (6:16-18). These acts are not to be performed for the sake of public recognition; instead, we should seek the approval of our heavenly Father and perform such deeds privately. The next section, 6:19-34, deals with attitudes toward earthly treasures and concerns. Jesus teaches that we arenot to worry about worldly matters, but instead are to trust that God will provide for us as long as we have righteous priorities (6:33).

In 7:1-5, Jesus tell sus to avoid a judgmental spirit, while in 7:6, he calls us to practice discernment. In 7:7-11, Jesus describes our Heavenly Father’s eagerness to answer prayer. Finally, in 7:12, Jesus summarizes the Law and the Prophets (as well as the body of the sermon): “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.” Similarly, Hillel famously remarked, “What is hateful to you, do not do to anyone else. This is the whole law; all the rest is commentary. Go and learn it” (b. Shab 31a).

Jesus’ teaching was never intended to prescribe specific details for every area of life; instead, Jesus offers general principles to guide our lives. This does not mean that Jesus’ teaching is not comprehensive enough to cover every aspect of life, since his teachings can easily be applied to the specific circumstances of one’s life.

Jesus’ application of the Torah extends beyond the Sermon on the Mount. Consider what Jesus says about the Sabbath. The rabbis argued that, in the Oral Law, God gave Moses 39 subdivisions of labor. As Edersheim notes in The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, the Talmud took twenty-four chapters to explain appropriate behavior on the Sabbath! Take a look at Edersheim’s brief sampling of Sabbath legislation:

The tractate on the Sabbath begins with regulations extending its provisions to the close of the Friday afternoon, so as to prevent the possibility of infringing the Sabbath itself, which commenced on the Friday evening. As the most common kind of labor would be that of carrying, this is the first point discussed. The Biblical Law forbade such labor in simple terms (Exodus 36:6; comp. Jeremiah 17:22). But Rabbinism developed the prohibition into eight special ordinances, by first dividing ‘the bearing of a burden’ into two separate acts—lifting it up and putting it down—and then arguing, that it might be lifted up or put down from two different places, from a public into a private, or from a private into a public place. Here, of course, there are discussions as to what constituted a ‘private place’ . . . ‘a public place’ . . . ; ‘ a wide space,’ which belongs neither to a special individual or to a community, such as the sea, a deep wide valley, or else the corner of a property leading out on the road or fields, and—lastly, a ‘legally free place.’ Again, a ‘burden’ meant, as the lowest standard of it, the weight of ‘a dried fig.’ But if ‘half a fig’ were carried at two different times—lifted or deposited from a private into a public place, or vice versa—were these two actions to be combined into one so as to constitute the sin of Sabbath desecration? And if so, under what conditions as to state of mind, locality, etc.? And, lastly, how many different sins might one such act involve? To give an instance of the kind of questions that were generally discussed. The standard measure for forbidden food was the size of an olive, just as that for carrying burdens was the weight of a fig. If a man swallowed forbidden food of the size of half an olive, rejected it, and again eaten of the size of half an olive, he would be guilty, because the palate had altogether tasted food to the size of a whole olive; but if one had deposited in another locality a burden of the weight of a half a fig, and removed it again, it involved no guilt, because the burden was altogether only of half a fig, nor even if the first half fig’s burden had been burnt and then a second half fig introduced. Similarly, if an object that was intended to be worn or carried in front had slipped behind it involved no guilt, but if it had been intended to be worn or carried behind, and it slipped forward, this involved guilt, as involving labor.

Similar difficulties were discussed as to the reverse. Whether, if an object were thrown from a private into a public place, or the reverse. Whether, if an object was thrown into the air with the left, and caught again in the right hand, this involved sin, was a nice question, though there could be no doubt a man incurred guilt if he caught it with the same hand from which it had been thrown, but he was not guilty if he caught it in his mouth, since, after being eaten, the object no longer existed, and hence catching with the mouth was as if it had been done by a second person. Again, if it rained, and the water which fell from the sky were carried, there was no sin in it; but if the rain had run down from a wall it would involve sin. If a person were in one place, and his hand filled with fruit stretched into another, and the Sabbath overtook him in this attitude, he would have to drop the fruit, since if he withdrew his full hand from one locality into another, he would be carrying a burden on the Sabbath. (Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah,2:681-82)

Unquestionably, you who are traditional Jews have honored the Sabbath far more than other groups of Jews; however, let’s not forget that the Torah prescribes capital punishment for Sabbath violations! Should the power of life and death really be established through 24 chapters of detailed regulations?

How extensive are contemporary Sabbath regulations? Take a look at this brief sampling from an extensive three-volume set:

1. It is permissible to scratch one’s head or beard lightly, and one need not be afraid that one might thereby pull out some of the hairs.
2. It is also permissible to extract the remains of food stuck in one’s beard, so long as one takes care not to pull out any of the hair.

1. One is allowed to remove loose dandruff from one’s hair with one’s hand, but
2. one must be careful not to remove dandruff which is still attached to the skin.

.

1. One may neither
   1. comb one’s hair, nor
   2. brush one’s hair with a hard brush. . . .

3. 1. While one is permitted to tidy one’s hair a little with a soft brush which is not likely to pull out any of the hair,
   2. it is advisable to keep this brush especially for Shabbath and Yom Tov (holy days), so that there is a recognizable distinction between the way in which one brushes one’s hair on a normal weekday and the way in which one does so on Shabbath and Yom Tov.

A married woman who has forgotten to comb her hair before Shabbath or Yom Tov, as is required before going to the mikveh (ritual bath) on Shabbath or Yom Tov, should consult a qualified rabbinical authority who will tell her how to proceed in the circumstances (Neuwirth, Shemirath Shabbath, 1:160-61).

1. On Shabbath and Yom Tov one is not allowed to cut, trim or file nails, whether with scissors, a nail file or any other instrument or by biting them.
2. Similarly, small pieces of skin which are peeling off around the fingernail or any other part of the body, but which are still connected, may not be pulled or cut off with an instrument, by hand or even with the teeth.
3. Nonetheless, if
   1. the end of a nail has become detached for most of its width and is, therefore, close to coming offand
   2. it is causing, or one is afraid that it will cause, pain, it may be removed, either by hand or with the teeth, but not with an instrument.

A married woman who has forgotten to cut her fingernails or toenails before Shabbath or Yom Tov, as is required before going to the mikveh (ritual bath) on Shabbath or Yom Tov, should consult a qualified rabbinical authority who will tell her how to proceed, according to the circumstances of the case (Neuwirth, Shemirath Shabbath, 1:162).

1. One is allowed, on Shabbath, to wash one’s face, hands and feet or other individual parts of the body, in water which was heated before Shabbath.
2. One is generally not allowed to wash or shower the whole, or the major part, of one’s body in such water, even if one does so bit by bit.
3. A person who is used to washing the whole of his body in warm water every day and will suffer extreme discomfort should he not do so, or someone who is ill, may wash the whole of his body, even on Shabbath, in warm water, provided that it was heated before Shabbath.
4. Anyone washing himself on Shabbath should take care to avoid squeezing water out of his hair (Neuwirth, Shemirath Shabbath, 1:150).

If, upon opening an electric refrigerator on Shabbath or Yom Tov, one finds that the internal light has automatically been switched on,

1. this does not make it forbidden to eat the food inside, but
2. one should consult a qualified rabbinical authority about what to do with regard to closing the door of the refrigerator again (Neuwirth, Shemirath Shabbath, 1:103).

1. No fruit may be squeezed either
   1. into an empty vessel or
   2. into a liquid.
2. This prohibition applies regardless of whether the fruit is squeezed
   1. by means of an instrument or
   2. by hand.
3. Common examples are
   1. squeezing lemons,
   2. squeezing oranges,
   3. squeezing the juice out of shredded carrots and
   4. chopping up fruit to such an extent that it becomes liquefied.
4. On the other hand, lemon may be sliced and put into a drink, such as tea or cold water, even though some of the juice will come out by itself, but
   1. it is forbidden to squeeze the lemon with one’s hand or with a spoon even while it is in the drink and,
   2. on Shabbath, one must be careful that the drink should either
      1. have a temperature of less than 45 degrees centigrade (113 degrees Fahrenehit) or
      2. be in a keli shelishi [Lit., ” a third vessel,” which is defined as, “A pot or other vessel into which food is transferred from akeli sheini,” lit., “a second vessel,” which is defined as, “A pot or other vessel into which food is transferred from the vessel in which it was cooked.”] (Neuwirth, Shemirath Shabbath, 1:66)

Is this really what God meant when he established the Sabbath law? The Torah prohibits anyone from adding to or removing God’s laws (Deut. 4:2; 12:32), but these regulations unquestionably add to God’s laws!

