Questions Jews Ask

Central Question 01: Who Is Jesus in Relation to the One God of Israel?

Abstract

The Jewish question behind this answer is not superficial. It asks whether Christian faith in Jesus, or Yeshua, breaks the first commandment and the Shema, or whether it can be understood as the surprising self-disclosure of the one God of Israel. A Christian answer must begin by affirming Jewish monotheism, not by softening it. The God confessed by Jesus and the apostles is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; the God who brought Israel out of Egypt; the God whose oneness is confessed in Deuteronomy 6:4. The Christian claim is not that a second god appeared beside the God of Israel. It is that Israel's one God has made himself known in a way that includes his Word, Wisdom, Spirit, and finally the Messiah, Jesus, within the divine identity.

This answer argues that the earliest Christian confession of Jesus arose within Jewish monotheism, not after abandoning it. It draws on the Shema, Daniel 7, Jewish messianic expectation, the New Testament's resurrection testimony, and early historical evidence. It also acknowledges why Jewish readers object: classical rabbinic Judaism expects the Messiah to be a human Davidic king who restores Torah observance, gathers Israel, and brings peace. Those objections deserve direct treatment. The Christian case is that Jesus' resurrection is God's public vindication of him, that the resurrection witnesses were not offering a vague spiritual metaphor, and that the New Testament presents Jesus as sharing the prerogatives, glory, authority, and worship belonging to the one God, while still distinguishing him from the Father.

The Question

Many Jewish people will ask: If God is one, how can Jesus be divine without compromising monotheism? Orthodox Jews may put the question more sharply: How can worship of Jesus avoid idolatry? Reform, Reconstructionist, secular, or humanistic Jews may ask it historically: How did a Jewish teacher become the object of Christian worship? Messianic Jews may ask it pastorally: How can Jewish believers in Jesus confess him as Lord while remaining faithful to the God of Israel?

Christians should not answer this question as though Jewish concern for God's unity were an obstacle to faith. It is the foundation on which faith must stand. Jesus himself prayed to and taught devotion to the God of Israel. The apostles did not preach a new deity. Peter's Pentecost sermon addresses "fellow Israelites" and argues from Israel's Scriptures that God raised Jesus and made him Lord and Messiah; see Acts 2:22-36. Paul's resurrection summary says that Messiah died, was buried, was raised, and appeared to witnesses; see 1 Corinthians 15:3-8. These are Jewish claims about the God of Israel acting in history.

The Christian answer is therefore not: "Monotheism is less strict than Judaism thinks." The answer is: "The one God of Israel is known by his own self-revelation, and the resurrection of Jesus forces us to reconsider how rich that oneness is."

Begin With the Shema, Not Around It

The Shema is the proper starting point. Deuteronomy 6:4 is central to Jewish prayer and confession: "Hear, O Israel..." The text is available in Hebrew and English at Sefaria, Deuteronomy 6:4. A Christian has no right to treat this as a minor verse. Jesus himself identified love for the one Lord with the greatest commandment. The earliest Jesus movement did not begin as a Gentile philosophical school but as a Jewish messianic movement whose members still prayed, worshiped, read Torah, and interpreted Israel's Scriptures.

The key question is what the Shema excludes and what it includes. It certainly excludes polytheism, idolatry, worship of created powers, and loyalty to rival gods. It rejects the religious world of Egypt, Canaan, Greece, and Rome, where gods could be many, morally unstable, localized, and competitive. But the Shema does not require that God be solitary in a flat or simple sense. The Hebrew Bible itself speaks of God's Word going forth, God's Wisdom present with him, God's Spirit active in creation and prophecy, God's Name dwelling with Israel, and God's Glory appearing in visible ways. A Christian should be careful here: these are not prooftexts that automatically yield the doctrine of the Trinity. Jewish interpreters can and do read them differently. But they show that Israel's Scriptures already possess a complex grammar for divine self-expression.

Christian faith in Jesus develops within that grammar. Christians do not say the Father is one god and Jesus is another god. Nor do they say Jesus is a demigod, angel, or merely exalted creature who may receive worship. Classical Christian doctrine says that the Son shares the divine identity of the one God, while remaining personally distinct from the Father. The later term "Trinity" is not a biblical Hebrew word, but it attempts to protect two biblical convictions at once: there is only one God, and Jesus is included in what only God is and does.

This is why a serious Christian answer should avoid careless formulas such as "three beings" or "three gods." Such language confirms Jewish fears. The historic Christian claim is one God, not three gods; one divine essence, not three divine beings; personal distinction, not division in deity. A Jewish listener may still reject this, but at least the actual claim is then being discussed.

Daniel 7 and the Question of Shared Divine Authority

Daniel 7 is one of the most important texts in this conversation. In Daniel 7:13-14, Daniel sees "one like a son of man" coming with the clouds of heaven and receiving dominion, glory, and kingship from the Ancient of Days. Jewish interpretation has not been monolithic. Some readings identify the figure corporately with the holy ones of Israel; others see an angelic or messianic representative. Christians should acknowledge that Daniel 7 is contested ground rather than pretending the text has only ever had one possible reading.

