Every December, millions of Christians celebrate the nativity story found in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Central to that celebration is the belief that Jesus’ birth fulfilled ancient prophecies recorded in the Hebrew Bible. From a Jewish perspective, however, many of the passages cited in support of the nativity narrative are understood very differently.
This article does not seek to criticize Christianity or diminish the significance these beliefs hold for Christians. Rather, it examines several key passages frequently cited in the nativity accounts and explains why traditional Judaism does not regard them as prophecies concerning Jesus. The discussion focuses primarily on the Gospel of Matthew, which repeatedly appeals to the Hebrew Scriptures in an effort to establish Jesus as the promised Messiah.
Genealogies of Jesus
Matthew 1:1–17 and Luke 3:23–38 both provide genealogies for Jesus. Both Matthew and Luke present genealogies intended to connect Jesus to King David. Establishing Davidic ancestry is important because Jewish tradition expects the Messiah to descend from the line of David.
However, when carefully comparing the two genealogies, they differ substantially from one another. Matthew traces Jesus’ ancestry through one line of David’s descendants, while Luke presents a different lineage. Christian commentators have proposed numerous explanations for these differences, including the suggestion that one genealogy represents Joseph’s ancestry and the other Mary’s. Yet both texts explicitly connect the genealogy to Joseph.
From a Jewish perspective, the issue becomes more complicated when combined with the doctrine of the virgin birth. If Jesus was not Joseph’s biological son, questions naturally arise concerning how Davidic lineage would be transmitted. In the Hebrew Bible, tribal and dynastic inheritance is generally traced through the father. Consequently, traditional Judaism does not regard the genealogies as establishing Jesus’ qualifications as the promised Davidic king.
Misquotes & Misinterpretations within the Book of Matthew
From a Jewish perspective, the authors of the various books throughout the “New” Testament tend to grossly misquote the “Old” Testament starting with the nativity narrative. [Note: Throughout my articles, I tend to put “Old” and “New” in quotes when referring to the alleged Testaments because I object to Christianity defining the Jewish text as old, as it infers “out with the old in the with the new” while propagating replacement theology, a dangerous and erroneous perspective.]
(i) Isaiah 7:14 and the Virgin Birth
Perhaps the most well-known prophecy cited in the nativity narrative is Isaiah 7:14. Matthew 1:23 presents this verse as predicting the virgin birth of Jesus.
When read within the broader context of Isaiah 7, however, the prophet is addressing King Ahaz during a military and political crisis in the eighth century BCE. Isaiah offers a sign intended to reassure the king concerning events that would occur in his own generation. For this reason, Jewish commentators understand the prophecy as referring to circumstances contemporary with Isaiah rather than to events centuries in the future.
The Hebrew text also uses the word almah, which traditionally means a young woman of marriageable age. While such a woman may be a virgin, the word itself does not specifically mean “virgin.” Had Isaiah intended to emphasize virginity, other Hebrew terms were available. As a result, Judaism does not view Isaiah 7:14 as a messianic prophecy or as a prediction of a miraculous birth.
(ii) Bethlehem and Micah 5:2
Matthew 2:6 next points to Micah 5:2 as evidence that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem. Jewish interpretation acknowledges that Micah connects Bethlehem with a future ruler from the house of David. However, biblical prophecies are generally evaluated as complete units rather than isolated phrases.
Biblical prophecies are generally evaluated as complete units rather than isolated phrases (A.K.A. not cherry-picked verses).
The surrounding context of Micah, as well as other similar prophecies found within the Tanakh, describes conditions associated with the messianic age, including the restoration of Israel (Israel is an established nation and all Jews return to the land), all humans know the true God of Israel, Torah teachings will be widely-circulated across the globe; thus, the entire planet experiences subsequent security and peace. Since these conditions have not yet been universally realized, Judaism concludes that the prophecy remains unfulfilled. Thus, even if a claimant were connected to Bethlehem, that fact alone would not establish his identity as the Messiah.
(iii) Hosea 11:1 and “Out of Egypt I Called My Son”
Matthew 2:15 applies Hosea 11:1 to Jesus’ return from Egypt following the death of Herod. Yet when Hosea’s words are read in context, the prophet is recounting Israel’s history rather than predicting a future event.
The verse states, “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called My son.” Throughout the passage, “My son” refers collectively to the nation of Israel and recalls the Exodus from Egypt. Traditional Jewish interpretation therefore understands Hosea’s statement as a reflection on Israel’s past rather than as a prophecy concerning a future individual.
For this reason, Judaism does not view Hosea 11:1 as a prediction of the Messiah.
(iv) Jeremiah 31:15 and Rachel’s Weeping
Matthew 2:18 also cites Jeremiah 31:15 after describing the slaughter of infants in Bethlehem. In Jeremiah, Rachel is poetically portrayed as weeping for her children as the Jewish people are led into the Babylonian exile.
The broader context of Jeremiah 31 is not a prophecy about the Messiah’s birth but a message of comfort and restoration. The chapter promises that the exiles will return to their land and that Israel’s future remains secure despite present suffering.
Because the passage addresses the Babylonian exile and Israel’s eventual redemption, Jewish commentators do not interpret it as a prediction concerning events in the life of Jesus.
(v) “He Shall Be Called a Nazarene”
One of the most challenging passages in Matthew appears in chapter 2, verse 23, where the author writes that Jesus lived in Nazareth “that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, ‘He shall be called a Nazarene.'”
The difficulty is that no such prophecy appears anywhere in the Hebrew Bible. Numerous explanations have been proposed over the centuries, including possible wordplays and allusions to other verses. Nevertheless, there is no direct text in Tanakh stating that the Messiah would be called a Nazarene.
As a result, this citation remains problematic from a Jewish interpretive standpoint.
The Jewish Understanding of the Messiah
Beyond individual prooftexts, Judaism evaluates messianic claims by examining whether the candidate fulfills the biblical mission of the Messiah.
The Hebrew prophets describe a future age in which Israel is gathered from exile, the nations recognize the God of Israel, warfare ceases, and peace becomes established throughout the world. Passages such as Isaiah 2, Isaiah 11, Jeremiah 23, Ezekiel 37, and Micah 4 present a consistent picture of this future redemption.
Because these conditions were not realized during Jesus’ lifetime, traditional Judaism does not identify him as the Messiah. Rather than viewing the messianic mission as divided into multiple appearances, Judaism expects the Messiah to accomplish the biblical objectives associated with that role.
Conclusion
The disagreement between Judaism and Christianity is not merely about a handful of verses quoted in the nativity narrative. It reflects fundamentally different approaches to interpreting the Hebrew Scriptures and understanding the role of the Messiah.
Christians generally view the passages cited by Matthew as fulfilled in Jesus through prophecy, typology, or theological correspondence. Judaism, by contrast, interprets these passages according to their historical context, grammatical meaning, and original audience. From that perspective, Isaiah 7:14, Hosea 11:1, Jeremiah 31:15, and the other texts discussed above do not refer to Jesus and are not understood as messianic prophecies.
For that reason, while the nativity story occupies a central place within Christianity, it is not regarded within Judaism, nor regarded from the perspective of Flip Flop Fellowship, as the fulfillment of the promises concerning the Messiah found in the Hebrew Bible.
If circumcision is irrelevant according to Paul (Galatians 5:11 and 6:15), why is it a mandatory expression of worship in the future for both Jew and Gentile should they wish to enter God’s sanctuary/presence (see Ezekiel 44:5-9)?
Likewise, if Jesus is the “final sacrifice” as the author of Hebrews purports (presumably Paul), why are sacrifices reinstated in worship in the future final Temple AFTER the “day of the LORD” (Zechariah 14; Ezekiel 40-46)?