Some of the Talmudic Sabbath regulations were likely in development during Yeshua’s ministry. In response to his repeated butting of heads with the religious leaders, Jesus taught the following principles:

The Sabbath as a day of liberation from bondage. Consider Deuteronomy 5:15:”Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the LORD your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the LORD your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day.” Ironically, the religious leaders turned this day of liberation into a day of further bondage. They frequently criticized Yeshua for healing weak or crippled people on the Sabbath. Jesus responded that even a practicing Jew would untie his donkey on the Sabbath so that it could drink (Luke 13:15) or rescue his sheep from a pit (Matt. 12:11-12). How much more important arethe needs of hurting people than those of donkeys and sheep? In spite of Jesus’ tremendous miracles, the religious leaders declared that he was “not from God” (John 9:16b), and even plotted to kill Jesus after one Sabbath healing (Mark 3:6)!

The Sabbath as a time of true spiritual rest. The Pharisees condemned Jesus’ disciples for plucking heads of grain on the Sabbath (Matt. 12:1-2). In the preceding verses, Matthew records this teaching: “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light” (Matt. 11:28-30). Yeshua is the fulfillment of Sabbath rest. He grants his followers daily rest, for they are free from the guilt of sin. We honor the Sabbath not by diligently attending to countless legal minutiae and manmade traditions, but through a heart that has found its rest in Yeshua by following the essence of the Law in loving God and neighbor.

The Messiah is Lord of the Sabbath.In Matthew 12:1-14, Yeshua teaches thatsince the Temple priests can lawfully work for God on the Sabbath, Yeshua’s followers can sometimes do the same. Jesus cites Hosea 6:6 to show that God “prefers a flexible heart to an inflexible ritual” (Matt. 12:6-7, The Message). Vincent Taylor summarizes the meaning of these verses by explaining,”Since the Sabbath was made for man, He who is man’s Lord . . . has authority to determine its law and use”(cited in Walter W. Wessel, “Mark,” EBC, 8:638). Yeshua’s teaching gives real meaning to the Sabbath, far more than never-ending sets of rules and traditions.

Clearly, Jesus didn’t abolish the Law. AsDouglas J. Moo explains,

Jesus was quick to clarify that his authority did not negate the role of the Law in salvation history. But he also made it clear that this authority involved the right not only to exposit, add to or deepen the Law, but to make demands of his people independent of that Law. . . . The Law, God’s great gift to Israel, anticipated and looked forward to the eschatological teaching of God’s will that Jesus brought. This teaching, not the Law, is the focus of the Gospels, and the Law remains authoritative for the disciple of Jesus only insofar as it is taken up into his own teaching. (“Law,” 461)

The Law and the Prophets are ultimately fulfilled in Yeshua, and this fulfillment necessitated certain changes. Should change always be utterly opposed? Many of the Torah commands can only be obeyed if Israel is in the land under the sacrificial system. This means that we can only obey 7 of the 22 Torah ‘olam (“forever”) commandments and only 9 of the 29 “throughout your generations” commandments. Out of these fifty-one commandments that are either said to be “forever” or “throughout our generations,” we have not been able to keep more than three-quarters of them for the last 1,900 years! Either an important change took place before the destruction of the Temple, allowing us to worship God properly, or we have been on the wrong path for centuries! Since Jesus knew that the Temple would be destroyed, making us unable to keep many of the Torah’s commands, he shed his blood to bring in the new covenant, and he has poured out his gift of the Holy Spirit. He is the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets, his body is the new Temple, he is our great high priest, and he has offered up the perfect sacrifice of himself once and for all. If you are still unconvinced, remember that the prophets predicted that Messiah’s coming would bring about changes in applying the Law (e.g., Zech. 8:18-19).

Now that Yeshua has fulfilled the Law, he, not the Law, is our primary focus. As a result of Yeshua, many Jews who had formerly been secular have started observing the Sabbath and other Jewish feasts in honor of the God of Israel. They don’t do so out of obligation, but out of a heart moved by the Spirit. They know what the freedom of the Sabbath really means: freedom from sin through the sacrifice of Yeshua, our paschal lamb. Have you experienced this Sabbath freedom?

For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 4, pp. 204-236.

Several of Paul’s statements could be construed as abrogating the Law:

For he [Jesus] himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. (Eph. 2:14-16)

Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin. (Rom. 3:20)

It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith. For if those who live by law are heirs, faith has no value and the promise is worthless, because law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression. (Rom. 4:13-15)

For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace. (Rom. 6:14)

For when we were controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code. (Rom. 7:5-6)

For apart from law, sin is dead. Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. (Rom. 7:8b-9)

Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes. (Rom. 10:4)

The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. (1 Cor. 15:56-57)

We who are Jews by birth and not “Gentile sinners”know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified. (Gal. 2:15-16)

All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.” Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, “The righteous will live by faith.” The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, “The man who does these things will live by them.” Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.” (Gal. 3:10-13)

Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law. (Gal. 3:23-25)

You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. (Gal. 5:4)

But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law. (Gal. 5:18)

          However, Paul also praised the Law in many of these same contexts:

For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. (Rom. 2:13)

Now you, if you call yourself a Jew; if you rely on the law and brag about your relationship to God; if you know his will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the law; if you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of infants, because you have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth . . . You who brag about the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? (Rom. 2:17-20, 23)

Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised. (Rom. 2:25)

What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? Much in every way! First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God. (Rom. 3:1-2)

But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe . . . Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law. (Rom 3:21-22, 33)

What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! (Rom. 6:15)

What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “Do not covet.” . . . So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good. . . . We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. . . . And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. . . . For in my inner being I delight in God’s law . . . So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin. . . the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. (Rom. 7:7, 12, 14, 16, 22, 25a; 8:7)

For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit. (Rom. 8:3-4)

For the goal at which the Torah aims is the Messiah, who offers righteousness to everyone who trusts (Rom. 10:4, Jewish New Testament; note that this verse was cited, above, from the NIV).

Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. . . .Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. (Rom. 13:8, 10)

Do I say this merely from a human point of view? Doesn’t the Law say the same thing? For it is written in the Law of Moses . . . (1 Cor. 9:8-9b)

Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. (Gal. 3:21)

We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. (1 Tim. 1:8)

Not only did Paul praise the Law, but he also continued to observe the Law even after his conversion on the road to Damascus. Paul affirmed before King Agrippa, “The Jews all know the way I have lived ever since I was a child, from the beginning of my life in my own country, and also in Jerusalem” (Acts 26:4). He told the Jewish leaders in Rome, “My brothers, although I have done nothing against our people or against the customs of our ancestors, I was arrested in Jerusalem and handed over to the Romans” (Acts 28:17).

Paul responded to his life-changing experience with Yeshua by “preach[ing] in the synagogues that Jesus is the Son of God” (Acts 9:20). Whenever Paul traveled to a city with the gospel, he would almost always start by preaching in the synagogue. Paul was only able to do this because he and his associates were identifiably Jewish.

Acts 18:18 records Paul’s observance of a Jewish vow, “Paul stayed on in Corinth for some time. Then he left the brothers and sailed for Syria, accompanied by Priscilla and Aquila. Before he sailed, he had his hair cut off at Cenchrea because of a vow he had taken.” Paul also denied the charge that he taught Jews to disregard the Law; he eagerly joined in Jewish purification rites to establish his innocence on this charge:

Then they said to Paul: “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs. What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow. Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everybody will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law. As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.” The next day Paul took the men and purified himself along with them. Then he went to the temple to give notice of the date when the days of purification would end and the offering would be made for each of them. (Acts 21:20-26)

In Acts 15, Paul asserted that Gentiles were under no obligation to observe the Torah. However, he still assumed that Jews would observe the Torah!

