Jewish views on the Bible’s disputed passages
Every disputed passage in this collection, and how Jewish readers understand it — in their own terms, beside the full article with every other tradition’s reading.
Peter and the rock
Is Peter the rock on which the church is built, and does the papacy rest on this?
Judaism does not read this as Scripture, but recognizes the rabbinic legal terms 'bind' and 'loose.'
Because Judaism does not recognize the New Testament as Scripture, this chapter has no classical rabbinic or normative theological reception. However, Jewish scholars note that 'bind' and 'loose' are direct translations of the rabbinic legal terms asar and hittir, used for prohibiting and permitting. The chapter is analyzed academically for its preservation of first-century Jewish idioms and the diverse sectarian landscape, not as a source of religious authority.
Read the full article: Peter and the rock →Faith and works
Is a person justified by faith alone, or by works as well?
James and Paul reflect Jewish debates; not canonical for Judaism.
Judaism does not receive these New Testament texts canonically, theologically, or halakhically. Modern Jewish scholars read James 2 as one of the most culturally Jewish texts in the New Testament, noting that its teaching on the indivisibility of the law (v.10) mirrors rabbinic thought and its use of the Akedah (v.21) aligns with Second Temple Jewish exegesis such as 1 Maccabees 2:52. Romans 3 is critically examined for how Paul recontextualizes Psalms to erase the category of the righteous and for his view of Torah; Ephesians 2:15 is noted as a decisive theological break from Judaism's eternal covenant. These texts function solely as historical witnesses to first-century Jewish diversity and early Christian self-definition.
Read the full article: Faith and works →This is my body
In what sense are the bread and wine Christ's body and blood?
Not scripture; the language conflicts with Torah dietary law.
These passages are not part of the Jewish canon and have no normative reception in rabbinic tradition. Jewish scholars study them historically, noting that the command to eat flesh and drink blood is radically incompatible with kashrut and the Torah's prohibition against consuming blood (Leviticus 17). The Gospel accounts are analyzed for their polemical portrayal of 'the Jews' and their use of Jewish exegetical forms. The institution narrative is understood as a Christian reinterpretation of Passover, not as a continuation of Jewish practice. Jewish tradition neither affirms nor denies Christian eucharistic faith; it simply does not share these texts.
Read the full article: This is my body →Baptism
Is baptism necessary for salvation, and should infants be baptized?
These texts are not part of Judaism; no normative teaching.
Judaism does not receive the New Testament as Scripture. The passages are studied historically for Second Temple context, especially baptismal practices and messianic claims. No theological position on Christian baptism or infant baptism. The promise to children in Acts 2:39 is read by some as a Christian supersessionist claim, but not authoritative.
Read the full article: Baptism →Predestination
Does God choose who will be saved, and on what basis?
Paul diverges from Jewish emphasis on free will; no classical commentary.
Judaism does not accept the New Testament as canonical; no classical commentary exists. Modern Jewish scholars note Paul's reading of divine sovereignty runs counter to normative Jewish free will. Maimonides taught Pharaoh's hardening was punitive consequence of prior sins, not unconditional fiat. Paul redefines Israel, spiritualizing the seed of Abraham. The chapter is studied for origins of Christian supersessionism and predestination; no liturgical application.
Read the full article: Predestination →Can salvation be lost?
Can a true believer fall away and be lost?
Read as first-century Jewish sectarian document, not Scripture.
Jewish engagement with Hebrews 6 is entirely historical, comparative, and academic, emerging primarily in modern critical scholarship. The 'first principles' listed in verses 1-2—repentance, faith in God, washings, resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment—are analyzed as standard tenets of Second Temple Judaism, closely mirroring contemporary practices and proselyte instruction. The author's invocation of God's oath to Abraham is seen as a midrashic-style reading of Genesis 22:16-17. The reference to Melchizedek entering beyond the veil is contextualized within Second Temple Jewish apocalyptic and sectarian literature, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls. As a New Testament text, Hebrews 6 has no halakhic, liturgical, or devotional application within Judaism.
Read the full article: Can salvation be lost? →Purgatory and prayer for the dead
Is there a purification after death, and do these texts teach it?