While still identifying as a Christian and after my quest to thoroughly study the prophets of the Hebrew Bible as well as the Messianic prophecies, I found myself questioning the legitimacy of the New Testament. I penned an article with my questions and findings, which you can read here. During that period of my research, I found it alarming to discover the gospels were written not just several decades after Jesus allegedly lived and died, but last of all the New Testament books. Like many Christians, I suppose I assumed the books of the New Testament were written in chronological order. Upon discovering the Gospels were written last, I found it doubtful the disciples of Jesus would be alive numerous decades later, or could accurately recall events a plethora of years earlier, and suspicious none of them scribed their names to any of the Gospels, not to mention the gospels are written in Greek, not Hebrew/Aramaic, the would-be language of Jesus’ alleged disciples. Nor did I understand why such critical documents if they indeed are the word of God would be written in Greek when all of the Hebrew Bible is written in Hebrew or Aramaic and the prophets state in Zephaniah 3:9 the pure language (of Hebrew) will one day be restored (to the entire world) so all people will know and be able to call on the name of God (inferring the Jews already know the name of the LORD and how to call upon Him and it is in Hebrew, not Greek).
Since then, in addition to realizing Jesus does not fit the criteria of a messiah according to the Hebrew Bible, I stumbled upon an interview of a prosecuting attorney, who authored a book called Creating Christ: How Roman Emperors Invented Christ. Consequently, I purchased and read the detailed book, which prompted me to research Roman history from that period. Indeed, this author, as well as others such as Joseph Atwill’s Caesar’s Messiah provide compelling and overwhelming evidence that the Gospels, in particular, but also the Book of Acts may have been inspired by the Flavian Dynasty and penned, at least in part, by Josephus, the captive and apostate Jewish historian for the Flavians.
In the approximate 300 pages of the thought-provoking book, Creating Christ, the authors compiled over 30 years of their compelling research presenting the strong possibility and uncanny parallels of events that transpired between Emperor Vespasian, born as Titus Flavius Vespasianus, and his son, Emperor Titus, collectively known as the “Flavian Dynasty”, and the eerily similar accounts of God the Father and God the Son duo found in the Gospels. The Father-Son duo of Vespasian and Titus acted in unity to win the affection of the eclectic people of the Roman Empire while promoting syncretism of numerous cultures and faiths throughout the Empire as well as the concept of “peace on earth”, all the while quelling and conquering anyone who rebelled like the Torah-observant, militant Jews of Judea-specifically, in Jerusalem. Titus, in particular, was deified, meaning made himself into an official god-in-the-flesh, and even presented himself as the Jewish Messiah. According to the historical research presented throughout the book, the goal of Rome was to convince the non-compliant Jews to compromise their faith and identity and submit to the hybrid of many known beliefs throughout the Roman Empire, which eventually became known as Christianity. Additionally, the authors prove how several turn-coat Jews denied their faith and heritage and not only aided the Flavians and the Roman army in seizing control of Jerusalem as well as the temple in 70 A.D., but then the traitorous Jews, having been armed with Torah scrolls, likely drafted propaganda quoting Jewish Scriptures to help convince zealous Jews they ought to worship, submit, and serve the Roman Emperor and join his imperial cult. One such traitorous Jew was Josephus, who perhaps to save his own neck upon being captured prophesized Vespasian would be Emperor. In time, Josephus became adopted by the Flavians and was richly rewarded as he recorded the events of the Flavian Dynasty. Fascinatingly enough, both the authors of Creating Christ and Caesar’s Messiah report several common themes found in the Gospels and Josephus’ documentation of the Flavians such as Josephus documented Vespasian and Titus performed miracles such as spitting in their hands and healing the blind (John 9:6) or feeding a plethora of people, or how Titus was 33 when he made his triumphant entry into Jerusalem, and it was 40 years later he destroyed the Jewish Temple, or how Vespasian was short and his father was a tax collector (like Zacchaeus in Luke 19:2-3), all similar parallels to what the Gospels report pertaining to Jesus and his interactions. Similarly, there are some parallels of Josephus’ life woven into the Gospels such as three of his friends were crucified, but one was revived similar to how Jesus was allegedly crucified alongside two others but was “resurrected” aka revived. Additionally, Romans, including their Emperors, were known to be quite debaucherous while the Jesus of the Gospels is persuading the Torah-observant Jews to overlook adultery when a woman was caught (see John 8), not to mention Jesus encouraged his followers to be sure to pay their taxes imposed by Emperor Vespasian (because they were Jewish)-(see Matthew 22). Other modern scholars authored books, such as Caesar’s Messiah and Operation Messiah, and also detailed various parallels or typology between various stories of the Gospels as well as the Book of Acts and the Flavians or other Emperors throughout Roman history. Moreover, it is known by scholars that the earliest writings of the Gospels were penned during or shortly after this Flavian era, several decades after Jesus allegedly lived and died. In other words, scholars are conveying the Gospels and even parts of the Book of Acts, are likely to be fables inspired by various acts of Emperors as well as weaving in both Jewish and Greek culture into the New Testament to synchronize and unify the various faiths throughout the Empire into a one-world-religious-Roman-order.
Additionally, it is a known fact the New Testament has interpolations, meaning added phrases and additions, to support man-made church doctrine (such as the trinity). Similarly, the one and only brief historical reference regarding a “Jesus” in that era was written by the turn-coat Josephus and even that is disputed as an interpolation (added later). The name Jesus was a popular name and is even found in the Talmud describing different people of different eras. Nevertheless, let’s say, an actual “Jesus” may have existed in the 1st Century A.D. Perhaps he was a type of peace-loving Reform Jew and Rabbi, who gained some Jewish followers. What if Rome, having liked what they heard about Jesus, opted to expand on and fabricate the Jewish Jesus to their benefit in order to quell militant Jews and gain their allegiance? Such a concept is not far fetched when one studies the great lengths Emperors of Rome or the Roman Catholic Church would do to elevate themselves and their ideologies – just study how Caligula, an Emperor prior to to the Flavian Era, made some of his own soldiers appear to be British captives while parading his alleged prisoners through the streets of Rome to make the people think Caligula conquered Brittania when he hadn’t. Or how several centuries later, post-Flavian era, the Roman Catholic Church re-purposed the pagan festival of Saturnalia and called it Christmas in order to convert more pagans. It doesn’t take much research to discover, Rome has a long documented history of marketing propaganda to achieve their purposes of unity, power, and control.
Furthermore, Valliant and Fahy, authors of Creating Christ, extract details often overlooked by Christians or former Christians, including myself, within the Gospels and the Book of Acts highlighting how Jews are constantly painted as evil whereas Rome is portrayed as fair, reasonable, and honorable mediators, who ought to be trusted and obeyed. The authors also extract the Apostle Paul’s writings of notable imperial people listed throughout the New Testament to suggest the Apostle Paul was aiding Rome in relaying their propaganda. For example, in Philippians 2:25-30, Paul sings the praises of Epaphroditus and implored the people of Philippi to embrace him. Epaphroditus was the Roman Secretary or Administrator, who helped Nero, an earlier Emperor, commit suicide, as well as served the Flavians. In other words, Epaphroditus was an elite in the Roman court and evidently, buddies with Paul. Josephus also wrote about Epaphroditus and their great comradery as former religious Jews who both served the Roman Empire, specifically the Flavians. Paul seems to also be one of the persuaded, former religious Jews who purported the Roman Empire’s goal of synchronism as he emulated Torah’s criteria of a false prophet in Deuteronomy 13 and instead convinced (and still convinces) his readers to abandon Torah (Book of Galatians) and submit to Rome (Romans 13). Notice Paul writes in the closing of his letter to the Philippians (of the Roman Empire) in Philippians 4:22, “All the saints greet you, but especially those who are of Caesar’s household.” inferring he is well acquainted with those close to Caesar, if not Caesar himself. Hence, dropping names like Epaphroditus. Perhaps this is why Paul insisted Caesar hear his case in Acts 25:10-12. (Note: Caesar is a title meaning Emperor derived from the days of Julius Caesar)
In summary, while I wouldn’t necessarily agree with everything conveyed in the book, the authors of Creating Christ provide an overwhelming amount of evidence, even much not discussed in this article, to create a reasonable doubt to the authenticity of a historical Jesus as described in the Gospels while supporting the likelihood that the Gospels may have been inspired by acts of Vespasian, Titus, and other Roman Emperors, as well as the urgent need to quell Torah-observant, religious, militant Jews in addition to hybridizing various religious beliefs of Greeks and Jews into a one-world-order of the Roman Empire.
