By 
Posted on July 9, 2025
Dear 
This blog expands on my response to your post on Hive, titled “Why Judaism and Christianity Don’t Hold Hands — And Never Did” (@grandpapulse/why-judaism-and-christianity-don), where you claimed Jesus came to dismantle Judaism and replace it with Christianity. As someone who values the continuity of God’s revelation from the Torah through the New Testament, I must challenge your claims, which misrepresent Jesus’ teachings, the Torah’s principles, the identity of early believers, and God’s covenant. Your arguments—about “an eye for an eye,” Jesus’ Sabbath healings, Jewish responsibility for his death, and the idea that Christianity replaces Judaism—crumble under scrutiny. They also rely on an anachronistic use of “Christianity,” ignoring its late emergence. Let’s unpack these issues systematically, grounded in Scripture and history, to set the record straight.
You assert that when Jesus says, “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,’” in Matthew 5:38–39, he’s rejecting the Torah’s supposed system of vengeance in favor of forgiveness. This is a fundamental misreading of the Torah. The principle of “an eye for an eye” (Exodus 21:24, Leviticus 24:20, Deuteronomy 19:21) isn’t about personal retaliation or vengeance. It’s about restorative justice, ensuring fair compensation for harm caused. For instance, in Exodus 21:26–27, if a master destroys a slave’s eye, he must grant the slave freedom as compensation—not lose his own eye. The Torah never instructs victims to inflict equivalent harm, as your interpretation would require to equate it with vengeance. Jewish tradition, like the Mishnah, further clarifies this by favoring monetary compensation (Mishnah Bava Kamma 8:1; Danby, 1933, p. 338).
When Jesus says, “You have heard that it was said,” he’s not attacking the Torah, but correcting misapplications or cultural attitudes—possibly from oral traditions—that skewed its intent toward retaliation. His call to “turn the other cheek” (Matthew 5:39) builds on the Torah’s call to love (Leviticus 19:18, “love your neighbor as yourself”) and elevates it to a personal ethic of non-retaliation. This fulfills, not abolishes, the Torah’s intent, as Jesus declares: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them” (Matthew 5:17). Your claim that Jesus was dismantling the Torah ignores its restorative purpose and his role as its ultimate interpreter.
You suggest that Jesus’ command to “love your enemies” (Matthew 5:43–44) is “not very Torah,” portraying Judaism as narrowly tribal. This couldn’t be further from the truth. The Torah mandates kindness to outsiders, like returning an enemy’s lost animal (Exodus 23:4–5) or loving the stranger (Leviticus 19:34). Proverbs 25:21–22, echoed in Romans 12:20, instructs giving food and drink to enemies. Jesus’ teaching intensifies these commands, urging proactive love, but it’s deeply rooted in the Torah’s ethics and the prophetic vision of all nations worshipping God (Isaiah 2:2–4). Your portrayal of Judaism as exclusive ignores its universal call, which Jesus extends, not replaces.
You point to Jesus’ Sabbath healings (e.g., John 5:18) as evidence that he broke the Torah, suggesting he discarded its authority. This claim misreads both first-century Jewish practice and Jesus’ messianic role. If Jesus broke the Sabbath or the Torah, he could not be the Messiah foretold in the Torah and Prophets, who upholds God’s Law (Isaiah 42:1–4). Breaking the Torah would contradict his deity, as God is unchanging: “For I the Lord do not change” (Malachi 3:6). Jesus didn’t come to alter the Torah to accommodate sinners; the Torah is faultless, but sinners are at fault for breaking it, as Hebrews notes: “For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second. For he finds fault with them…” (Hebrews 8:7–8).
The Torah prohibits “work” on the Sabbath (Exodus 31:15), but first-century Jews debated what “work” meant. Some Pharisees saw healing as a violation, while others allowed acts of mercy, like saving a life (Mishnah Yoma 8:6; Danby, 1933, p. 172). Jesus’ healings reflect the Torah’s intent: “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27). As “Lord of the Sabbath” (Mark 2:28), he clarified its purpose, emphasizing mercy over rigid ritual (Hosea 6:6, quoted in Matthew 12:7). Known as a rabbi (John 1:38, “Rabbi, which means Teacher”; John 3:2, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God”; John 20:16, “Rabboni”), Jesus corrected the Pharisees using the Torah, citing David’s example (1 Samuel 21:1–6 in Matthew 12:3–4). Your claim of heresy ignores the Torah’s compassionate core and diverse Jewish interpretations, including those of the Essenes (Vermes, 2011, p. 89).
You cite Jesus’ words in John 8:39–44, “You are of your father the devil,” as proof he rejected Judaism entirely. This takes the passage out of context. Jesus was confronting specific religious leaders who rejected him, not denouncing Judaism itself. His rebuke mirrors prophetic calls against hypocrisy while upholding God’s covenant (Isaiah 1:10–17). The dispute focused on their reliance on Abraham’s lineage over faith in God’s revelation through Jesus. Further, your claim that Jesus opposed the religious authorities’ teachings is undermined by his own words in Matthew 23:2–3: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice.” If Jesus taught contrary to the Scribes and Pharisees, as you suggest, why would he instruct his disciples to follow their teachings? This contradiction exposes a weakness in your argument, showing Jesus affirmed the Torah’s authority while critiquing hypocritical practices. As a rabbi (John 1:38, 3:2, 20:16), Jesus used the Torah and Prophets to correct them, not to discard them. If he viewed the Torah as false, he wouldn’t have quoted it as truth (e.g., Matthew 4:4, citing Deuteronomy 8:3; Matthew 22:37–40, citing Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18) or claimed to be the Messiah promised in the Torah (Deuteronomy 18:15). Your “battlefield” framing ignores the intra-Jewish nature of the debate, including among the Nazarenes, a Jewish sect that accepted Jesus as Messiah while observing the Torah (Acts 24:5; Eusebius, Book 4, Chapter 22).