When Paul stood trial before the Sanhedrin, he declared, “My brothers, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee. I stand on trial because of my hope in the resurrection of the dead” (Acts 23:6). This declaration caused a “dispute” to break out “between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided” (v.7). There’s no question that, even as a believer in Yeshua, Paul never ceased to identify himself as a Torah-observant Pharisee.

Now that we’ve examined Paul’s faithful observance of the Law, let’s look at his theology of the Law. When we find passages that seem to abrogate the Law, we must ask, “Who was Paul’s original audience?” In Galatians, Paul was largely addressing Gentiles. False teachers in Galatia insisted that Gentiles be circumcised and follow the Torah to obtain God’s favor. Paul askedthe Gentile believers, “Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard?” (Gal. 3:2). He also declared, “For in Messiah Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love” (Gal. 5:6). The Gentiles didn’t need to be circumcised or follow the Law to enjoy fellowship with God since circumcised Jews and uncircumcised Gentiles are equals in God’s family. Paul didn’t tell Jews to stop following the Law! In 1 Corinthians 7:17-18,Paul teaches, “Each one should retain the place in life that the Lord assigned to him and to which God has called him. This is the rule I lay down in all the [congregations]. Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised.” Paul never encouragedeither Jews or Gentiles to abandon their respective lifestyles.

In Colossians 2:16-17, Paul states, “Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Messiah.” Just as in Galatians, the audience here is Gentile believers. Peter O’Brien points out the particular problem in Colossae: holydays were observed for the sake of “astral powers who directed the course of the stars and regulated the order of the universe”(Colossians, Philemon, 139). This passage doesn’t teach Jews to abandon their observance of the Sabbath and sacred holidays.

While there’s some controversy surrounding Paul’s audience in Romans, virtually no one asserts that Romans addresses only Jewish believers. When Paul says, “One man considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike” (Rom. 14:5), his remarks should be understood in the context of Jewish and Gentile believers worshipping side-by-side; his comments are not an attack on the Law.

Perhaps more difficult is Ephesians 2:15, where Paul states that Jesus “abolish[ed] in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations.” It is important to keep in mind the subject that is being discussed, to understand the relationship between this teaching and Paul’s broader teaching on the Law, and to analyze the precise meaning of the phrase, “the law with its commandments and regulations.” First, the topic of discussion in this passage is the division between Jews and Gentiles. Uncircumcised Gentiles “who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ” (v. 14). The Law is “abolished” insofar as the partition between Jew and Gentile is lifted through Yeshua. Second, Paul’s statement here must be understood in light of what he says elsewhere concerning the Law (e.g., Rom. 3:31), which clearly teaches that the Law has not been rescinded by Yeshua. Third, the phrase “the law with its commandments and regulations” occurs only here in the New Testament. Many believe that the reference is not to the Torah itself, but to legalism. This understanding fits the context, for legalism separated Jew and Gentile with its manmade additions to the Torah. For these reasons, Ephesians 2:15 ought not to be interpreted as a literal abolishment of all of the Law, but as an abolishment of the laws which serve as an addendum to the essence of the Law, which is fulfilled by Jesus.

Paul’s issues with the Torah largely stem from the human inability to keep it. Because of this inability, God promised to make a new covenant (Jer. 31:31-34). The Messiah came to fulfill the Law, which we could never perfectly obey. “Everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law” is “cursed” (Gal. 3:10; cf. Deut. 27:26 LXX). Therefore, our justification before God is not of works, but of faith in the Messiah that God sent (Rom. 1:16-17). We must rely on the Messiah who “became a curse” for us so that we would be “redeemed from the curse of the law” (Gal. 3:13; cf. Deut. 21:23).

The coming of the Messiah isn’t a summons to throw away the Law, but a summons to stop observing it as a means of justification. Thanks to the Messiah, there is no room for boasting in one’s observance of the Law (Rom. 3:27-31). Our position before God is to be freely received as a gift:

Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness. David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:

“Blessed are they
whose transgressions are forgiven,
whose sins are covered.

Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will never count against him.” (Rom. 4:4-8, citing Ps. 32:1-2)

In this light, Romans 6:14 (“For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace”) makes perfect sense. Paul makes it clear that “if righteousness could be gained through the law, Messiah died for nothing!” (Gal. 2:21). These passages indicate that true righteousness and fellowship with God don’t come through Law-keeping, but come through faith in the Messiah.

Naturally, these Messianic ideas are quite different from the teachings of traditional Judaism. Messianic Jews believe that Messiah has already come whereas traditional Jews are still expecting him to come for the first time; these two perspectives lead to two very different approaches to the Torah. Consider Galatians 3:23-25:

Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. So the law was put in charge to lead us to Messiah that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.

In this passage, Paul is not throwing out the Law; he’s simply recognizing the Messiah’s fulfillment of the Law.

Many Messianic Jewish scholars believe that Paul’s apparent rhetoric that is seemingly directed against the Law is actually directed against legalism. Consider how David Stern translates some of these controversial passages: “legalistic observance of Torah commands” (Rom. 3:20, JNT); “you are not under legalism” (Rom. 6:14, JNT); “in subjection to the system which results from perverting the Torah into legalism” (Gal. 3:23, JNT). Stern points to Paul’s “death to the Torah” in Romans 7 as referring to “(1) its capacity to stir up sin in him (vv. 5-14), (2) its capacity to produce irremediable guilt feelings (vv. 15-25), and (3) its penalties, punishments, and curses (8:1-14)” (Stern, JNTC, 375).

Other Christian scholars often relate Paul’s Torah concerns to salvation history. These scholars may not appreciate the continuing significance of the Torah, but they correctly acknowledge that the Messiah’s coming changed everything. Finnish scholar Risto Santala quotes Jewish Professor Joseph Klausner, “The Torah and commandments lose their significance in the days of the Messiah” (Klausner, The Messianic Idea in Israel, cited in Risto Santala, Paul the Man and the Teacher). For Santala, the main issue isn’t Paul’s view of the Law, but his claims about Yeshua. The Messianic age has brought about great changes.

I close with three considerations.

First, many of Paul’s statements about the Law reveal the breakdown of ethnic barriers. For instance, in Romans 10:4, the “end” of the Law could mean “termination,” but it could also mean “fulfillment.” Dunn explains, “Israel had after all been specially chosen by God . . . but that choice had always been wholly in terms of grace (9:6-13) and always had the extension of that grace to all the nations wholly in view from the first (4:16-18), in which case Christ is the realization of God’s final purpose in choosing Israel initially” (Romans 9-16, 597). Jews cannot claim exclusive access to God; the Messiah has made God’s grace available to all peoples. Paul generated great controversy by promoting one body of equals composed of both Jews and Gentiles.

Second, Paul stressed the superiority of the new covenant over the old covenant:

He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, fading though it was, will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? If the ministry that condemns men is glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness! For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory. And if what was fading away came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts! (2 Cor. 3:7-11)

The letter to the Hebrews constantly refers to the new covenant as “better” (7:22; 8:6; 9:23; 11:40; 12:24, etc.). Whereas the covenant at Sinai condemned us to death for our sin, the new covenant brings us life. Whereas the covenant at Sinai demands a functioning high priest and sacrificial system, the new covenant offers its own high priest and once-for-all sacrifice (Heb. 7:23-25; 10:1-10, etc.). In the new covenant, God himself has provided atonement for man’s sins; this divine method of atonement is farmore capable of bringing about reconciliation than servile obedience to the endless Rabbinic traditions.

Third, texts like Isaiah 2:1-4 (“The law will go out from Zion”) don’t indicate the centrality of the Pentateuch in the Messiah’s ministry. “Law” can refer generally to “instruction,” not simply to the five books of Moses. The Messiah himself is central both now and in the future age (Isa. 2:4; 11:1-9; Jer. 23:5-6; Ezek. 34:20-31); he is the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets.

For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 4, pp. 236-265.