Regardless of how the New Testament came about and progressed into the most popular religion of our day, it was evident to me prior to reading these books, the New Testament is not inspired by God, but was allowed by God as a test (Deuteronomy 13). As for me, I will stick to the Tanakh, the Hebrew Bible, and serve only the God of Israel, not the god or opinion of Rome or any other.
Since we each must give an account for ourselves and ideally should be able to explain one’s faith, I have wrestled with some difficult questions over the years all of which cumulated in this eye-opening year of 2020 vision. This, like all my thought-provoking articles, are not an attack against an individual person, but rather it is exposing what I now see is a false ideology called Christianity, specifically what God labels as idolatry, and moreover, an invitation to dig into the Holy Scriptures for oneself while pondering, praying, and pursuing such critical concepts.
Naturally, when people can’t explain or can’t overcome such objections, they become angry at the person exposing error or at the very least challenging their belief, not realizing the person, such as myself, typically are motivated by love to do so. After all, iron sharpens iron. Nevertheless, I understand the mentality, the passion, and emotion of the Christian, as I, too, was appalled and even angry upon learning such truths below – first, at the person or people sharing, and then, more appropriately my anger became directed at Christianity or idolatry in general for propagating such blatant and now obvious to me fallacies. Though I readily admit, I know not all of God’s truth, for none of us can, today, I am in complete peace (Psalm 119:165), more in love with God and others than ever and daily learning to surrender to God, His will, and His Spirit of Holiness. It has been a long process of truth-seeking that eventually led me to the LORD when I thought I would be leading others to Him! You could say it’s been a journey of flip-flopped faith, though certainly not my intention when I picked the name “Flip Flop Fellowship” for my ministry. God clearly has a sense of all-knowing humor. It is my prayer these questions, as well as my various articles and testimony, spurn you, dear student of the Bible, to continue to seek Abba Father and His will for you with all your being and by continually comparing and examining your will and theology to His as defined in His Holy Scriptures. But I both confess and warn, it is not easy to lay our idols down.
As always, much love, shalom, and blessings! ~Carrie, 10.5.2020
1)What criteria did God give the Israelites regarding how to discern a false prophet, false teacher, or false messiah?
FACT: In Deuteronomy 13, God specifically instructed the Israelites to beware of and test a person based off two criteria: 1) Does the person implore the Israelites to worship any other person, thing, or other gods as “God” for God alone is to be worshiped – not His son, not anybody, or anything but God. 2) Does the person teach that G!d’s instructions being God’s law or Torah is done away with, old, irrelevant? For Israel is only to obey God and His instructions, not man’s, not Paul’s, not Jesus’ commands, but God’s alone.
2) What are the Jews, Israel, or Twelve Tribes of Israel chosen for? “Chosen” to do what exactly and why?
FACT: Israel, being the Twelve Tribes, specifically the Jews, are chosen to make God, His name, and His Torah known. They are chosen to be the light of the world, to set the captives free, so that all the world may also experience salvation. They are chosen as God’s “Servant” (Isaiah 44:1, 21, 45:4, 48:20, 49:3, 52:13) or commissioned to instruct the world in Torah, which the Scriptures define as light itself (Psalm 119:105,130; Proverbs 6:23; Isaiah 62:1-2), the way of salvation or righteousness, and moreover, living a lifestyle of loving God and loving others. According to the prophets, eventually, in the World-To-Come/Messianic Era, they are elevated and honored while some of them are specifically commissioned to help teach Torah to the world as the world “learns righteousness” (Isaiah 26:9-10). See Exodus 19:5; Deuteronomy 6, 7:6-8, 26:17-19; 2 Samuel 7:23-24; Psalm 105; Isaiah 2:1-5; 26:1-12; 32:16-20; 33:20-24; 35:1-10; 42:6-7; 48:17-19; 49:6; 51:4-7; 52:1-2; 62:1-12; 66:5-24; Jeremiah 29-31; Zechariah 8, 12; Ezekiel 44:23-24; Amos 9:11-15; Obadiah 1:15-21; Micah 4:1-5; Joel 3; Zephaniah 3:8-20; Daniel 12:3; Hosea 14. Nearly every prophetic book foretells this glorious event and outcome for the children of Israel, wherever they are scattered in the past, present, and future world!
3) If both Jew and Gentile can be forgiven by simply repenting and striving to keep God’s commands, which are His instructions for life found in Torah, why did Jesus have to die for people’s sins?
FACT: God has always eagerly forgave people who authentically repented. His grace has always been available well before Jesus arrived. See Deuteronomy 4:29-31; 1 Kings 8; 2 Samuel 12 (Did King David have to make a sacrifice for forgiveness of his sin?); Isaiah 1:16-17; 42:6; 43:25; 44:22; 45:22,25 ; 49:10; 55:6-7; Psalms 24:3-6; 25:6,10; 30:5; 32:1,5; 34:22; 36:5,10; 37:18,29,34,37-40; 51:1-4, 7-9 (really all of Psalm 51); 68:19; 72:12-14; Psalm 103; 119:118,132,155-156; 146:17-20; 147:11; Micah 7:18-20; Book of Jonah (notice even the Gentiles had to repent- repent from what? Did they have to have a blood sacrifice for forgiveness?). To study more passages, read this article: Always Have Been Saved By Grace
4) Since forgiveness has been and still is granted without any blood sacrifice and by simply repenting, why did Jesus need to spill his blood as a sacrifice?
FACT: God forgave people with or without blood sacrifices and /or if they only offered other items instead of blood sacrifices such as flour, money, or jewelry when a temple was in place. See passages above in #3 as well as Leviticus 5:11-13 (flour), Exodus 30:15-16 (money), Numbers 31:48-52 (jewelry). The sin sacrifices were a tangible act in order to teach them to not forget God’s instructions/His law like requiring your kid to sacrifice their electronics when they disobey for sin has consequences – best to learn to obey Abba Father/God for our own good (Deuteronomy 5:29; 6:24-25; 10:12-13). To learn more, read this article: Why Jesus Didn’t Die For Anyone’s Sins (but his own)
5) Why would the unknown authors* of the gospels claim Jesus is God’s one and only son (John 3:16) when Scripture reveals the twelve tribes of Israel/the Jewish people (and their descendants) are God’s sons and daughters; therefore, G!d has many sons?
*scholars don’t know for certain who exactly penned each gospel
FACT: When God speaks to the Israelites/Israel/Judah or when the prophets refer to God, God or the prophet often identifies Himself/God as Father inferring He has many sons and daughters – see Deuteronomy 32:6; Isaiah 64:7; Jeremiah 3:19, as a few examples. Similarly, God says in Isaiah 56 that non-Jews/Gentiles/foreigners who choose to enjoin themselves with God and His holy covenant (meaning Torah) by willingly obeying it (Judaism refers to this as “Jews-By-Choice”) are considered “better than sons or daughters” indicating the naturally chosen are sons and daughters while the “Jews-By-Choice”, or adopted if you will, are even more honored and also brought to Mt Zion upon being literally saved, regathered, or resurrected. Also, see Psalm 82:6 and even Jesus referred to his audience of Jews also as sons in John 10 when quoting Psalm 82:6. And yet the mysterious author of John* made it seem like Jesus is the one and only begotten son of God a few chapters earlier in John 3. In other words, Jesus was one of God’s many children.
