What you'll learn

  • Answer the most common Jewish objections to Jesus, including the 'unfulfilled prophecies' and 'a man can't be God' objections
  • Explain Paul's relationship to the Law, answer the claim that the New Testament is antisemitic, and compare covenant and dispensational views of Israel fairly
  • Plan how to share the gospel with Jewish friends lovingly and wisely

'Jesus didn't bring world peace or rebuild the Temple'

This is the most common objection, and it is serious. The prophets promise an age when nations 'learn war no more' (Isaiah 2:4), the exiles are gathered (Isaiah 11:12) and God's sanctuary stands among his people (Ezekiel 37:26-28). Jesus did not do all of that, so how can he be Messiah?

The answer is that the Tanakh itself pictures the Messiah in two contrasting ways: lowly and suffering (Isaiah 53; Zechariah 9:9, riding on a donkey) and glorious and reigning (Daniel 7:13-14). The Talmud noticed this tension and proposed that if Israel is worthy he will come 'with the clouds of heaven', and if not, 'lowly, riding upon an ass' (Sanhedrin 98a). Other rabbis spoke of two Messiahs, son of Joseph and son of David (Sukkah 52a). Christians believe these are two comings of one Messiah. Daniel 9 puts atonement and the cutting off of the anointed one before the Temple's destruction, and Jesus promised to return in glory (Mark 14:62; Acts 1:11) to complete what remains, including universal peace. Meanwhile he has already brought the knowledge of Israel's God to the nations, as the servant was to do (Isaiah 49:6).

How would you answer a Jewish friend who says, 'Jesus didn't bring world peace or rebuild the Temple, so he can't be the Messiah'?Show answer

The objection is serious, but the Tanakh pictures the Messiah in two contrasting ways: lowly and suffering (Isaiah 53; Zechariah 9:9) and glorious and reigning (Daniel 7:13-14). The Talmud itself noticed this tension (Sanhedrin 98a) and some rabbis spoke of two Messiahs (Sukkah 52a); Christians believe these are two comings of one Messiah. Daniel 9 puts atonement before the Temple's destruction, Jesus promised to return to complete universal peace, and meanwhile he has already brought the knowledge of Israel's God to the nations (Isaiah 49:6).

  • lowly and glorious pictures
  • rabbis noticed the tension
  • two comings of one Messiah
  • light to the nations already

'The New Testament is antisemitic'

Jewish friends may point to John's frequent phrase 'the Jews', Matthew 27:25 ('His blood be on us, and on our children') or 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16. These texts have been horribly misused, and we should admit it.

But consider: the New Testament was written almost entirely by Jews, about a Jewish Messiah, to communities founded by Jews. Its criticisms of Jewish leaders are intra-Jewish prophetic critique, like Isaiah calling Jerusalem 'Sodom' (Isaiah 1:10) or Jeremiah's denunciations. In John, 'the Jews' often refers to the Judean religious authorities, while the disciples, the crowds who believe, Mary, Martha and Lazarus are all Jews. Jesus prayed 'Father, forgive them' (Luke 23:34), Peter told the crowd they acted 'through ignorance' (Acts 3:17), and Paul loved his people to the point of anguish (Romans 9:1-5). The New Testament condemns sin in every people and offers the same Saviour to all.

How would you answer someone who says the New Testament is antisemitic?Show answer

First admit that texts like Matthew 27:25 have been horribly misused. Then note that the New Testament was written almost entirely by Jews about a Jewish Messiah, and its criticism of Jewish leaders is intra-Jewish prophetic critique, like Isaiah calling Jerusalem 'Sodom'. In John, 'the Jews' often means the Judean authorities, while the disciples and believing crowds are also Jews, and Jesus prayed 'Father, forgive them' while Paul loved his people to anguish.