Even with that caution, Daniel 7 helps explain why the New Testament so often calls Jesus "the Son of Man." The striking feature is not merely that the figure receives rule. Human kings receive rule in the Hebrew Bible. The striking feature is that he comes with the clouds of heaven. In the Tanakh, cloud-riding imagery belongs supremely to the God of Israel. The figure is not another beastly empire from below; he is heavenly, vindicated, and enthroned. He receives universal service and an everlasting kingdom.

The New Testament applies this pattern to Jesus after humiliation and suffering. Jesus is rejected, crucified, raised, and enthroned. That means Christian claims about Jesus' divinity are not detached from messianic suffering and resurrection. They are not first a metaphysical puzzle; they are an interpretation of an event. If God raised Jesus and exalted him to the heavenly throne, then Jesus is not simply another failed claimant. He is the one through whom the God of Israel reigns.

This is also where Christians and many Jewish interpreters divide sharply. Rabbinic Judaism tends to judge a messianic claimant by completed historical outcomes: Temple, ingathering, peace, Torah faithfulness, and universal recognition of God. Maimonides states this pattern influentially in Mishneh Torah, Melachim uMilchamot, Chapter 11. In that framework, a killed claimant who did not complete those tasks is not Messiah. Christians answer that Jesus' messianic work unfolds in two movements: first suffering, atonement, resurrection, and the gathering of Jews and Gentiles into covenant blessing; then final restoration, judgment, peace, and universal acknowledgment of God. This does not remove the Jewish objection, but it explains the Christian structure of the claim.

The Resurrection Is the Decisive Christian Evidence

The resurrection is not an optional add-on to Christian apologetics with Jewish people. It is the hinge. Without the resurrection, Jesus could be honored as a teacher, martyr, prophet, or reformer, but he would not be vindicated as Son of God and Messiah in the Christian sense. Paul says plainly that if Messiah has not been raised, Christian faith collapses. The earliest Christian proclamation does not begin with abstract speculation about incarnation. It begins with the announcement that God raised Jesus from the dead.

The most compact early witness is 1 Corinthians 15:3-8. Paul says he handed on what he had received: Messiah died for sins, was buried, was raised, and appeared to Cephas, the Twelve, more than five hundred, James, all the apostles, and finally Paul. This is important for several reasons. First, the list is early. Paul wrote 1 Corinthians within living memory of the events, and he describes this tradition as something he had received, not invented. Second, the witnesses are named or grouped in ways that invite verification. Cephas, James, and the apostles were known leaders. Third, James is especially significant because the Gospels portray Jesus' family as not fully understanding him during his ministry, while later Christian tradition and the New Testament present James as a leader in Jerusalem. A resurrection appearance provides a historically coherent explanation for that change.

The Gospel accounts add texture. Luke 24 emphasizes the empty tomb, the women witnesses, the Emmaus encounter, Jesus' appearance to the gathered disciples, and his interpretation of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms. John 20 emphasizes Mary Magdalene, the empty tomb, the disciples, Thomas, and the confession that follows seeing the risen Jesus. Acts 2:22-36 shows resurrection preaching in Jerusalem, not in a distant place where claims could not be tested.

Jewish readers may reasonably ask whether these are biased sources. They are. They are written by believers or communities of believers. But bias does not equal fabrication. Most ancient historical sources are written from a viewpoint. The question is whether the testimony has marks of early, public, costly, and multiply attested conviction. The resurrection claim was not convenient. It exposed Jewish followers of Jesus to synagogue conflict and Roman suspicion. It did not make them socially powerful. It required them to reinterpret messiahship around a crucified man, which was not an obvious invention for winning approval.

Non-Christian sources also matter, though they do not prove the resurrection. Tacitus records that Christus was executed under Pontius Pilate and that the movement later spread to Rome; see Tacitus, Annals 15.44. Josephus, in a widely discussed passage, refers to James as the brother of Jesus who was called Christ. These sources help establish the historical setting: Jesus existed, was executed, and his movement continued rapidly enough to be noticed. They do not establish divine sonship. The eyewitness resurrection testimony is the Christian evidence for that.

Son of God: Jewish Background and Christian Fulfillment

The phrase "Son of God" can mislead modern readers. In Jewish Scripture, "son of God" language can refer to Israel, the Davidic king, angels, or a righteous representative. It need not automatically mean "God the Son" in later creedal language. Christians should admit this. When Psalm 2 speaks of the king as God's son, it is royal and covenantal language. When Israel is called God's son, it speaks of election and relationship.

The New Testament claim, however, is that Jesus fills these categories and exceeds them. He is Israel's representative Son, the Davidic Son, the obedient Son, and the unique Son who reveals the Father. The resurrection does not merely say, "Jesus was a good man." It publicly vindicates his claims and identity. Paul can speak of Jesus being declared Son of God in power by resurrection from the dead. The title becomes thicker because the event is thicker. Jesus does what Israel was called to do, bears Israel's suffering, embodies faithful obedience, and then receives divine vindication.