“According to Matthew 2:15, when the little boy Jesus, along with Joseph and Mary fled to Egypt to escape from Herod, “this fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: ‘Out of Egypt I called my son.'” But Matthew only quoted the second half of the verse in Hosea. What the prophet really said was this: “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called My son.” The verse has to do with Israel, not Jesus, and it is recounting a historical event, not giving a prophecy. And you claim that Matthew was inspired. Hardly!“

Matthew follows the common Rabbinic practice of citing a short phrase within a passage to establish his point. He assumes that his readers are literate Jews familiar with the larger context of Hosea 11:1 (or that they can easily look up the verse if they are not). This assumption is demonstrated in the opening words of his Gospel (biblos geneseos, equivalent to the common Hebrew expression seper toledot) and in the Hosea citation itself, which follows the Hebrew text rather than the LXX (Matthew uses “son” rather than “children”).

The Messiah shares significant similarities with both Israel and Moses (examples of Messianic typology). Both Moses and Yeshua were threatened by an edict to kill Israelite baby boys (Exod. 1:15-22; Matt. 2:16-18). Both Israel and Jesus went into Egypt in their infancy (Gen. 46:1-7; 47:27; Matt. 2:13-15), were called out of Egypt back to the Promised Land (Exod. 3:8; Matt. 2:21), experienced significant rites of passage at the Jordan River (Josh.3; Matt. 3:13-15), were named “God’s Son” (Exod. 4:22; Matt. 3:17; 17:5),and endured testing in the wilderness (the former for forty years and the latter for forty days). Both Israel and Jesus’ disciples received holy instruction in the context of a mountain (the law on Mt. Sinai and the Sermon on the Mount, respectively). There are many striking parallels between Israel and Jesus, and Matthew expected his more learned readers to catch them.

For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 4, pp. 21-24.

“Hebrews 10:5 is one of the worst examples of New Testament Scripture-twisting. The writer quotes from Psalm 40, where the psalmist says, “You have opened my ears,” but he applies it to Jesus and changes the words to read, “A body you have prepared for me.” Could you imagine anything more dishonest?“

It would have been self-defeating for the author of Hebrews to twist the Scriptures. A Jewish readership would likely have contained at least some people familiar with the verse; surely, they would have immediately spotted an inconsistency. Moreover, these were Jewish believers in Yeshua and the author wasn’t quoting Psalm 40 to establish Jesus’ Messianic credentials, but to edify them in the faith.

The author’s citation of Psalm 40 is from the Septuagint (LXX). The text is rather difficult in Hebrew and the LXX offers an interpretive rendition. Anti-missionaries claim that the LXX translates Psalm 40:6 quite poorly. Nevertheless, the exact meaning of the text in question is debatable. A rough translation would be, “You have dug out ears for me.” Even modern versions are divided on how to translate this text: “You have opened ears for me” (Orthodox Jewish Stone Edition); “But my ears you have pierced” (NIV); “You gave me to understand” (NJV, noting, “Meaning of Heb. uncertain”); “You have made me aware” (Rozenberg and Zlotowitz’s commentary). It seems unusual that the Hebrew verb k-r-h (“dig”) would be used in reference to unstopping ears. The translators of the LXX (the oldest Jewish translation of the Tanakh) felt that “a body you have prepared for me” was an accurate paraphrase of the passage.The author of Hebrews simply cites the LXX here, as well as in a number of other places throughout his epistle. The phrase, “a body you have prepared for me,” is not central to his argument; instead, his emphasis is on a portion of Psalm 40 not under dispute (Heb. 10:8-9).

The author of Hebrews is not misusing Psalm 40. Following a pattern set by the great prophets and teachers of the Scriptures before him, the author gives the basic sense of the passage without quoting it word for word.

For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 4, pp. 37-40.

“Do you want irrefutable proof that the authors of the New Testament didn’t know what they were talking about? Well, look at Matthew 23:35, where Jesus states that the last martyr spoken of in the Hebrew Scriptures was Zechariah son of Berechiah. Actually, that was the name of the biblical prophet (see Zech. 1:1); the last martyr was Zechariah son of Jehoiada (see 2 Chron. 24:20-22). So, either Jesus, your alleged Messiah didn’t know his Bible, or else Matthew (or the final editor of his book) didn’t know the Tanakh. Either way, this is a glaring error that cannot be ignored.”

Matthew 23:35 records Jesus’ denunciation of hypocritical religious leaders: “And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.” The Tanakh never records a martyrdom of Zechariah son of Berechiah (author of the prophetic book bearing his name), but it does record the martyrdom of Zechariah son of Jehoiada, one that matches the Matthew 23 description (2 Chron. 24:20-22). Furthermore, Zechariah son of Jehoiada would have been the last martyr in the Hebrew Bible, complementing Abel as the first.

Perhaps Zechariah son of Berechiah was actually martyred; perhaps Jesus refers to a different Zechariah son of Berechiah. Either way, no evidence exists to prove or deny these claims. A more plausible suggestion is that Zechariah may also have borne the family name of Berechiah (e.g., “grandson of Berechiah”) in addition to that of Jehoiada. A similar usage can be found in the Targum to Lamentations 2:20, which refers to Zechariah son of Jehoiada as “the son of Iddo.” Zechariah son of Berechiah is called “son of Berechiah, son of Iddo” (Zech. 1:1,7) and simply “son of Iddo” (Ezra 5:1; 6:14). We could assume that both Matthew and the Targums are in error (an unthinkable conclusion for both believers in Yeshua and traditional Jews); I think it better to conclude that Zechariah son of Jehoiada was also referenced by other family names.

The reference to Berechiah may also be the result of a scribal error. There are a handful of Greek manuscripts that read “Jehoiada” rather than “Berechiah.” Christian scholar Jerome (331-420 CE) made reference to a Hebrew text of Matthew that read “Jehoiada” (there is a tradition that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew). The medieval Hebrew manuscript Shem Tob Matthew (which may occasionally preserve an original Hebrew reading even though it’s a translation) makes reference to Zechariah, followed by the slash that signifies a shortened phrase in Hebrew (roughly analogous to the English “etc.”). If an early scribe shortened the phrase (as demonstrated in the Shem Tob), it’s possible that another scribe incorrectly changed “Zechariah, etc.” to “Zechariah son of Berechiah.” It is likely that “Berechiah” is not the original reading in Matthew 23:35.

The anti-missionaries unfairly attack Matthew 23:35 even while they wrestle with similar issues in the Rabbinic writings. Genesis Rabbah 64:5 attributes the persecution in Hilkiah’s day to Jezebel, even though Hilkiah lived several centuries later. B. Ber 3b seems to confuse Jehoiada, son of Benaiah with Benaiah, son of Jehoiada. B. Sanh 107b misquotes the Tanakh in referring to Elisha’s servant Gahazi. I take no issue with those who wrestle with these apparent discrepancies, but I do take issue with those who judge the New Testament by a different standard.

For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 4, pp. 111-116.

“Modern scholars are in complete agreement that the Gospels portray a mythical Jesus. There is very little that we can really know about his life.”

For further study, I recommend the following books: Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels; Wilkins and Moreland, Jesus Under Fire; Johnson, The Real Jesus; Witherington, The Jesus Quest; Wright, The Challenge of Jesus; Copan, Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up?; and Dunn and McKnight, The Historical Jesus in Recent Research.

In response to this objection, I offer three considerations.