  • admit the misuse
  • written by Jews
  • intra-Jewish prophetic critique
  • 'the Jews' often = Judean authorities

'Christians changed the Law' and Paul

Many Jewish people see Paul as the founder of Christianity who abandoned Torah. Yet Paul calls himself 'an Hebrew of the Hebrews' and a Pharisee (Philippians 3:5), says 'the law is holy' (Romans 7:12), and insists faith does not make void the law but 'establish[es]' it (Romans 3:31). In Acts 21 thousands of Jewish believers were 'zealous of the law' and Paul joined in a Temple purification rite (21:20-26).

What changed is the covenant, and the Tanakh itself promised that change: 'I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel... not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers' (Jeremiah 31:31-32). In it God writes his law on the heart and forgives sin (31:33-34). Hebrews 8 quotes this whole passage. (You met the new covenant in Know Your Faith, Lesson 10, and the place of the law in Lesson 12.) Messiah did not abolish God's Torah; he fulfilled it and inaugurated the new covenant the prophets announced. Jewish believers may keep Jewish customs; Gentiles are not required to become Jews (Acts 15).

What is the difference between saying Jesus abolished the Torah and saying he inaugurated a new covenant?Show answer

Paul did not abandon Torah: he called himself a Hebrew of Hebrews, said the law is holy, said faith establishes the law, and joined a Temple rite (Acts 21). What changed was the covenant, and the Tanakh promised that change: God would make a new covenant with Israel, writing his law on the heart and forgiving sin (Jeremiah 31:31-34). So Messiah fulfilled God's Torah and inaugurated the promised covenant; Jewish believers may keep customs, and Gentiles need not become Jews (Acts 15).

  • Paul honoured the law
  • covenant changed, not God's Torah abolished
  • Jeremiah 31 promised it
  • Gentiles need not become Jews

Israel and the church: an in-house debate

Jewish friends sometimes ask, 'Do Christians think God has replaced us?' Here Bible-believing Christians differ among themselves, and you should present the views fairly. You met them in Know Your Faith, Lesson 10.

Covenant theology, the confessional Reformed view (Westminster and 1689), sees one people of God and one way of salvation across the covenants. Gentile believers are grafted into Israel's olive tree (Romans 11:17-24) and receive Israel's titles (1 Peter 2:9). Critics call this 'replacement theology' or supersessionism; many Reformed writers prefer to speak of fulfilment, because the church is not a Gentile substitute for Israel but Israel's own tree, with its believing remnant and grafted-in branches. Covenant theologians differ on Romans 11:26. Calvin read 'all Israel' as the whole people of God, Jew and Gentile; others, such as O. Palmer Robertson, read it as the elect of ethnic Israel through history; and many, such as John Piper, expect a large future turning of Jewish people to Christ. The Westminster Larger Catechism teaches believers to pray for 'the Jews called' (Q. 191).

Dispensationalism treats Israel and the church as distinct peoples with distinct programmes, and expects a future national salvation and restoration of Israel in a literal millennium. John MacArthur (1939-2025), a Calvinist, was a well-known dispensational premillennialist. Some dispensationalists see the founding of the modern State of Israel in 1948 as a step toward that fulfilment.

What unites these believers matters more. All affirm that God has not cast away his people (Romans 11:1-2), all reject contempt for Jewish people, and all hold that Jews and Gentiles alike are saved only through faith in Jesus the Messiah (Acts 4:12; Romans 10:1-13). That rules out dual-covenant theology, the idea that Jewish people are saved through the Sinai covenant without Christ; Paul's anguish for his kinsmen (Romans 9:1-3) would make no sense if they were already saved without him. Finally, keep the gospel distinct from politics. Christians hold differing views about the modern State of Israel and its policies, but neither support for nor criticism of a government should become contempt for Jewish people or replace the call to faith in the Messiah.

Compare what covenant theology and dispensationalism teach about Israel and the church, and state what both affirm in common.Show answer

Covenant theology sees one people of God and one way of salvation, with Gentile believers grafted into Israel's olive tree and given Israel's titles; many Reformed writers call this fulfilment rather than replacement, and they differ on Romans 11:26 (Calvin: the whole people of God; Robertson: elect Jews through history; Piper: a future large turning of Jewish people). Dispensationalism treats Israel and the church as distinct peoples and expects a future national salvation and restoration of Israel, as John MacArthur (1939-2025) taught. Both affirm that God has not cast away his people, reject contempt for Jewish people, and hold that Jew and Gentile are saved only through faith in Jesus.