This does not mean Christians should use "Son of God" in a crude biological sense. God does not father Jesus as pagan gods father heroes. The incarnation is not a myth of divine reproduction. The claim is that the eternal Word or Son became flesh in the womb of Mary by God's initiative. Jewish objections often arise because Christians are heard to be saying something pagan. Christian theology, at its best, is trying to say something deeply anti-pagan: the one Creator has entered creation without ceasing to be Creator, not by sexual generation, not by rivalry with himself, and not by abandoning transcendence.

Worship and Idolatry

For many Jewish people, this is the hardest point. Even if Jesus is Messiah, why worship him? Would that not violate Torah? A Christian answer must be sober: if Jesus is a creature, worshiping him is idolatry. There is no acceptable middle ground where a created mediator receives divine worship. The New Testament's worship of Jesus is justified only if Jesus is included in the identity of the one God.

This is why the resurrection appearances matter so much. In John 20, Thomas moves from doubt to confession after encountering the risen Jesus. The Gospel presents this not as a rebuke for idolatry but as the climactic recognition toward which the narrative has moved. In Matthew 28, the risen Jesus claims comprehensive authority and sends disciples to all nations. In Acts, prayer, baptism, healing, and proclamation are centered on Jesus' name while still directed to the God of Israel. In Paul's letters, Jesus is included in confessional and devotional patterns that, in a Jewish context, belong to God.

Again, Jewish readers may reject the inference. But the Christian argument is not that Torah's ban on idolatry has been relaxed. The argument is that God has revealed Jesus to be more than a creature. Worship of Jesus is not a second worship alongside worship of the God of Israel; it is participation in the worship of Israel's God as he has revealed himself through Messiah.

Does This Erase Israel?

It must not. One of the greatest Christian failures has been to use Jesus' divine identity as a weapon against Jewish people, as though the church could boast over Israel. That posture contradicts Paul, who warns Gentile believers against arrogance in Romans 11. It also contradicts later Christian repentance for antisemitism. The Catholic declaration Nostra Aetate explicitly rejects presenting Jews as rejected or accursed by God and decries antisemitism. The IHRA working definition of antisemitism is also useful for Christians because it names patterns of hatred, stereotyping, collective blame, and religiously framed hostility that must be rejected.

A Christian apologetic to Jewish people must therefore include repentance and humility. The claim that Jesus is Son of God cannot be separated from the command to love Jewish neighbors, honor Jewish Scripture, and tell the truth about Christian sin. If Christians speak of Jesus as Israel's Messiah while despising Israel according to the flesh, their speech is morally incoherent.

A Direct Christian Answer

So who is Jesus in relation to the one God of Israel? A Christian answer is: Jesus, Yeshua of Nazareth, is the Messiah of Israel, the crucified and risen Son, who shares the divine identity of the one God without being a second god. He is distinct from the Father, prays to the Father, obeys the Father, and is sent by the Father; yet he also does what only God can finally do: forgive sins, judge the world, receive worship, pour out the Spirit, conquer death, and bring the nations to the God of Israel.

This answer depends on the resurrection. If Jesus remained dead, Jewish objections would stand in their strongest form. A dead messianic claimant who did not bring final redemption would not be the one Christians confess. But if God raised him bodily, appeared through him to witnesses, transformed frightened disciples into public proclaimers, converted skeptics such as James and persecutors such as Paul, and launched a movement rooted in Israel's Scriptures and open to the nations, then the question changes. It is no longer simply, "Can this fit my prior expectation of monotheism?" It becomes, "Has the one God acted in a way that expands my understanding of his oneness?"

Christians should grant that this is a costly claim for Jewish listeners. It asks them to reconsider inherited readings, communal boundaries, and painful history. It must never be pressed with manipulation or contempt. But it can be presented with confidence: the God of Israel is one; Jesus does not compete with that oneness; the risen Jesus reveals it.

An Orthodox Jewish question usually asks whether this is avodah zarah, foreign worship. The Christian response is that worshiping Jesus would indeed be forbidden if he were not truly divine. The case therefore rests on resurrection and divine identity, not on lowering Torah's standard.

A Conservative or Masorti Jewish question may ask whether this claim can respect covenant and peoplehood. The Christian response is that Jesus' Jewishness, the Jewish identity of the apostles, and the irrevocable gifts and calling of Israel must remain central.

A Reform Jewish question may ask what this doctrine adds ethically. The Christian response is that Jesus reveals not only moral teaching but God's self-giving love, forgiveness, resurrection life, and the promised renewal of creation.

A Reconstructionist or humanistic Jewish question may ask whether this is mythic language. The Christian response is that Christian faith certainly forms community and meaning, but it stands or falls on an asserted act of God in history: the resurrection.

A Renewal or mystical Jewish question may ask whether incarnation collapses Creator into creation. The Christian response is no: incarnation means the Creator freely assumes human nature without ceasing to transcend creation.

A Messianic Jewish question may ask how to confess Jesus without ceasing to be Jewish. The Christian response is that the first believers did exactly that, though Jewish believers today must navigate communal realities with honesty, patience, and love.

References