You claim Jewish leaders engineered Jesus’ death, implying a deep divide between Judaism and what you call Christianity. This oversimplifies the biblical account and risks perpetuating harmful stereotypes. While some leaders conspired against Jesus (John 11:47–53), many Jews followed him (John 12:11), including the Nazarene sect (Acts 24:5). Crucially, Jesus himself declared his sovereignty over his death in John 10:17–18: “For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again.” This makes it clear that Jesus’ death was a voluntary act to fulfill God’s redemptive plan, not a forced act by any group. The New Testament attributes his death to human sinfulness, involving both Jewish leaders and Roman authorities (Acts 4:27, “For truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus… both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel”). Blaming Jews alone, as your post does, contradicts Jesus’ own words and the broader narrative of redemption (Isaiah 53:4–6, Acts 2:23).
Your post frames Christianity as a separate religion that replaces Judaism, but this ignores the Jewish identity of early believers. Jesus and his disciples weren’t Christians; they were Jews following the Messiah, rooted in the Torah and Prophets. The term “Christian” was a derogatory label used by pagans in Antioch (Acts 11:26) and by King Agrippa to mock Paul (Acts 26:28; Bruce, 1988, p. 228). Paul never called himself a Christian, instead declaring, “I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees” (Acts 23:6), affirming his Jewish identity and training under Gamaliel (Acts 22:3). He was also identified as a leader of the “sect of the Nazarenes” (Acts 24:5), a Jewish group that believed in Jesus while observing the Torah.
The New Covenant, like the Old, was made with “the house of Israel and the house of Judah” (Jeremiah 31:31). Some scholars suggest the Book of Hebrews, which cites this prophecy (Hebrews 8:8), was written by an Essene who joined the Nazarenes, not Paul, though Paul’s teachings align with its theology (Romans 3:31; Brown, 1997, p. 683). There is no separate covenant with Gentiles or “Christians.” Paul explains in Romans 11:17–24 that Gentiles who believe in Jesus are grafted into Israel, the natural olive tree, sharing in the covenant promises without replacing Israel (see Ephesians 2:12–13). The covenant remains with Israel, extended to all through the Messiah (Galatians 3:16, 29).
Your use of “Christianity” as a first-century phenomenon is anachronistic. Christianity as a distinct, institutionalized religion emerged in the 3rd or 4th century, particularly after the Edict of Milan in 313 CE, when Constantine formalized it as a state-supported religion (MacCulloch, 2010, pp. 200–205). In the first century, Jesus’ followers were a Jewish sect, called Nazarenes or the Way, who observed the Torah and worshiped in synagogues (Acts 24:5, 14; Eusebius, Book 3, Chapter 27). Jesus, his disciples, and Paul saw themselves as Jews fulfilling Israel’s messianic hopes, not as Christians. The label “Christian” was a derogatory term from pagans in Antioch (Acts 11:26) and Agrippa’s mockery (Acts 26:28; Bruce, 1988, p. 340). Your claim that Jesus founded a separate religion ignores the Jewish context of his movement and Christianity’s later development.
You argue that Christianity “transcends” Abraham and replaces Judaism, citing Jesus’ claim, “Before Abraham was, I AM” (John 8:58). This misframes the relationship. Jesus affirms his divinity, echoing God’s name in the Torah (Exodus 3:14), not rejecting Abraham. He fulfills God’s promise: “through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed” (Genesis 12:3). Paul and possibly the Essene-Nazarene author of Hebrews saw this fulfilled through faith in Christ (Galatians 3:16), extending Israel’s covenant to all without abolishing its unique calling (Romans 11:29). If Jesus or New Testament authors thought the Torah was flawed, they wouldn’t have quoted it as truth (e.g., Matthew 22:37–40, citing Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18). Your claim that Christianity and Judaism have different cores ignores their shared foundation, with Jesus as Israel’s light to the nations (Isaiah 42:6).
Your portrayal of Christianity and Judaism as irreconcilable is biblically and historically untenable. The Torah’s “an eye for an eye” is about restorative justice, not vengeance, and Jesus deepens its ethical call. If he broke the Torah, he couldn’t be the Messiah, contradicting his deity and God’s unchanging nature (Malachi 3:6). The Torah is faultless; sinners are at fault (Hebrews 8:7–8). As a rabbi (John 1:38, 3:2, 20:16), Jesus used the Torah to correct religious leaders, even instructing his disciples to follow their teachings (Matthew 23:2–3), which undermines your claim that he opposed them. His voluntary death (John 10:17–18) and the shared responsibility of Jews and Gentiles (Acts 4:27) refute your claim of Jewish culpability. Paul, a Pharisee (Acts 23:6), and the Nazarenes (Acts 24:5) show the Jewish roots of the faith, with Gentiles grafted into Israel (Romans 11). Christianity, a term misused in the first century (Acts 11:26, 26:28), emerged in the 3rd or 4th century. Jesus’ faith fulfills Judaism, extending God’s promises while honoring Israel’s role. I urge you,
Sincerely,