6) Why would God instruct one of His sons, since Jesus was a Jew, to die for the sins of the world as the New Testament claims when God already informed Israel no person can die for another person’s sins?
FACT: According to Deuteronomy 24:16; Ezekiel 18:1-32; 33:12-20; Jeremiah 31:29-30 (which is also what Eze 18:1-2 says), and Psalm 49:7 no person can die for another persons’ sins even in the New Covenant chapter of Jeremiah 31.
7) Why would God instruct one of His sons, much less God’s other kids, to believe God would offer His child as a sacrifice when God specifically told His kids, being the Israelites, never to offer their children as sacrifices?
FACT: God often instructed the Israelites to not mimic other religions such as offering their children as sacrifices to a god(s), or as a form of worship, and labeled such behavior an abomination. See Leviticus 18:21, 20:3; Deuteronomy 12:29-32; 18:10; 2 Kings 3:27, 16:3, 17:17; 2 Chronicles 28:3, 33:6; Jeremiah 7:31; Psalm 106:35-38; Ezekiel 16:20-21 as some examples.
8) Why are we still teaching each other about who the One True Living God is if we are currently in the New Covenant?
FACT: According to the only chapter in the Holy Scriptures that refers by name a “New Covenant”, found in Jeremiah 31, no one will need to inform one another who God is for all will know Him (see verse 34). Incidentally, most Christians seem to not notice what the ambiguous author of Hebrews pens in chapter 8:13, which says referring to the “old” and “new” covenants, “Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away” inferring the “old” covenant isn’t obsolete or done away with yet because the New Covenant hasn’t manifested just yet -obviously, since there is no world peace and everyone obeying Torah (but more on that later). Equally fascinating, is the New Covenant isn’t activated until there is a New Jerusalem, New Heavens, and New Earth – hence, all the references to “Behold, I will do (future tense) a NEW thing..” Isaiah 43:19. More accurately, RENEWED covenant, RENEWED earth, RENEWED Jerusalem, etc. How interesting God is referring to do a “new thing” upon literally saving Israel from their oppressors and restoring them all to the land of Canaan/Israel as discussed in #2.
8) Why in the New Covenant / World-To-Come / Messianic Era (the future, whatever you want to call it) are there still sacrifices if Jesus was the final sacrifice? Moreover, how can Christians honestly believe another man, namely Paul, when he says God’s laws are a curse and not to be obeyed when clearly it is not just commanded by God, but the future of the world?
FACT: Ezekiel chapters 36-48 describe both the literal resurrection of all of Israel, regathering, and restoration of Israel, both dead and alive, to the land of their inheritance in Israel, a magnificent event nearly all the prophets describe but hasn’t manifested nowhere near its entirety just yet. In this future era, there is a unique temple established along with sacrifices led by the ruler/prince including not just the praise sacrifices, but sin sacrifices as well (see specifically Ezekiel 43-44). Additionally, Zechariah 14:16+ informs us in the future, after God literally physically saves Israel from their enemies, all the remaining survivors of the nations must participate in bringing sacrifices to Jerusalem for the Feast of Tabernacles, or what is known in Hebrew as “Sukkot”, in order for it to rain, or put another way in order for them and their economy to survive. Sukkot is in the Fall (September/October on the Gregorian calendar) and is the initiation of the rainy season. In fact, as I pen this, it is Sukkot, a festival of rejoicing, for one day, it will indeed be a whole new world full of joy and peace! To learn more about the Feasts of the LORD, read Leviticus 23. Also, in Isaiah 65-66 God describes the future and how He wants to be worshiped, as well as how He is specifically angered at those who consume pork, which He instructed not to eat in Leviticus 11; Deuteronomy 14, and describes worship as participating in the Sabbaths and festivals of the LORD in the New Heavens and New Earth (aka New Covenant). Furthermore, Zechariah 8 tells us Gentiles will be clinging to Jews to learn more about God one fine day.
9) Why would the “New Testament” and Christianity be all about propagating one must “believe” Jesus is Messiah in order to be spared from hell and go to heaven when there is absolutely no prophecy in the Hebrew Bible stating one must believe in a future Messiah in order to experience salvation much less the heaven vs hell concept?
FACT: Search the prophets out for yourself, you will not find any prophetic word regarding anyone must believe in a Messiah to be saved. But what you do read in Amos 3:7 is God does nothing without revealing it to His prophets first. Also, you will find a very different definition of salvation unfolds. Plainly said, salvation is a literal, physical experience, not solely spiritual mental ascent, while both salvation and righteousness are repeatedly linked with obeying God’s commands, His laws, His Torah, His Voice. Whereas many passages infer or directly state those who disregard God’s laws are considered wicked (Psalm 50; Psalm 119), without knowledge, and will perish (Hosea 4:6). You will not find in the Hebrew Bible, the Tanakh, the law, and the prophets where salvation is merely a mental belief in a Messiah, but rather reward is based on your conduct, the exact opposite of what the New Testament, namely Paul, teaches.
10) In the early 1990’s, did you believe David Koresh when he claimed to be Messiah? His followers claimed he performed miracles and was prophetic. He and presumably his followers were writing manuscripts to spread his good news, his message. Would you put your trust in him? How about if he and or his roommates, who all tragically and unnecessarily perished, claimed he WAS actually God? Would you pick up your cross and follow him? On what criteria do you judge a person and their message? Is not the Hebrew Bible, the law and prophets, the foundation for which all are to be judged? Hence, the very label “the law”. What makes you put your trust in Jesus, or more accurately, Paul since Christianity is mostly based on Paul’s message and spiritual experience of seeing Jesus in the sky allegedly? Did Jesus, Paul, or other Apostles entice you to worship someone or something other than God, or worse, did Jesus or his followers indicate Jesus WAS/IS God; therefore, replacing God or elevating oneself to be as God or as part of God? Did Jesus, Paul, the other Apostles, or any of their followers, then and now, instruct you to disobey God by not keeping His law? Do you or your church have an Easter ham for dinner, as an example of breaking God’s law? Do you rest, reflect, and spend time with God and family on the 7th day or are you out grocery shopping, mowing the grass, or doing laundry? Does your church celebrate Easter, Halloween, or Christmas, but not the feasts of the LORD, His holy holidays? Why do some, if not all, denominations of Christianity claim everybody should keep the 10 commandments, but not the one about Sabbath or worshiping other gods?
FACT: Every Christian, whether Catholic or Protestant or even Messianic Jew/Gentile, knows that according to the writings of the New Testament, Jesus, but especially Paul as well as the other Apostles and the unknown authors of the gospels, elevated Jesus to be God (John 1), for Jesus to be worshiped and obeyed (Matthew 28:18; Philippians 2; Colossians 2), as well as instructed their audience, their disciples to disregard God’s laws (Galatians 3)or at the very least, the church instructs congregants to disobey most of God’s laws, the eternal law (Psalm 19, 119:142,152,160: Isaiah 2) of then, now, and the future. Hence, eternal. So with all that said, back to Deuteronomy 13, what were the two criteria God specifically said to watch out for? See #1.
“Choose this day whom you will serve.” Joshua 24:15.
Having been exposed and apart of many Christian circles throughout my lifetime, one primary tenet of the Christian faith is that the New Testament is the inerrant Word of God. Just review any church’s website under their “What We Believe” or “Statement of Faith” tab and you will inevitably find words like “inerrant” or “infallible” Word of God, which entails the 66 books of the combined “Old” and “New” Testaments. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, “inerrant” is defined as being “free from error.” Likewise, the Oxford dictionary defines it as “incapable of being wrong.”