• Jewish scholars are more likely to consider the general veracity of the Gospels than are their liberal counterparts, a point I discuss at greater length elsewhere.
• When scholars assert that the Gospels present a mythical Jesus, they generally do so because of their presuppositions. The majority of scholars in the liberal Jesus Seminar were educated under liberal professors sharing these presuppositions. When Jesus Seminar researchers analyze the Gospels, they’re already predisposed to believe that Jesus said only 18% of the material attributed to him (along with other similar claims). Luke Timothy Johnson notes, “Like a great deal of Gospel criticism, [the Seminar] began with the assumption that the Gospels are not accurate histories but are narratives constructed out of traditional materials with literary art and theological motives” (The Real Jesus, 4). He further observes (in reference to statements made by Seminar leader Robert Funk that the Jesus Seminar isn’t promoting “disinterested scholarship, but a social mission against the way the church controls the Bible, and the way in which the church is dominated by . . . a theology focused both on the literal truth of the Gospels and the literal return of Jesus” (The Real Jesus, 6).In Funk’s keynote address at the first Jesus Seminar meeting, he lamented, “The religious establishment has not allowed the intelligence of high scholarship to pass through pastors and priests to a hungry laity” (“The Issue of Jesus,” Forum 1/1 [1985], quoted in Johnson, The Real Jesus, 6).The Jesus Seminar offers anything but an objective analysis of the Gospels!
• The same skeptics who classify the Gospels as myths similarly classify critical events in the Tanakh. Liberals presuppose that the biblical writings (both the Tanakh and the New Covenant) are untrustworthy regardless of the evidence. Both conservative and liberal scholars can allow their biases to influence their conclusions; however, conservatives are often far more willing to analyze both sides of the debate, whereas liberals tend to analyze only one side. Craig L. Blomberg takes liberal scholars to task for their approach, observing, “The critical scholarship which has abandoned these very beliefs [“the infallibility of Scripture” and “the deity of Christ”] virtually never considers where its investigations might lead if it questions its starting-point and took seriously the possibility of the divine origin of Scripture and of Jesus” (The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, 256-7).

We can’t offer absolute proof of New Testament claims, but we can offer the followingthoughts. (1) The Gospels are presented as historical accounts inviting honest investigation. (2) Archaeological findings continue to confirm New Testament accounts. (3) The New Testament writers were eyewitnesses who suffered persecution and often martyrdom for their accounts. (4) The movement Jesus started is growing faster now than it has ever before, revealing the power of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection to change lives.

For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 4, pp. 66-70.

“Jesus did work some miracles, but they were not by God’s power. We have traditions that tell us he learned magical arts in Egypt.”

Here’s the specific text in view (footnote 17 to b. Sanh 107b):

What of R. Joshua b. Perahjah?—When King Jannai slew our Rabbis, R. Joshua b. Perahjah (and Jesus) fled to Alexandria of Egypt. On the resumption of peace, Simeon b. Shetach sent to him: ‘From me, (Jerusalem) the holy city, to thee, Alexandria of Egypt (my sister). My husband dwelleth within thee and I am desolate.’ He arose, went, and found himself in a certain inn, where great honour was shewn him. ‘How beautiful is this Acsania!’ (The word denotes both inn and innkeeper. R. Joshua used it in the first sense; the answer assumes the second to be meant.) Thereupon (Jesus) observed, ‘Rabbi, her eyes are narrow.’ ‘Wretch,’ he rebuked him, ‘dost thou thus engage thyself.’ He sounded four hundred trumpets and excommunicated him. He (Jesus) came before him many times pleading, ‘Receive me!’ But he would pay no heed to him. One day he (R. Joshua) was reciting the Shema’, when Jesus came before him. He intended to receive him and made a sign to him. He (Jesus) thinking that it was to repel him, went, put up a brick, and worshipped it. ‘Repent,’ said he (R. Joshua) to him. He replied, ‘I have thus learned from thee: He who sins and causes others to sin is not afforded the means of repentance.’ And a Master has said, ‘Jesus the Nazarene practised magic and led Israel astray.’

This text depicts events during King Jannaeus’s reign (104-78 BCE). While the text claims that “Yeshu the Nazarene” practiced magic he learned in Egypt, the account doesn’t even place him in the correct century! This story should be given as much credence as a history book placing Ronald Reagan’s presidency in the Civil War! Solomon Schecther’s 1898 analysis of anti-Jesus myths is apropos: “All the so-called Anti-Christiana collected by medieval [Jewish] fanatics, and freshed up again by modern ignoramuses, belong to the later centuries, when history and biography had already given way to myth and speculation” (quoted in Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament, 122).

The miracles of Yeshua occurred far differently than depicted in the anti-Jesus myths. Jesus didn’t do miracles to put on a show; he even refused to give a sign to “a wicked and adulterous generation” (Matt. 16:4). Like the prophets before him, Jesus gave signs to confirm his divine mission (e.g., Exod. 4:1-9, 29-31; 1 Kings 18); however, Jesus’ miracles didn’t just confirm who he was – they also demonstrated his compassion toward afflicted human beings (e.g., Mark 1:40-42; 6:34; 8:2; 9:22; Matt. 20:29-34; Luke 7:11-15). Ultimately, these miracles led both Jews and Gentiles to a relationship with the God of Israel (e.g., Matt. 15:30-31).

For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 4, pp. 102-106.

“When Jesus failed to fulfill the prophecies, his followers invented the myth of his substitutionary death, his resurrection, and finally, his second coming, which, of course, they completely expected in his lifetime.”

This objection is self-defeating in that, to propose it, you must also propose the following: (1) No biblical prophecies pointed to the Messiah’s suffering, contradicting the argument that the disciples restructured his life to coincide with prophecy.(2) The Gospels are completely off base in reporting Jesus’ repeated references to his death and resurrection. (3) Jesus’ Last Supper (in which he points to his bloodshed and death in ratification of the new covenant) didn’t take place. (4) Jesus’ resurrection was a total fiction despite its foundational prominence for his followers and the eyewitness testimony indicating the contrary. (5) The disciples were able within days to overcome the immediate shock of their Master’s death by contriving an elaborate tale of his prophetic fulfillment. Not only that, but they willingly endured persecution, even to the point of death, to defend their false claims. (6) The disciples wrongly believed that their own contrived myth of the second coming would happen in their lifetimes!

This objection has as much merit as a shady tabloid headline! In our discussion elsewhere on this website, we address similar claims in more detail.

For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 4, pp. 109-111.

“The New Covenant is anti-Semitic. It is filled with negative references to the Jewish people, and it blames them for the death of Jesus.”

Here’s a brief summary of our findings which are further elaborated elsewhere on the website:

•  The oft-cited passage Matthew 27:25 doesn’t indicate a perpetual curse on Israel, nor does it communicate anti-Semitic sentiments. Even Rabbinic sources note the involvement of Jewish leadership in Jesus’ crucifixion. Matthew’s record is, at minimum, historically feasible.
• The Jews are no more demeaned in the New Testament than they are in the Dead Sea Scrolls or by Josephus’s writings. The term “Jews” often refers to the religious leadership, not to the nation of Israel generally.
• Though the New Testament treats hypocritical Jewish leaders harshly, it also praises the Pharisees who embraced Yeshua. The prophets in the Tanakh followed a similar pattern in their ministries.
• When Paul denounces the Jews who persecuted the prophets, he is not denouncing all Jews everywhere: he’s denouncing unbelieving Jews who rejected the message of the prophets.
• The New Testament never charges Jews with killing God. Jesus’ death is specifically connected to his human nature rather than his divine nature. The New Testament charges both Jew and Gentile with Jesus’ death for sin, which was ultimately orchestrated by God’s sovereignty. Peter acknowledges, “This man was handed over to you by God’s set purpose and foreknowledge” (Acts 2:23a). Consider also that Jesus prayed for his executioners: “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing” (Luke 23:34).
• The New Testament doesn’t teach that the church replaces Israel, nor does it ever describe the church as the “new Israel.” To the contrary, the New Testament promises a future restoration of the Jewish nation. The reproof given to the nation by the New Testament writers is analogous to what we often find in the Hebrew Bible and in inter-Jewish quarrels.
• Regardless of the professing “church’s” past activities against Jews, biblically minded Christians today have shown love for Israel in accord with the real New Testament teaching.

For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 4, pp. 147-150.

“Jesus was a cruel and undisciplined man. He violated the Torah by cursing—and hence, destroying—a perfectly good fig tree for not bearing figs even though the New Testament writers tell us that it was not the time for figs. So much for your wonderful Messiah! He even called a Gentile woman a dog when she approached him for help.”