  • covenant theology: one people, one olive tree
  • views on Romans 11:26 differ
  • dispensationalism: distinct peoples, national future
  • shared: God not finished with Israel; salvation only in Messiah
What is dual-covenant theology, and why do both covenant theologians and dispensationalists reject it?Show answer

Dual-covenant theology says Jewish people are saved through the Sinai covenant without faith in Christ. Both camps reject it because Scripture says there is salvation in no other name (Acts 4:12) and that Jew and Gentile alike are saved by calling on the Lord Jesus (Romans 10:1-13). Paul's anguish for his kinsmen (Romans 9:1-3) would make no sense if they were already saved without the Messiah.

  • Jews saved through Sinai without Christ
  • Acts 4:12
  • Romans 10:1-13
  • Paul's anguish in Romans 9

'A man can't be God' and 'You need the Oral Torah'

Numbers 23:19 says 'God is not a man, that he should lie'. In context, it says God does not lie or change his mind as humans do; it is about God's character, not about whether he can take on a human nature. The Tanakh shows God appearing in human form to Abraham (Genesis 18) and Ezekiel's vision of 'the likeness as the appearance of a man' on the throne (Ezekiel 1:26). Christians do not claim a man became God, which would be idolatry; we claim the eternal Word took on flesh without ceasing to be God (John 1:1, 14). (You met the person of Christ in Know Your Faith, Lesson 4.)

Orthodox friends may say Scripture cannot be rightly understood without the Oral Torah. Respond respectfully: the Tanakh itself never mentions an oral law given at Sinai, and Moses 'wrote all the words of the LORD' (Exodus 24:4). The Sadducees and later Karaite Jews rejected rabbinic oral tradition, and the Talmud itself records sharp disagreements. Jesus honoured the written Scriptures as final and rebuked tradition that set aside God's commandment (Mark 7:8-13). Rabbinic tradition is a valuable window on Jewish history, but not an inspired authority.

How would you answer someone who quotes Numbers 23:19, 'God is not a man', against the incarnation?Show answer

In context, the verse says God does not lie or change his mind as humans do; it is about God's character, not whether he can take on a human nature. The Tanakh even shows God appearing in human form to Abraham (Genesis 18) and Ezekiel seeing 'the likeness as the appearance of a man' on the throne (Ezekiel 1:26). Christians do not claim a man became God; they claim the eternal Word took on flesh without ceasing to be God (John 1:1, 14).

  • verse is about God's truthfulness
  • God appears in human form in Tanakh
  • not a man becoming God
  • Word became flesh
How would you respectfully respond to the claim that Scripture cannot be understood without the Oral Torah?Show answer

The Tanakh never mentions an oral law given at Sinai, and it says Moses wrote all the words of the LORD (Exodus 24:4). The Sadducees and later Karaite Jews rejected rabbinic oral tradition, and the Talmud itself records sharp disagreements. Jesus treated the written Scriptures as final and rebuked tradition that set aside God's commandment (Mark 7:8-13), so rabbinic tradition is a valuable window on Jewish history but not an inspired authority.

  • Tanakh never mentions oral law
  • Moses wrote the words
  • Sadducees and Karaites rejected it
  • Jesus judged tradition by Scripture

Sharing the gospel with Jewish friends

Some practical wisdom, drawn from Messianic Jewish ministries such as Jews for Jesus (founded in 1973 by Moishe Rosen) and Chosen People Ministries:

  • Ask about their story and beliefs. Many Jewish people are secular; do not assume they believe in God, the Tanakh or the afterlife.
  • Use Jewish terms where helpful: Yeshua, Messiah, Tanakh, 'the Jewish New Testament writers'. Avoid 'convert', which implies ceasing to be Jewish.
  • Start in the Tanakh. Read Isaiah 53 or Jeremiah 31 together and ask, 'Who do you think this is about?'
  • Acknowledge the history of Christian antisemitism, especially if family stories of persecution come up.
  • Focus on Yeshua himself: his Jewish life, his claims, his death as atonement (Leviticus 17:11; Isaiah 53:10) and his resurrection.
  • Be patient and pray. Coming to faith can cost a Jewish person relationships with family and community. Offer real friendship and, if they come to faith, help them find a congregation where their Jewish identity is honoured.
Choose three pieces of practical wisdom for sharing the gospel with Jewish friends and explain why each matters.Show answer

Asking about their story matters because many Jewish people are secular and you should not assume their beliefs. Starting in the Tanakh, for example reading Isaiah 53 or Jeremiah 31 together and asking who it is about, lets them see Yeshua in their own Scriptures. Being patient and praying matters because coming to faith can cost a Jewish person family and community, so offer real friendship and help them find a congregation that honours their Jewish identity.

  • ask about their story
  • start in the Tanakh
  • be patient; faith may be costly
  • offer real friendship

Sin, atonement and the Temple

A final question often emerges: 'How are we forgiven without a Temple?' Many Jewish people answer with repentance, prayer and good deeds (Hosea 14:2, 'the calves of our lips'). Gently show that the Torah centred atonement on blood sacrifice (Leviticus 17:11), and Yom Kippur's ritual depended on the Temple. Since AD 70 there has been no altar. The New Testament's answer is that God provided the final sacrifice, Messiah, 'once for all' (Hebrews 10:10), just before the Temple fell. This is not a Gentile innovation; it is the fulfilment of Israel's own story.

Example: Talking about atonement with an observant friend

David: We don't need a sacrifice. On Yom Kippur we repent, pray and give charity, and God forgives.

You: I respect how seriously you take Yom Kippur. Repentance really matters; Psalm 51 says God will not despise a broken and contrite heart. Can I ask about Leviticus, though?

David: Sure.

You: Leviticus 17:11 says 'it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul', and Leviticus 16 sets Yom Kippur around the high priest, the altar and the goat that bears the people's iniquities. What happened to all that?

David: The Temple was destroyed. So the rabbis taught that prayer takes the place of sacrifice, like Hosea says.

You: That's an honest answer to a painful loss. But it makes me ask: would the God who commanded atonement by blood leave Israel with none? Daniel 9 says an anointed one would be cut off and then the sanctuary destroyed, and Isaiah 53 describes a servant made 'an offering for sin'.

David: You mean Jesus.

You: I do. He died about forty years before the Temple fell. I believe God provided the final sacrifice before he took the old one away. Your repentance doesn't need to be replaced; it needs to be met by the sacrifice God provided. Would you read Isaiah 53 with me?

How would you gently answer the question, 'How are we forgiven without a Temple?'Show answer

Many Jewish people answer with repentance, prayer and good deeds, citing Hosea 14:2. Gently show that the Torah centred atonement on blood sacrifice (Leviticus 17:11), that Yom Kippur depended on the Temple, and that there has been no altar since AD 70. The New Testament's answer is that God provided the final sacrifice, Messiah, once for all (Hebrews 10:10), just before the Temple fell, as the fulfilment of Israel's own story.

  • common answer: repentance and prayer
  • Torah centred on blood (Leviticus 17:11)
  • no altar since AD 70
  • Messiah the final sacrifice

In their own words

“The Messiah will bring peace, gather the exiles and rebuild the Temple. Jesus did none of these, so he is not the Messiah.” (Isaiah 2:4; Ezekiel 37:24-28; Maimonides, Laws of Kings 11:4)
“God is not a man; the idea of God becoming a man is idolatry.” (Numbers 23:19; Hosea 11:9; Deuteronomy 4:15-16)
“Each person bears his own sin; no one can die for another's sins.” (Ezekiel 18:20; Deuteronomy 24:16)
“Without a Temple, prayer and repentance take the place of sacrifices.” (Hosea 14:2; Babylonian Talmud, Berakhot 26b; 1 Kings 8:46-50)
“The new covenant still has the Torah at its centre, written on the heart, so it does not abolish the commandments.” (Jeremiah 31:31-34)