Furthermore, Christianity often sites the famous verses found in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 as evidence Scripture, being presumed to be both the “Old” and “New” Testament, is inerrant. After all, if these writings thought to be inspired by God are not absolute truth, then one’s faith is fallacy.
One interesting oversight, however, when making such conclusions from 2 Timothy 3:16-17, is that most Christians overlook the previous verse 15, which clearly reminds the recipient, Timothy, as well as modern day readers, that Timothy had the Holy Scriptures since childhood, referring to the Hebrew Bible, also known as the Law and Prophets, or Tanakh, or what has since been labeled the “Old” Testament by Christianity. These letters penned by Paul (see 2 Timothy 1:1) and others were not regarded as “the Holy Scriptures,” but are merely commentary or one’s opinion about the Holy Scriptures, being the Tanakh. For those unaware, let me briefly define the “Tanakh” as it is more or less an acronym of TNK pronounced in Hebrew as “Tanakh.” The T is for Torah, the first five books of the Bible, the N is for Nevi’im, the prophetic manuscripts (i.e. Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc.), and the K is for Kethuvim, which are the Psalms, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Lamentations, Ezra, etc. Sometimes Tanakh is spelled Tenach, Tanach, Tenakh, or Tenak, but it all is referring to the Hebrew Bible.
Furthermore, throughout the “New” Testament, which I put in quotes to highlight how terms such as “New” and “Old” propagate the many errors of replacement theology, indeed has known errors and thus, cannot be the “inerrant Word of God” as many have been led to believe. Below are some examples of the “inerrancy” (pun intended) found in the “New” and implied-improved Testament.
The purpose of the following examples is not to attack Christianity or diminish the sincerity of Christian faith. Rather, they illustrate why many Jewish scholars and students of the Hebrew Scriptures do not view the New Testament as possessing the same level of divine authority as the Tanakh. These examples invite readers to examine the texts carefully and consider whether the New Testament should be understood as inspired commentary, theological reflection, historical testimony, or the direct and error-free Word of God.
1. The Genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke
One of the most frequently discussed textual difficulties in the New Testament concerns the genealogies of Jesus found in Matthew 1:1–17 and Luke 3:23–38. Both authors seek to connect Jesus to the royal line of King David, an important consideration because the Hebrew Scriptures describe the future Davidic king as arising from David’s lineage (see 2 Samuel 7:12–16; Jeremiah 23:5–6; Ezekiel 37:24–25).
When these genealogies are compared side by side, however, significant differences emerge. Matthew traces Jesus’ ancestry through a line descending from David’s son Solomon, while Luke traces it through David’s son Nathan. Beyond David, many of the names differ substantially. Most notably, Matthew identifies Joseph’s father as Jacob (Matthew 1:16), whereas Luke identifies him as Heli (Luke 3:23).
Over the centuries, Christian commentators have proposed various explanations for these differences. One common suggestion is that Matthew presents Joseph’s genealogy while Luke presents Mary’s. While this explanation is popular, it encounters a difficulty: both texts explicitly frame the genealogy in relation to Joseph rather than Mary.
From a Jewish perspective, these differing genealogies raise important questions. If the genealogies are intended to establish Jesus’ Davidic ancestry, which genealogy should be regarded as authoritative? Furthermore, if Jesus was born through a miraculous conception apart from a biological human father, how does a genealogy through Joseph establish a biological connection to the House of David?
These questions become particularly relevant because biblical tribal affiliation and lineage are ordinarily traced through the father. For example, throughout the census records in Numbers and other genealogical passages, ancestry is reckoned according to paternal descent. Consequently, Jewish interpreters have long questioned how the New Testament’s presentation of Jesus’ lineage satisfies traditional Jewish expectations regarding Davidic descent.
Whether one ultimately accepts Christian explanations or not, the genealogies illustrate that the New Testament contains interpretive and historical questions that have been debated for centuries. At the very least, they demonstrate that the text is more complex than a simple claim of unquestionable inerrancy may suggest.
2. Does the Hebrew Bible Predict a Suffering and Resurrected Messiah?
Another passage frequently discussed in Jewish-Christian dialogue appears in Luke 24:44–47. According to this account, Jesus tells his followers that everything written about him in “the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms” must be fulfilled. He then states that “it is written” that the Messiah would suffer, rise from the dead on the third day, and that repentance for the forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.
The question from a Jewish perspective is straightforward: Where exactly is this written?
When one examines the Hebrew Scriptures—the Torah, Prophets, and Writings—there is no passage that explicitly states that the Messiah will die, be buried, and rise again on the third day. Likewise, there is no text that teaches that forgiveness of sins depends upon faith in the Messiah or that repentance for forgiveness will be preached in the Messiah’s name to all nations beginning in Jerusalem.
To be sure, Christian interpreters often point to various passages that they believe foreshadow these ideas. However, these are generally understood as theological interpretations rather than direct predictions. The challenge remains that Luke 24 presents these concepts as things that were already “written” in Scripture, yet no passage can be identified that clearly states all of the elements described.
This issue becomes particularly significant because the Hebrew Bible presents a different portrait of the Messianic age. The future Davidic king is depicted as restoring Israel, gathering the exiles, establishing justice, bringing peace among the nations, and leading humanity toward knowledge of God (Isaiah 2:1–4; Isaiah 11:1–10; Jeremiah 23:5–6; Ezekiel 37:21–28). While these passages describe the accomplishments of the Messiah and the Messianic era, they do not describe a Messiah who dies for the sins of humanity and rises three days later.
Some Christians point to Isaiah 53 as evidence for a suffering Messiah. Jewish interpretation, however, has traditionally understood Isaiah 53 within the broader context of Isaiah’s servant passages, where the servant is repeatedly identified as Israel (Isaiah 41:8–9; 44:1–2; 49:3). As a result, Jewish and Christian readers often arrive at very different conclusions regarding the meaning of the chapter.
The purpose of raising this issue is not to dismiss Christian belief, but to highlight a significant interpretive question. If Luke 24 is presenting specific teachings as written in the Hebrew Scriptures, readers should be able to locate those teachings within the text itself. Many Jewish scholars conclude that the passage reflects a later theological interpretation of the Hebrew Bible rather than a direct quotation of its plain meaning. “He said to them, ‘These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.’ … Then He said to them, ‘Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Messiah to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.'” (Luke 24:44–47)
3. The Resurrection Narratives and Questions of Reliability
The resurrection of Jesus stands at the center of Christian theology. Because it is such a foundational claim, it is worth carefully comparing the resurrection accounts found in the four Gospels and related New Testament writings.
Many Christians view the differences among these accounts as complementary perspectives describing the same event. Others, however, have noted that when the narratives are compared closely, a number of details appear difficult to reconcile. Questions arise concerning who arrived at the tomb, when they arrived, whom they encountered, what messages were delivered, and the sequence of events that followed.
For example, the Gospel accounts differ regarding the number of women present, the number of heavenly messengers seen, and what instructions were given to the disciples. Some readers view these variations as natural differences in eyewitness testimony, while others see them as evidence that multiple traditions about the resurrection developed within the early Christian community.
From a Jewish perspective, these differences are significant because the resurrection serves as the primary evidence offered for Jesus’ Messianic identity. If the accounts describing this event contain substantial variations, it is reasonable to ask how these differences should affect one’s confidence in the narratives.
Furthermore, modern biblical scholarship generally recognizes that the Gospels were written anonymously and were composed decades after the events they describe. The traditional names Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were attached to these writings by later Christian tradition. While this does not automatically invalidate their contents, it does mean that the reader is relying upon documents whose authorship and historical development remain subjects of scholarly discussion.