When we look at the full New Testament testimony of Yeshua, we don’t find a cruel and undisciplined man, but a compassionate Savior who rigorously obeyed God’s Law. It would have made no sense for the New Testament writers to portray Jesus as cruel and undisciplined. Jesus’ sinlessness was foundational to their theology:

God made him who had no sin to be sin [or, a sin offering] for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. (2 Cor. 5:21)

He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth. (1 Pet. 2:22, quoting Isa. 53:9b)

For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yetwas without sin. (Heb. 4:15)

However, Jesus allegedly demonstrated cruelty and violated one of God’s commands by cursing a fig tree:

The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. Then he said to the tree, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.” And his disciples heard him say it. (Mark 11:12-14)

It is alleged that Jesus violated this particular command of the Torah:

When you lay siege to a city for a long time, fighting against it to capture it, do not destroy its trees by putting an ax to them, because you can eat their fruit. Do not cut them down. Are the trees of the field people, that you should besiege them? However, you may cut down trees that you know are not fruit trees and use them to build siege works until the city at war with you falls. (Deut. 20:19)

Deuteronomy 20 commands Israel to avoid cutting down healthy trees, even when “lay[ing] siege to a city.” Why would Jesus destroy a healthy fig tree? Mark even admits, “It was not the season for figs” (Mark11:13).

Consider Elisha’s prophecy of Israel’s battle with Moab: “You will cut down every good tree, stop up all the springs, and ruin every good field with stones” (2 Kings 3:19). Rashi says that Israel was justified in violating the Torah because Moab was “a contemptible and insignificant nation.” He cites Deuteronomy 23:7, “You shall not seek their welfare and their good.” If Israel was justified in cutting down all of Moab’s trees, why wasn’t the Messiah justified in cursing one fig tree?

Furthermore, Jesus didn’t curse an ordinary, healthy fig tree. The season for figs was about six weeks away, but healthy trees would still bear visible, non-edible figs by late March or early April. Even if the fig tree in Mark 11 looked fruitful at first glance, its appearance was a total sham; the lack of non-edible figs meant that the tree wouldn’t bear any fruit at harvest time. F.F. Bruce concludes, “The fig tree represents the city of Jerusalem, unresponsive to Jesus as he came to it with the message of God” (Hard Sayings of the Bible, 442). Jerusalem’s outward appearance was one of health and fruitfulness, but Jesus knew of its underlying hypocrisy.

As the Son of God, Yeshua had every right to curse this fig tree; he could have justly cursed a thousand fig trees! Jesus’ curse caused the tree to “wither,” much to the disciples’ amazement (Mark 11:20-21). The appropriate question then isn’t, “What right did Jesus have to curse the fig tree?” but rather, “Who is this rabbi that performs miracles like this?”

Why did Jesus call a Gentile woman a dog? Here’s a better question: why do traditional Jewish writings seem to reflect even worse sentiments toward Gentiles? For instance:

• Exodus 22:31 commands that the “meat of an animal torn by wild beasts” be thrown to “the dogs.” Rashi identifies the “dogs” in this passage as Gentiles.
• Maimonides says that Sabbath breaking is permissible to save a Jew’s life, but not a Gentile’s life.
• “While a Jew should not lower a Gentile into a pit to kill him, he should not lift him out of the pit to help him” (b. A. Z. 26a).
• “A heathen who studies the Torah deserves death” (b. Sanh 59a).
• “You are called men, but the nations of the world are not called men, but beasts” (b. B. M. 114b).
• R. Shimon ben Yohai instructed, “The best among the gentiles, in wartime – kill!”
• Recently, the graduate of a major yeshiva in America (Rabbi Saadya Grama) wrote a book based on Rabbinic sources claiming that “gentiles are ‘completely evil’ and Jews constitute a separate, genetically superior species,” as reported in TheForward (Allan Nadler, “Charedi Rabbis Rush to Disavow Anti-Gentile Book,” The Forward, December 19, 2003, http://www.forward.com/issues/2003/03.12.19/news4a.html). One review of Grama’s book, also quoted in The Forward article, cites Chabad Chasidism’s primary text that declares “Jewish and gentile souls . . . fundamentally different, the former ‘divine’ and the latter ‘animalistic.'”

Many rabbis have rightly taken issue with Rabbi Grama’s interpretations. Rabbi Aryeh Malkiel Kotler rescinded his original positive review of the book, saying, “Our philosophy asserts that every human being is created in the image of the Lord and the primacy of integrity and honesty in all dealings without exception. I strongly repudiate any assertions in the name of Judaism that do not represent and reflect this philosophy” (cited in Steven I. Weiss, “Ultra-Orthodox Officials Go to Bat for Anti-Gentile Book,” in The Forward, January 16, 2004, http://www.forward.com/issues/2004/04.01.16/news9.lakewood.html).The texts above cannot be properly understood apart from their original context. The Talmud frequently emphasizes the dignity of all human beings since they are all made in God’s image. If we are quick to defend the Rabbinic writings against charges of bigotry, why are we in such a hurry to level the same charges against Yeshua?

Consider these truths:

• Matthew traced Jesus’ adoptive ancestry through Rahab and Ruth, two Gentile women (Matt. 1:5).
• Jesus enraged his audience in the synagogue by citing examples of God’s mercy toward Gentiles (Luke 4:24-30).
• Jesus taught that believing Gentiles would feast in the kingdom of heaven, while unbelieving Jews would be cast out (Matt. 8:11-12).
• Jesus’ compassion toward the woman at the well stood in stark contrast to the anti-Samaritan prejudice of his day (John 4:42).
• One of Jesus’ most well-known parables praises a Samaritan (Luke 10:29-37).
• Jesus praised the Samaritan leper who returned to thank him (Luke 17:11-19).
• Jesus instructed his followers to go into “all nations” (Matt. 28:19; Luke 24:47) with the gospel.
• Jesus gave his life “for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:2).

Here’s the context of Jesus’ infamous remarks toward the Gentile woman:

Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession.” Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.” He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.” The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said. He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to their dogs.” “Yes, Lord,” she said, “but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.” Then Jesus answered, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed from that very hour. Jesus left there and went along the Sea of Galilee. (Matt. 15:21-29; see also Mark 7:24-31)

Jesus’ exchange with the Gentile woman comes after his encounter with the Pharisees at Gennesaret. He criticizes the Pharisees for putting their traditions above God’s commandments. He observes, “What goes into a man’s mouth does not make him ‘unclean,’ but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him ‘unclean'” (Matt. 15:11). Mark’s account gives further explanation:

He said to them, “Then do you also fail to understand? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile, since it enters, not the heart but the stomach, and goes out into the sewer?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.) (Mark. 7:18-19 NRSV).

This is not an undoing of the dietary laws. Food, in and of itself – even ritually “unclean” food – could not defile our essential being anymore than eating with ritually unwashed hands could make our hearts unclean.

Jesus then makes a lengthy journey (between 60 and 100 miles round-trip) to “the region of Tyre and Sidon,” where he ultimately heals the Gentile woman’s daughter. Mark 7 parallels the vision in Acts 10 where Peter is commanded to eat unclean animals. The point of both accounts is that believing Gentiles are not “unclean.” Paul would later point out, “As the Scripture says, ‘Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame.’ For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, ‘Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved” (Rom. 10:11-13, quoting Joel 2:32).

Jesus’ controversial remark is a test for the Gentile woman that ultimately reveals her faith. His journey into Tyre and Sidon is out of the way, but one sovereignly arranged by God to communicate an important truth: even Gentiles can have “great faith” in the God of Israel (15:28). The only other time that Matthew uses the expression “great faith” is in 8:10, which references a Roman centurion!

How then do we explain his words, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to their dogs”? It’s true that the Greek word that is used here can refer to “household dogs” as opposed to “wild dogs”; however, it’s obvious that the Gentile woman wasn’t offended. She knew that Jesus’ primary ministry was to the house of Israel. She had faith that, as a Gentile outsider, she could have the “leftovers” of this ministry. Jesus wasn’t demeaning the woman as some “lousy Gentile dog”; he was simply giving her the chance to demonstrate her faith. Look at the end result: “And her daughter was healed from that very hour” (Matt. 15:28). This account is anything but prejudiced and bigoted.

For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 4, pp. 162-177.

“Actually, Jesus also taught that salvation came through obeying the Law. Just read Matthew 5:17-20; 7:21; 19:16-30; 25:31-46. This whole “gospel of grace” message is the invention of Paul and the other writers.”