Key texts

  • Zechariah 9:9 with Daniel 7:13: The lowly Messiah on a donkey and the glorious Son of Man on the clouds; Sanhedrin 98a noticed the tension. Two comings resolve it.
  • Jeremiah 31:31-34: God himself promised a new covenant unlike the Sinai covenant, with forgiveness of sins. Hebrews 8 quotes it in full.
  • Numbers 23:19: Read in context, it denies that God lies like humans, not that he can take on human nature.
  • Leviticus 17:11: Atonement by blood is central to Torah; useful when discussing atonement without a Temple.
  • Romans 3:31; 7:12: Paul upholds the goodness of the Law and says faith establishes it.
  • Acts 21:20-26: Paul and thousands of Jewish believers honoured the Law; he did not teach Jews to abandon their identity.

Objections and answers

Try answering each one yourself before you open the response.

“Ezekiel 18:20 says the soul that sins shall die; the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father. So nobody can die for someone else's sin.”Show a response

Ezekiel 18 addresses a specific complaint: exiles saying they were being punished for their fathers' sins (18:2). God says every person is accountable for their own sin; it is about human justice and responsibility, not about whether God can provide a substitute. The Torah itself is built on substitution: an innocent animal's blood makes atonement for the worshipper (Leviticus 17:11), and on Yom Kippur the goat bears the people's iniquities (Leviticus 16:21-22). Isaiah 53 says the righteous servant bears 'the iniquities' of many (53:11). And the Talmud speaks of the death of the righteous atoning (Moed Katan 28a). Substitution, provided by God, is woven through Israel's Scriptures.

“If Jesus were the Messiah, there would be world peace. Look around you.”Show a response

I feel the weight of that, especially given Jewish suffering. But the prophets describe two very different pictures of Messiah: one lowly, riding on a donkey (Zechariah 9:9), rejected and pierced (Isaiah 53; Zechariah 12:10); the other coming with the clouds to reign forever (Daniel 7:13-14). Your own sages wrestled with this: Sanhedrin 98a says he will come on the clouds if Israel is worthy, or lowly on a donkey if not. Others spoke of Messiah son of Joseph who dies and Messiah son of David who reigns. We believe there is one Messiah who comes twice. He first came to deal with sin, before the Temple fell, as Daniel 9 required; he will return to bring the peace of Isaiah 2.

“Paul invented Christianity. Jesus was a Jewish teacher; Paul turned him into a Gentile god and threw out the Torah.”Show a response

Paul's letters are our earliest Christian documents, and they already quote creeds that came from the Jerusalem church, such as 1 Corinthians 15:3-7, which Paul says he 'received'. Belief in Jesus' death for sins, resurrection and lordship came from Jesus' Jewish disciples, not from Paul. Paul himself remained proudly Jewish (Philippians 3:5), called the law holy (Romans 7:12), and worshipped at the Temple (Acts 21:26). His controversy was not with Torah but with requiring Gentiles to become Jews to be saved, and the Jerusalem apostles agreed with him (Acts 15). Paul did not turn Jesus into a Gentile god; he recognised in Jesus the one Lord of the Shema (1 Corinthians 8:6).

“The New Testament says 'His blood be on us and our children.' That verse got Jews killed for centuries.”Show a response

You're right that it was used that way, and I grieve it. But the verse records what one crowd shouted, not a curse God pronounced on all Jewish people for all time. Matthew, a Jew, wrote for Jewish readers; he did not hate his own people. Jesus, in the same story, says his blood is 'shed for many for the remission of sins' (Matthew 26:28), and he prayed for those who crucified him. Peter later told a Jerusalem crowd they had acted in ignorance and invited them to repent and be refreshed (Acts 3:17-19). Christians believe all of us, Jew and Gentile, are responsible for Jesus' death through our sins, and all are invited to be cleansed by his blood.