Another noteworthy consideration is that the earliest Christian writings preserved in the New Testament are not the Gospels but the letters of Paul. These epistles were circulating before the Gospel accounts were written and already contained developed theological claims regarding Jesus’ death and resurrection. As a result, some scholars have suggested that the Gospel narratives may reflect theological interpretations that had already become established within the early Christian movement.
The purpose of raising these questions is not to dismiss Christianity or to deny that early believers sincerely believed Jesus had been raised from the dead. Rather, it is to recognize that the historical evidence is more complex than is often presented. Readers who examine the resurrection accounts side by side may conclude that the New Testament preserves multiple perspectives on the event rather than a single, uniform testimony.
For many Jewish readers, these textual and historical questions make it difficult to regard the resurrection narratives as conclusive proof that Jesus fulfilled the role of Messiah described in the Hebrew Scriptures. Instead, the discussion invites careful study of both the New Testament accounts and the Messianic expectations set forth in the Tanakh.
4. Matthew’s Citation of Jeremiah and Zechariah
Another frequently discussed issue concerns Matthew 27:9–10, where the author attributes a prophecy concerning thirty pieces of silver to the prophet Jeremiah. The difficulty is that the most recognizable source for the thirty pieces of silver imagery appears in Zechariah 11:12–13 rather than in the Book of Jeremiah.
Matthew writes:
“Then was fulfilled what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying, ‘And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the value of Him who was priced, whom they of the children of Israel priced, and gave them for the potter’s field, as the LORD directed me.'” (Matthew 27:9–10)
When readers search the Book of Jeremiah for this quotation, however, they do not find these exact words. Instead, the reference to thirty pieces of silver is found in Zechariah 11:12–13. This has led scholars, theologians, and students of Scripture to ask why Matthew attributes the passage to Jeremiah.
Various explanations have been proposed. Some Christian commentators suggest that Matthew was combining themes from both Jeremiah and Zechariah into a single citation. Others propose that he was referring to a broader prophetic tradition rather than quoting a single verse. While these explanations may be possible, the passage nevertheless raises questions about how New Testament authors handled and interpreted the Hebrew Scriptures.
From a Jewish perspective, an additional issue concerns context. In Zechariah 11, the prophet is addressing circumstances within his own prophetic message, and the thirty pieces of silver are part of a symbolic narrative involving Israel and its leaders. Jewish interpreters generally do not understand the passage as a prediction concerning a future Messiah. Consequently, Matthew’s application of the text is often viewed as an example of theological interpretation rather than the fulfillment of a direct Messianic prophecy.
The broader question is not simply whether Matthew intended to quote Jeremiah or Zechariah, but whether the New Testament’s use of Hebrew Scripture consistently reflects the plain meaning and context of the original passages. For many Jewish readers, Matthew 27:9–10 illustrates a pattern in which texts from the Tanakh are reinterpreted in ways that differ significantly from their original setting and traditional Jewish understanding.
Whether one accepts Matthew’s explanation or not, this passage demonstrates that the relationship between the New Testament and the Hebrew Bible is often more complex than is commonly assumed. It invites readers to examine both texts carefully and to consider how biblical interpretation shapes theological conclusions.
5. Textual Variants and Interpolations in the New Testament
Another challenge to the doctrine of New Testament inerrancy concerns the subject of textual variants and interpolations. An interpolation is a phrase, sentence, or passage that many scholars believe was added to a text after its original composition. Because the original manuscripts of the New Testament no longer exist, scholars must compare thousands of surviving Greek manuscripts and ancient translations in an effort to determine the earliest attainable wording of the text.
It is important to note that the vast majority of textual variations are minor and do not affect major theological beliefs. However, some passages are significant because many biblical scholars conclude they were not part of the earliest manuscripts and were added by later scribes or editors.
One of the most well-known examples is Mark 16:9–20, often called the “Long Ending of Mark.” Many of the oldest and most respected Greek manuscripts conclude the Gospel at Mark 16:8, with the women fleeing the empty tomb in fear. The familiar resurrection appearances, instructions about handling snakes, drinking poison, and Jesus’ ascension found in verses 9–20 appear absent from these earliest manuscripts. As a result, many modern Bibles include a footnote explaining that the passage may not have been part of the original Gospel of Mark.
Another notable example is John 7:53–8:11, the story of the woman caught in adultery. This beloved account contains the famous statement, “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.” While many readers appreciate the spiritual lesson contained in the story, scholars have observed that it is missing from many early manuscripts and appears in different locations in various manuscript traditions. Consequently, many modern translations indicate that the passage was likely not part of the original text of John’s Gospel.
A third example is 1 John 5:7–8, known as the Comma Johanneum. In the King James Version, the passage contains an explicit Trinitarian formula:
“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”
Most scholars agree that these words were absent from the earliest Greek manuscripts and were added later. As a result, modern Bible translations either omit the phrase or place it in a footnote. This example is especially noteworthy because it appears to support a central Christian doctrine, yet is generally regarded as a later addition to the text.
Other passages frequently discussed by textual critics include Acts 8:37, which contains a confession of faith before baptism, and Luke 22:43–44, describing an angel strengthening Jesus and his sweat becoming like drops of blood. Both passages are absent from some early manuscript traditions and continue to be debated among scholars.
The existence of such interpolations does not necessarily mean that the New Testament lacks spiritual value or historical significance. However, it does raise an important question regarding inerrancy. If portions of the text were added, altered, or expanded by later scribes, how should readers understand claims that every word of the New Testament has been perfectly preserved?
From a Jewish perspective, this issue underscores the distinction between the Hebrew Scriptures and later Christian writings. While textual variants also exist within the manuscript history of the Tanakh, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls demonstrated the remarkable care with which the Hebrew text was transmitted over many centuries. By contrast, the New Testament manuscript tradition reveals a process of copying, editing, harmonization, and theological development that many scholars believe continued long after the original documents were written.
For this reason, many Jewish readers view the New Testament not as a single, flawless revelation, but as a collection of religious writings whose textual history reflects the beliefs and concerns of the early Christian communities that preserved them.
6. Stephen’s Speech and the Burial of the Patriarchs
Another passage frequently discussed by biblical scholars appears in Acts 7:15–16, during Stephen’s speech before the Sanhedrin. In recounting Israel’s history, Stephen states:
“So Jacob went down to Egypt and died, he and our fathers. And they were carried back to Shechem and laid in the tomb that Abraham bought for a sum of money from the sons of Hamor, the father of Shechem.” (Acts 7:15–16)
When this statement is compared with the Hebrew Scriptures, several questions arise.
According to Genesis 23:17–20, Abraham purchased the Cave of Machpelah near Mamre (Hebron) as a burial place for Sarah. Genesis later records that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Rebekah, and Leah were associated with this burial site, and Jacob himself was buried there according to Genesis 50:13.
On the other hand, Joshua 24:32 states that Joseph’s bones were buried at Shechem in a parcel of land connected to Jacob’s purchase from the sons of Hamor.
The difficulty is that Acts 7:16 appears to combine these separate traditions. Abraham is said to have purchased land from the sons of Hamor at Shechem, whereas Genesis attributes that purchase to Jacob (Genesis 33:18–19). Likewise, the burial location of the patriarchs is associated with Shechem, even though Genesis places several of the patriarchs and matriarchs in the Cave of Machpelah near Hebron.
Various explanations have been proposed by Christian commentators. Some suggest Stephen was summarizing Israel’s history and combining well-known events. Others argue that details may have been abbreviated for rhetorical purposes. Nevertheless, the passage presents a challenge because the description in Acts does not align neatly with the details preserved in the Hebrew Bible.
From a Jewish perspective, this example is significant because it illustrates how New Testament authors occasionally recount events from the Tanakh in ways that differ from the plain reading of the original text. The question is not whether Stephen’s speech contains valuable religious lessons, but whether it reflects the historical details as recorded in Scripture.