While Jesus didn’t do away with the Law, he never taught that Law-keeping could save a person. Consider these examples:

• Jesus tells Nicodemus, “Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life” (John 3:14-15).
• These famous words may also have been spoken by Jesus: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God” (John 3:16-21).
• He consistently calls the Jews to “believe”: “I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life” (John 5:24; see also 6:35; 7:37-38; 11:25-26; 12:44-46).
• He declares the punishment of refusing to believe: “If you do not believe that I am [he], you will indeed die in your sins” (John 8:24).
• He cites the Father’s will that the Son be “honored” just as the Father is honored (John 5:21-23).
• He’s the source of true “rest”: “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest” (Matt. 11:28; see also vv. 29-30).
• He calls himself the only “way” to the Father (John 10:6-10; 14:6-7).
• He’s the “good shepherd” who “lays down his life for the sheep” (John 10:11, 27-30).
• He’s the “vine,” the only source of spiritual life. We are called to “remain” in him (John 15:4-7).
• He’s the “doctor” calling the “sick” and demanding “repentance” (Luke 5:32).
• He demands radical commitment from his disciples: “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me” (Mark 8:34; see also Luke 14:33).
• He demands shameless, public confession of his claims (Matt. 10:32-33; Mark 8:38).
• He repeatedly emphasizes his need to die for man’s sins: “The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45)
• Jesus shed his blood and died to institute the new covenant (Luke 22:19-20).
• He commands his disciples to preach faith and repentance to all peoples (Matt. 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-16; Luke 24:46-48).

Jesus’ message centers upon himself: men must believe in him to have eternal life. The message doesn’t change in the book of Acts. At Shavuot (Pentecost), Peter declares, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus the Messiah for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). He later says, “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). Paul’s “gospel of grace” is the same message given by Yeshua and his other Apostles.

Matthew 5:17-20 doesn’t contradict the gospel given elsewhere. Jesus didn’t come to abolish the Law and the Prophets but to fulfill them; through him, the Law and the Prophets found their ultimate expression. Jesus insists on a higher code of living than the practice of devout Jews of his day; he provides the ability to live out this code through the New Covenant.

Matthew 7:21 is also consistent with New Testament teaching, “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.” Matthew 7:21 doesn’t teach that Law-keeping is necessary for salvation. Instead, it indicates that newness of life and obedience to God necessarily flow from salvation.

When the rich young ruler asks how he can have eternal life, Jesus replies, “If you want to enter life, obey the commandments” (Matt. 19:17); however, when the young man replies, “All these [commandments] have I kept” (v. 20), Jesus doesn’t tell him to just keep obeying the Law. Instead, he tells him to abandon all of his possessions, give them to the poor, and follow the Messiah (v. 20-22). Such requirements weren’t in the Law!

Finally, Matthew 25:31-36 indicates that when Jesus returns, he will judge the nations according to how they treated his followers. This standard of judgment is mentioned nowhere in the Torah. Even at this judgment, Yeshua is the focal point; how you treat Yeshua’s followers is ultimately how you treat Yeshua himself.

The New Testament consistently indicates that salvation is only through the person of Yeshua, not through obedience to the Law. Jesus is the “Savior” (Acts 13:23), the one who “saves his people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21).

For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 4, pp. 177-184.

“If you study world religions, you will see that the teachings of Jesus borrow extensively from Hinduism and Buddhism.”

First, all world religions share some common ground. This shouldn’t be surprising. As human beings made in God’s image, we all have access to God’s revelation in creation (Ps. 19:1-6; Rom. 1:19-20). Traditions around the world have parallels of biblical accounts (e.g., Noah’s flood and the Tower of Babel). Some religious traditions (e.g., Islam) have even used some Jewish and Christian thought in their own teachings. As people pursue God, the laws and proverbs of various traditions are bound to share similarities (e.g., the Golden Rule). It also shouldn’t be surprising that different traditions would have similar rites of cleansing and purification.

Second, no evidence suggests that Jesus borrowed from Hinduism and Buddhism. There’s no evidence that Jesus visited far Eastern countries to learn these faiths, nor is there evidence that first-century Jews had any significant contact with Hindus or Buddhists.

Third, many of Jesus’ teachings differ radically from Hindu and Buddhist doctrine. Jesus taught monotheism, unlike polytheistic Hinduism and atheistic Buddhism. Jesus taught that we each have one life (followed by an eternal afterlife), not that we are reincarnated as Hindus and Buddhists teach. Jesus taught that he was the only way to God, while Hindus and Buddhists are often accepting of other beliefs (provided that they are sufficiently inclusive). Jesus stressed a sin-cleansing new birth; Hindus and Buddhists teach no such concept.

We could cite further proof, but it should be clear that Jesus borrowed nothing from Buddhism or Hinduism.

For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 4, pp. 202-204.

“The Torah is forever, every jot and tittle, and only traditional Jews keep it. In fact, even the so-called new covenant of Jeremiah 31 says that God will put the Torah in our hearts. Therefore, since Jesus abolished the Torah, he cannot be the Messiah.”

We’ve already shown that Jesus didn’t abolish the Torah. God didn’t just give revelation at Mt. Sinai; he also gave revelation to the prophets, who predicted a time when God would make a new covenant with his people, forgiving their sins and enabling them to obey his Law. The Temple was destroyed in 70 CE, but God never intended that we would be incapable of keeping his Law for over 1,900 years; instead, he sent the Messiah who perfectly fulfilled the Law. Yeshua is the one to whom the Law and the Prophets ultimately point. Just as Rabbinic Jews see the Torah through the prism of their traditions, so we see the Torah through the prism of Jesus, the promised Messiah; the difference is that by interpreting the Torah in light of Jesus, Messianic Jews are able to uphold the permanent validity of the Torah, especially those aspects which impossible for traditional Jews to keep.

“Anyone who changes the Law—no matter what signs or wonders he performs—is a false prophet. That applies to Jesus!“

When you hurl this accusation at Jesus, remember that the Rabbinic writings make significant alterations to the Torah. Traditional Jews argue that Moses received both the written Law and the oral tradition at Mt. Sinai. Maimonides contended, apart from any support from the Tanakh, that the Messiah would be “learned in Torah and observant of the mitzvoth, as prescribed by the written law and the oral law” (Hilchot Melachim, 11:4, emphasis added). Orthodox Jews hold that their adjustments to the Law are essential due to the dispersion of the people and destruction of the Temple; yet the fact remains that God explicitly demands that nothing be added to or taken away from the Law (Deut. 4:2; 12:32).

Jesus didn’t abolish the Law, but fulfilled it and instituted the new covenant. Jesus’ miracles confirm his Messianic claims. He said, “The miracles I do in my Father’s name speak for me . . . . Even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father” (John 10:25, 38). The disciples continued performing miracles, proving that Jesus had risen from the dead in fulfillment of prophecy (Isa. 53:8-12; Ps. 16:8-11; 22:20-31).Yes, the dawning of the Messianic era has brought about great changes. Nevertheless, Jesus confirmed the truthfulness of his message by performing great signs and wonders. The Rabbinic writers performed no such miracles.

The Torah indicates that Moses’s message was also confirmed through miracles, when it states that “no one has ever shown the mighty power or performed the awesome deeds that Moses did in the sight of all Israel” (Deut. 34:12). Rabbinic Judaism often compares Moses Maimonides to Moses, even though Maimonides never performed any miracles. Yeshua, on the other hand, did perform miracles, and his signs are a tremendous testimony to his claims.

For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 4, pp. 266-269.

“Observance of the Sabbath has been the hallmark of the Jewish people, separating us from other nations and identifying us with the covenant of God. Since Christianity changed the Sabbath, Christianity is obviously not for the Jewish people.”

I commend you who are traditional Jews for your strenuous Sabbath observance. Although such observance cannot make us righteous (Rom. 9:31), the presence of Sabbath-observing Jews in the world is a sign of God’s promise to preserve his people. While Jesus took issue with many of the hypocritical practices of the religious leaders, he praised them for their rigorous obedience to certain commands (Matt. 23:23). At the same time, your noble dedication to the Sabbath has caused you to take issue with Christianity. Many Jews are under the impression that Christianity does away with the Sabbath and that for this reason, it is impossible for a traditional Jew toembrace Yeshua.