“Numbers 23:19 says 'God is not a man.' Worshipping a man as God is exactly the idolatry the Torah forbids.”Show a response

I agree that worshipping a mere man would be idolatry, and Christians reject that as firmly as you do. But read Numbers 23:19 in context: 'God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent.' Balaam is saying God does not lie or change his mind the way people do. It is about God's faithful character, not about whether he can take a human nature. The Tanakh itself shows the LORD appearing to Abraham as a man and eating with him (Genesis 18), and Ezekiel sees 'the likeness as the appearance of a man' on the divine throne (Ezekiel 1:26). Christians do not say a man climbed up to become God. We say the eternal Word, who was with God and was God, 'was made flesh, and dwelt among us' (John 1:1, 14).

“Hosea 14:2 says we offer 'the calves of our lips.' God forgives anyone who sincerely repents. We don't need a sacrifice.”Show a response

Repentance is essential; God has always looked for a broken and contrite heart (Psalm 51:17), and Hosea calls Israel to return with words of confession. But in the Torah, repentance and sacrifice went together. God said, 'the life of the flesh is in the blood... it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul' (Leviticus 17:11), and Yom Kippur depended on the altar and the high priest in the Temple. Since AD 70 there has been no altar. Would the God who commanded atonement by blood leave Israel with no provision at all? The New Testament says he provided the final offering, the Messiah, 'once for all' (Hebrews 10:10), just before the Temple fell, as Isaiah foresaw when he described the servant made 'an offering for sin' (Isaiah 53:10). Our repentance is met by God's sacrifice, not replaced by it.

“Jeremiah 22:30 cursed Jeconiah: none of his seed would sit on David's throne. Matthew puts Jeconiah in Jesus' line, so Jesus is disqualified. And if he was born of a virgin, he has no father from David at all.”Show a response

It's a sharp question, and Christians have answers. First, Matthew traces Jesus' legal line through Joseph, whom the angel calls 'son of David' (Matthew 1:20); as his legal father Joseph gives him David's royal title, yet Jesus is not Jeconiah's physical 'seed', so the curse does not fall on him. Second, Luke traces a line from David through Nathan rather than Solomon and Jeconiah (Luke 3:31), which some take to be Mary's line, and Paul says Jesus was 'made of the seed of David according to the flesh' (Romans 1:3). Third, the curse was not God's last word. Jeremiah said that even if Coniah were the signet on God's right hand he would be plucked off (22:24), yet God later told his grandson Zerubbabel, 'I... will make thee as a signet' (Haggai 2:23). Later rabbinic tradition itself taught that Jeconiah repented and the decree was revoked (Leviticus Rabbah 19; Pesikta de-Rav Kahana).

Written task

Choose two of these objections: (1) 'Jesus didn't bring peace or rebuild the Temple'; (2) 'A man can't be God'; (3) 'The New Testament is antisemitic'; (4) 'You need the Oral Torah to understand Scripture'. Write a 300-400 word response to each as if speaking to an informed Jewish friend, citing the Tanakh, the New Testament and at least one Jewish source fairly.

Hand this in to Mr Scott. He will look for:

  • States each objection in its strongest form with its Jewish sources
  • Answers primarily from the Tanakh read in context
  • Cites at least one rabbinic or Jewish source accurately (e.g. Sanhedrin 98a, Sukkah 52a, Maimonides)
  • Acknowledges historical misuse of Christian texts where relevant and rejects antisemitism
  • Ends by pointing to Yeshua with warmth and humility

Further reading

  • Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volumes 4-5: New Testament Objections; Traditional Jewish Objections by Michael L. Brown: Volume 4 answers objections to the New Testament (including antisemitism and Paul); Volume 5 addresses the Oral Law and rabbinic tradition.
  • The Real Kosher Jesus: Revealing the Mysteries of the Hidden Messiah by Michael L. Brown: A popular-level case that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, written in response to a rabbi's book on Jesus.
  • To the Jew First: The Case for Jewish Evangelism in Scripture and History by Darrell L. Bock and Mitch Glaser (editors): Biblical and practical essays on why and how to share the gospel with Jewish people.

Games