For readers who hold that every statement in the New Testament is completely free from error, passages such as Acts 7:16 invite careful examination. At the very least, they demonstrate that reconciling the New Testament with the Hebrew Scriptures is not always as straightforward as is sometimes assumed.
7. Paul’s Conversion Experience in the Book of Acts
Another frequently discussed textual difficulty appears in the Book of Acts when Paul’s conversion experience is described. The event is recounted multiple times in Acts, including Acts 9 and Acts 22. When these accounts are compared, readers encounter details that appear challenging to reconcile.
In Acts 9:3–7, Luke records that Paul’s companions heard a voice but saw no one:
“And the men who journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice but seeing no one.” (Acts 9:7)
Later, when Paul recounts the same experience before a crowd in Jerusalem, he states:
“And those who were with me indeed saw the light and were afraid, but they did not hear the voice of Him who spoke to me.” (Acts 22:9)
At first glance, these descriptions appear to differ. In one account, the men hear a voice but see no one. In the other, they see the light but do not hear the voice. Christian commentators have proposed several explanations, including the possibility that Paul’s companions heard a sound but did not understand the words being spoken. Others point to nuances in the Greek language that may distinguish between hearing a noise and comprehending a message.
While such explanations may offer possible resolutions, the passages nevertheless illustrate the kinds of textual questions that arise when comparing parallel accounts within the New Testament itself. Readers are left to consider whether the accounts describe the same event with different emphases or whether the details reflect differing traditions preserved within the text.
From a Jewish perspective, this issue is noteworthy because Paul’s conversion experience serves as a foundational event for much of early Christian theology. The account is not a minor detail but the pivotal moment that transformed Paul from a persecutor of the early Jesus movement into its most influential missionary.
The broader question is not simply whether these verses can be harmonized, but how claims of complete inerrancy should be understood when parallel accounts contain details that appear difficult to reconcile. Similar questions arise elsewhere in the New Testament when multiple authors recount the same event from different perspectives.
This observation does not necessarily invalidate Paul’s experience or the sincerity of his convictions. Rather, it highlights the reality that the New Testament, like other ancient writings, contains passages that require interpretation and explanation. For many Jewish readers, such passages suggest that the New Testament should be approached as a collection of historical and theological documents rather than as a text whose every detail is beyond question or discussion.
8. The Book of Hebrews and the Reinterpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures
Perhaps nowhere is the difference between Jewish and Christian interpretation more evident than in the Book of Hebrews. The anonymous author of Hebrews frequently cites passages from the Hebrew Scriptures in support of the belief that Jesus established a new covenant, replaced the sacrificial system, and fulfilled the purpose of the Torah. From a Jewish perspective, however, many of these interpretations raise important questions about whether the original meaning of the Hebrew text has been preserved.
Hebrews 8 and Jeremiah’s New Covenant
One notable example appears in Hebrews 8:8–13, where the author quotes Jeremiah 31:31–34, the famous prophecy concerning a “new covenant.”
Hebrews 8:9 states:
“…because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord.”
By contrast, Jeremiah 31:32 reads:
“…My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD.”
The author of Hebrews is quoting the Greek Septuagint rather than the traditional Hebrew text. The result is a significant difference in emphasis. Jeremiah portrays God as remaining faithful to Israel despite the nation’s failures, describing Himself as a husband to His people. Hebrews, however, presents language that can be understood as God turning away from them.
From a Jewish perspective, Jeremiah’s prophecy does not describe God abandoning Israel or replacing the Jewish people with another community. In fact, the surrounding context strongly emphasizes the opposite. Just a few verses later, Jeremiah declares that Israel will remain a nation before God forever (Jeremiah 31:35–37). The prophet’s message is one of renewal and restoration, not replacement.
For this reason, many Jewish readers understand Jeremiah’s “new covenant” as a renewed relationship between God and Israel in which His Torah is written upon the hearts of His people. The covenant partners remain the same: God and the House of Israel and House of Judah.
Hebrews 10 and Psalm 40
A second example appears in Hebrews 10:5–7, where the author applies Psalm 40 to Jesus.
Psalm 40:6–8 states:
“Sacrifice and offering You did not desire; my ears You have opened. Burnt offering and sin offering You did not require. Then I said, ‘Behold, I come; in the scroll of the book it is written of me. I delight to do Your will, O my God, and Your Torah is within my heart.'”
Hebrews 10:5–7, however, cites the passage as:
“Sacrifice and offering You did not desire, but a body You have prepared for Me…”
Again, the author follows the Septuagint’s wording rather than the Hebrew text. The Hebrew phrase “my ears You have opened” becomes “a body You have prepared for Me.”
Both of these quotes are directly from the Christian Bible.
This difference is crucial because Hebrews uses the passage to support its argument that Jesus’ physical body was offered as the final sacrifice for sin. Yet in its original context, Psalm 40 is not discussing a future Messianic sacrifice. Rather, the psalm emphasizes obedience to God over mere ritual observance. The psalmist’s central point is that God desires willing hearts and faithful obedience, expressed in the declaration:
“Your Torah is within my heart.”
From a Jewish perspective, the message of Psalm 40 is entirely consistent with many other passages in the Tanakh that teach that repentance, humility, and obedience are more important than ritual alone (1 Samuel 15:22; Psalm 51; Isaiah 1:11–17; Micah 6:6–8).
The Future of Sacrifices and Torah
The author of Hebrews argues that Jesus’ sacrifice rendered the sacrificial system obsolete and inaugurated a new era. Jewish interpreters, however, point to numerous prophetic passages that describe Temple worship and sacrifices during the future Messianic age.
Ezekiel 40–48 contains detailed descriptions of a future Temple and its sacrificial service. Likewise, Isaiah 56:6–8 speaks of offerings being accepted upon God’s altar, and Zechariah 14 describes the nations coming to Jerusalem to worship the God of Israel in the age to come.
While Jewish scholars debate the precise role of sacrifices in the future Messianic era, these passages demonstrate that the Hebrew Scriptures do not present the sacrificial system as permanently abolished.
A Jewish Perspective on Hebrews
The question, therefore, is not whether the author of Hebrews was sincere, but whether his interpretations reflect the plain meaning of the Hebrew Scriptures. Throughout the book, passages from the Tanakh are read through the lens of belief in Jesus’ Messiahship and sacrificial role.
For Christians, these interpretations may appear compelling and spiritually meaningful. For many Jewish readers, however, Hebrews represents a theological commentary upon the Hebrew Bible rather than a straightforward explanation of its original context.
This distinction is significant. If the Hebrew Scriptures are the foundation upon which theological claims are built, then those claims must ultimately be evaluated according to the meaning of the original text. Consequently, many Jewish scholars view Hebrews not as a continuation of the message of the Tanakh, but as a reinterpretation of it—one that reaches conclusions very different from those traditionally understood within Judaism.
Conclusion
All of this compelling evidence is not to say some spiritual concepts or truths cannot be gleaned from Jesus or the “New” Testament, just as they can be from any person or writings, but clearly, the writings are not without error and therefore, not the “inerrant word of God.” Rather, they ought to be compared to the Tanakh, the Holy Scriptures designed for instructions of righteousness making a person complete (2 Timothy 3:15-17). That much I can agree with Paul.
One of the most significant differences between Christianity and Judaism concerns the definition of salvation.
In many Christian traditions, salvation is primarily understood as being rescued from the consequences of sin through faith in Jesus as the Messiah and Savior. Depending upon the denomination, salvation may also involve baptism, receiving the Holy Spirit, participation in the sacraments, good works, or some combination of these elements (John 3:16; Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38–39). Although Christians differ on the details, most agree that faith in Jesus occupies a central role in one’s salvation.
When I began examining the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) apart from later theological interpretations, I was struck by how differently the Scriptures describe salvation. The question naturally arose: if belief in a future Messiah is the central requirement for salvation, where do the Torah, Prophets, and Writings explicitly teach this doctrine?