As we’ve seen, neither Jesus nor Paul abolished the Law; to the contrary, both men rigorously obeyed the Law. Jesus exposed faulty human traditions that took away from the meaning of the Sabbath and instead opened up the deepest, most spiritual aspects of the Sabbath.Throughout the history of Yeshua’s movement, we find Jewish believers observing the Sabbath, just as we find in our day.

Gentile influence prompted later church councils to change the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday; however, this change has no biblical basis. When the early churches gathered for worship on Sundays, such gatherings didn’t replace the Sabbath. Torah-observant Jews worshipped on Saturdays and Sundays.

What is problematic about Gentile believers worshipping on Sunday? The Sabbath is a sign to Israel (Ezek. 20:12-21), not to the Gentiles. Some Christians (such as Seventh Day Adventists) argue that Gentiles are obligated to observe the Sabbath as a creation mandate (Gen. 2:1-3), but this is not a common view. The practice of Gentile Christians worshipping on Sundays takes nothing away from Jesus’ Messianic claims.

What do we make of Jewish believers in Yeshua who don’t practice the Sabbath? Some would argue that they’re failing to meet their covenant obligations. Others would say that, since Yeshua has fulfilled the Torah, Jewish believers have already entered into the Messiah’s Sabbath rest. Whichever wayyou look at it, one thingis certain: you too can experience the Messiah’s rest, a rest that transcends weekly observance of the Sabbath (Matt. 11:28-30).

For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 4, pp. 269-273.

In Acts 10, God-fearing Gentile Cornelius has a vision of an angel who instructs him to seek Jesus’ disciple Peter. Peter subsequently receives this vision:

He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.” “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.” The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.” This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven. (Acts 10:11-16)

This text isn’t a divine imperative to eat treif (unclean food). Peter would later recall the vision’s significance: “God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean” (Acts 10:28). Notice Peter’s response to Jesus’ instructions: “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean” (Acts 10:14). The fact that Peter (a key source of information for Mark’s Gospel) continued to refrain from treif even after Yeshua’s resurrection is very significant.

In order to understand Mark 7:19 (cf. Matt. 15), we have to understand its context. While Yeshua was healing the sick (6:53-56), the Pharisees took issue with his disciples, who ate with ritually unwashed (or “unclean”) hands (7:1-5). In response, Jesus condemnedthe Pharisees for placing their manmade traditions above God’s Law, explaining, “Nothing outside a man can make him ‘unclean’ by going into him. Rather it is what comes out of a man that makes him ‘unclean'” (7:15). Jesus then said to his disciples, “Are you so dull? Don’t you see that nothing enters a man from the outside can make him ‘unclean’? For it doesn’t go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body,” prompting Mark to observe, “In saying this, Jesus declared all foods ‘clean'” (7:17-19). The application of the teaching is seen in the latter part of the chapter, which describes Jesus’ mercy toward a Gentile (“unclean”) woman.

If Mark 7:19 had in fact abrogated dietary laws, Jesus’ own disciples didn’t get the message. Multitudes of their Jewish converts to Jesus were “zealous for the law” (Acts 21:20). John Fischer comments, “His [Jesus’] detractors had just accused him of not observing their traditions, and he had responded that they did far worse; they did not observe the commandments of the Torah (vv. 9-13). To choose this time to set aside other commandments of the Torah would have undercut his whole response” (“Jesus through Jewish Eyes”).

Among the various interpretations of Mark 7:19 that have been proposed are the following:

1. All foods are, in and of themselves, “clean.” Jesus’ teaching was not a summons to consume pork, but a revelation of a crucial spiritual truth for the disciples’ ministry to the Gentiles (see also Rom. 14:1-23; 1 Cor. 8:1-13; 10:25-33; 1 Tim. 4:4).
2. Jesus wasn’t talking about treif, but about foods eaten by unwashed hands, which were deemed unclean only by Pharisaical tradition, not by the Law.
3. Jesus declared all foods clean for Gentiles only.
4. The Messianic age has removed the barrier between Jew and Gentile, rendering the dietary laws obsolete; however, the disciples continued to observe the dietary laws long after the events of Mark 7. An undoing of these laws would also contradict Jesus’ denunciation of the Pharisees.
5. The verb katharizo doesn’t mean, “declare clean,” but, “purge.” The phrase “out of his body” (NIV) literally means, “out into the sewer.” Foods don’t go into a man’s heart, but they’re purged out of the body and into the sewer. This view does little to explain other New Testament statements that seem to do away with the dietary laws. It also fails to grasp the implications of Yeshua’s teachings.

Out of these interpretations, the first is the best. Jesus didn’t abolish the dietary laws, but changed his disciples’ relationship to these laws. In some situations, it would be better for the disciples to consume unclean food than to miss opportunities for ministry with Gentiles. Mark 7 teaches that Jewish and Gentile believers in Yeshua are equals in God’s family.

Let’s look at other New Testament passages that, at first glance, appear to abolish the dietary laws:

1. Romans 14:14 says, “As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food [lit., “nothing”] is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean.” Three views have been offered:(1) Paul is simply telling believers not to judge each other,(2) Paul is noting the conflict between Jewish and Gentile followers of Yeshua, and (3) Paul is saying that we can eat anything thanks to the changes brought about by the Messiah’s coming.
2. 1 Corinthians 10:25-26 says, “Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, for, ‘The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it.'” Paul addresses Gentiles, who faced the question of whether to eat meat sold in the market that might have been offered to an idol. These Gentiles weren’t subject to the Mosaic Law.
3. 1 Timothy 4 condemns demonically-motivated teachers who “forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth” (v. 3). Some interpret this to mean that all foods, even those restricted by the Law, should now be consumed with thanksgiving. Others argue that, since the food is “consecrated by the word of God and prayer” (v. 5), Paul’s teaching applies only to foods permitted under the Law.

Even if you take the above texts to mean that the New Testament abrogates the dietary laws, consider the Midrash to Psalm 146:7, “Some say that every creature that is considered unclean in the present world, the Holy One blessed be He will declare clean in the age to come” (Midrash Tehillim 146:4). It could be argued, then, that the inauguration of the Messianic era rightly brought about changes in the dietary code.

For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 4, pp. 273-282.

Both the Tanakh and the New Testament contain apparent contradictions. It’s unfair to harshly critique the New Testament, while working diligently to resolve every supposed problem in the Tanakh and Rabbinic writings! When considering the alleged New Testament contradictions, keep the following in mind: (1) It’s unlikely that the New Testament authors would knowingly propagate contradictory accounts. (2) Apparent problems are sometimes the result of different, not contradictory, perspectives (e.g., two witnesses in a court who give different but harmonious accounts of a crime based on differing viewpoints). (3) Differing accounts may simply spring from different authors’ varying emphases. (4) The presence of additional information doesn’t always indicate a contradiction. (5) Some perceived difficulties simply result from a lack of data. If we knew all of the information, we would see no problems in the text.

Carson demonstrates one example of an apparent problem in Acts 1:18-19. Matthew 27:5 records that Judas “hanged himself,” while Acts says, “he fell headlong, his body burst open, and all his intestines spilled out.” While these may appear to be contradictory accounts, it’s possible that we simply don’t have all the information. Since no Jew would have defiled himself by handling a corpse during the Feast of Unleavened Bread, “a hot sun might have brought on rapid decomposition till the body fell to the ground and burst open” (Carson, “Matthew,” EBC, 8:562). An early tradition proposes that Judas hanged himself on a branch overlooking a ravine; Acts 1 describes the result of the breaking branch. Sometimes, if we had additional information, we would be able to resolve apparent problems in the text.

The following works are helpful in dealing with New Testament difficulties: Snow, A Zeal for God Not According to Knowledge; Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties; and Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels. The following commentators give a reasonable treatment of alleged problems in New Testament texts: D.A. Carson (Matthew, John), Craig Keener (Matthew, John), Donald Hagner (Matthew), John Nolland (Matthew, Luke), William Lane (Mark), R.T. France (Mark), Robert Guelich (Mark), Craig Evans (Mark), Darrel Bock (Luke), Joel Green (Luke), I. Howard Marshall (Luke), Leon Morris (John), and Andreas Köstenberger (John).

For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 4, pp. 116-119.