The answer may surprise many readers. Throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, there is no passage stating that one must believe in a future Messiah in order to receive God’s forgiveness or be saved. Rather, the overwhelming emphasis is that God Himself is Israel’s Savior, Redeemer, and Deliverer.
Consider just a sample of the many declarations found throughout the prophets:
Isaiah 43:11: “I, even I, am the LORD, and besides Me there is no savior.”
Isaiah 44:6: “I am the first and I am the last; besides Me there is no God.”
Isaiah 45:21–22: “There is no other God besides Me, a just God and a Savior; there is none besides Me. Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth.”
Hosea 13:4: “You shall know no God but Me; for there is no savior besides Me.”
These passages repeatedly direct humanity toward God Himself as the source of redemption. The emphasis is not on faith in an intermediary, but on trusting, worshiping, and returning to the God of Israel.
Repentance and Forgiveness in the Hebrew Scriptures
Another striking theme throughout the Tanakh is the connection between repentance and forgiveness.
Psalm 51 records King David’s prayer after his sin with Bathsheba. David does not appeal to a future sacrifice or mediator. Instead, he cries directly to God for mercy, confessing his sin and asking for a clean heart and renewed spirit.
Likewise, Psalm 51:16–17 declares:
“For You do not desire sacrifice, or else I would give it; You do not delight in burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit, a broken and contrite heart—these, O God, You will not despise.”
Psalm 103 similarly emphasizes God’s mercy toward those who fear Him and seek to walk in His ways.
The prophets repeatedly echo this message:
Isaiah 1:16–18 calls Israel to wash themselves, cease doing evil, and learn to do good.
Ezekiel 18 teaches that a wicked person who repents and turns from sin will live.
Hosea 14 calls Israel to return to God and receive forgiveness.
Joel 2:12–13 urges repentance because God is gracious and merciful.
From a Jewish perspective, these passages demonstrate that God’s forgiveness has always been available through sincere repentance, prayer, and a return to His ways.
Individual Responsibility
Another important theme concerns personal accountability.
The Torah teaches:
“Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall children be put to death for their fathers; each shall be put to death for his own sin.” (Deuteronomy 24:16)
Ezekiel expands this principle in chapter 18:
“The soul who sins shall die.”
The prophet repeatedly emphasizes that each person is responsible for his or her own conduct before God.
For this reason, Judaism has traditionally understood atonement and forgiveness through the framework of repentance, restitution, prayer, and divine mercy rather than through the death of another individual on one’s behalf. While Christians and Jews interpret these texts differently, the principle of individual responsibility remains a foundational element of Jewish theology.
Salvation in the Tanakh: Physical and National Redemption
Another significant difference concerns what salvation often means in the Hebrew Bible.
Many modern readers immediately associate salvation with the afterlife. In the Tanakh, however, salvation frequently refers to deliverance from physical danger, oppression, exile, persecution, or national distress.
Consider the language of:
Psalm 53:6
Psalm 80
Psalm 91
Isaiah 51–52
Jeremiah 30–31
Ezekiel 34–39
Zephaniah 3
Again and again, God promises to rescue His people, gather the exiles of Israel, restore Jerusalem, establish peace, and bring justice to the world.
The prophets envision a future in which the nations stream to Jerusalem to learn God’s ways (Isaiah 2:1–4; Micah 4:1–4), the earth is filled with the knowledge of God (Isaiah 11:9), and God’s presence dwells among His people.
In this sense, biblical salvation is often portrayed not as escaping the earth for heaven, but as participating in God’s redemption of the world itself.
The Future Redemption of Israel
The prophets also describe a future restoration in which Israel is regathered, spiritually renewed, and brought into a deeper covenant relationship with God.
Ezekiel writes:
“I will take you from among the nations, gather you out of all countries, and bring you into your own land. Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean… I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes.” (Ezekiel 36:24–27)
Jeremiah 31 likewise speaks of God writing His Torah upon the hearts of His people.
These passages describe a future age in which God transforms His people, forgives their sins, and renews their relationship with Him. Significantly, the emphasis remains upon God’s direct action, His covenant with Israel, and the restoration of obedience to His Torah.
Two Different Understandings of Salvation
Christianity and Judaism ultimately approach salvation from different starting points.
Christianity generally understands salvation through faith in Jesus’ death and resurrection as the means by which sins are forgiven and eternal life is secured.
Judaism, drawing from the Hebrew Scriptures, understands salvation primarily as God’s ongoing work of redemption through repentance, forgiveness, covenant faithfulness, and the future restoration of Israel and the world. The focus remains upon turning directly to God, walking in His ways, and trusting in His mercy.
Both traditions speak of redemption and hope, yet they define those concepts through very different theological lenses.
For those seeking to understand the Jewish perspective, the most important step is to examine how the Torah, Prophets, and Writings themselves define salvation and to allowGod’s revealed Word to shape one’s understanding of redemption.
If you have been exposed to Judaism, Noahides, Messianics, Hebrew Roots, or some variant of those religious groups, then you will most likely be familiar with the weekly Bible readings known as the Torah portion, also referred to as the parashah, which simply means a passage or section of the first five books of the Bible (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy), as well as the Haftarah portion. The Torah and Haftarah portions are typically read publicly and studied each Sabbath. If you are relatively new to hearing such unfamiliar terminology, this brief article has been scribed to give you an overview.
Brief Torah Portion History
The tradition of reading a passage from the Torah, which is also known as the law or teachings or instructions of God and can be found in the first five books of the Bible being Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, is believed to have began in 6th century BC immediately after the Jews were released from Babylonian captivity. Upon being allowed to return to Jerusalem to re-group and re-claim their God-ordained promised land (Ezra 1-2), which they were evicted from by God for failing to obey God’s voice documented throughout the Torah, Ezra, the Levitical priest,” had prepared his heart to the seek the Law of the LORD, and to do it, and to teach statutes and ordinances in Israel” (Ezra 7:10) so as to not repeat history and be cursed by God for failure to heed His written Voice. Once the temple was rebuilt and dedicated unto the LORD, in the seventh month (Tishri, on the Hebrew calendar), “all the people gathered together as one man” so Ezra could read to them the “Book of the Law.” Each day during the Feast of Tabernacles, known as ‘Sukkot’ in Hebrew, also during the seventh month, portions of the Torah were read to the people (Ezra 8). As such, it is believed the custom began to prevent the calamity of the curses brought on God’s people for their rebellion in not obeying God’s written voice. At some point, the Torah portions were divided up into 54 weekly parshas or specific passages. Still today, the entire globe (of those branches) studies the same Bible passages in unity, although not necessarily the same exact verses within the weekly portion or come to the same interpretations.
Brief Haftarah Portion History
No one knows for certain how the Haftarah, also pronounced Haftorah in Ashkenazi communities, portions began, but many believe the tradition started circa 175 BC when Antiochus Epiphanes conquered the temple. At that tragic time, Antiochus Epiphanes outlawed the public reading of the Torah, replaced the holy artifacts with pagan gods within the temple, slaughtered pig, an unclean and abomination according to Leviticus 11, Deuteronomy 14, and Isaiah 65-66, as a means to mock God’s ordained sacrificial system, and even tormented and killed Jews for holding to their belief in the one true God and their determination to adhere to His laws. All of this was an “abomination of desolation.” Consequently, the rabbis of those days researched and prescribed related passages of the Torah found in the Prophets to be read each week instead of the Torah during that tumultuous time. This became known as “Haftarah,” which means “conclude.”
After that horrific time, the practice of reading from the Prophets stuck so today, passages called portions from the Torah and the Haftarah, which are related are read.
The weekly Torah portions as well as various articles and teachings are easy to find online with a quick search of “this week’s Torah portion.”