2 Maccabees is history, not Halakhah; the Tanakh has no purgatory.
Because neither 1 Corinthians nor 2 Maccabees is part of the Hebrew Bible, classical Jewish tradition does not read either as Scripture. Modern Jewish scholars study 2 Maccabees 12 as a witness to Second Temple Jewish diversity: it attests a belief in bodily resurrection and vicarious offerings for the dead, views later associated with Pharisaism. Rabbinic Judaism developed its own customs of memorial prayer (Yizkor, Kaddish) but does not ground them in this text and does not posit a purgatorial fire. The chapter is used historically to trace how Jewish ideas about the afterlife developed, not to authorize practice.
Read the full article: Purgatory and prayer for the dead →The thousand years
What is the thousand-year reign, and will believers be caught up before the end?
The chapter has no role in Jewish religious life but is studied academically.
Jewish tradition does not read Revelation as scripture. Modern Jewish scholars treat it as an artifact of first-century Jewish apocalypticism, noting parallels between the thousand years and rabbinic debates on the Messianic Age (b. Sanhedrin 97a-99a). The phrase 'second death' has a parallel in Targum Jonathan. The Book of Life image parallels High Holiday liturgy. The passage is used only for historical and interfaith study.
Read the full article: The thousand years →Wives and husbands
What does submission between wives and husbands mean?
No normative role; the text is studied only for historical comparison.
Because Ephesians is not part of the Tanakh, Judaism grants it no halakhic or theological authority. Jewish scholarship examines the passage only as an early Christian adaptation of Jewish marriage imagery and midrashic reading of Genesis 2:24. Classical Jewish exegesis reads Genesis 2:24 literally or halakhically—such as Rashi's view that 'one flesh' refers to the child born of the couple—whereas Ephesians 5:32 applies it to a messianic mystery. The passage is never read in synagogue liturgy or cited in rabbinic legal literature.
Read the full article: Wives and husbands →Same-sex relationships
What do these texts say about same-sex relations, and do they address orientation as understood today?
Torah prohibits male anal intercourse; rabbinic law extends it; movements differ on same-sex unions.
Classical Jewish interpretation reads Leviticus 18:22 as forbidding male-male anal intercourse; female same-sex activity is not explicitly in this verse but is rabbinically prohibited as an improper practice. The verse is read on Yom Kippur afternoon to teach boundaries and purity, and is one of the sexual transgressions for which one must give up life rather than transgress. Modern Jewish movements diverge: Orthodox Judaism retains the traditional prohibition; Conservative Judaism has moved toward permitting same-sex marriage and ordination through halakhic re-evaluation, while Reform and Reconstructionist Judaism affirm same-sex relationships. Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 6 have no canonical authority in Judaism, though scholars study them as Second Temple Jewish texts.
Read the full article: Same-sex relationships →Male and female
What does "male and female he created them" say about sex and gender?
Original androgyne or equal pair; modern movements vary
Classic Jewish midrashim read the singular/plural shift in Genesis 1:27 as indicating that the first human was created as an androgynous being (both male and female in one body) and then separated into two. Others, such as Rashi, see male and female created simultaneously as equal partners. This tradition emphasizes that both male and female bear the divine image equally and that human dignity is rooted in this creation. Modern Jewish movements diverge: Orthodox Judaism generally upholds a binary understanding of sex and heterosexual marriage; Conservative Judaism allows some flexibility; Reform and Reconstructionist Judaism affirm transgender and nonbinary identities, reading the text as celebrating human diversity in God's image. The Jewish tradition has long engaged with questions of sex, gender, and the image of God.
Read the full article: Male and female →The command to destroy
How should readers understand the commands to destroy whole peoples?
Halakhic distinctions between obligatory and discretionary wars.
Rabbinic tradition organizes this chapter around the distinction between milchemet mitzvah (obligatory war) and milchemet reshut (discretionary war). The Mishnah rules that the exemptions for new houses, vineyards, and betrothals apply only to discretionary wars. Maimonides rules that the obligation to call for peace applies universally, even against the Canaanites, provided they accept subjugation and the Noahide laws. The injunction against destroying fruit trees becomes foundational for Jewish environmental law (Bal Tashchit). These laws inform Jewish military ethics rather than licensing modern violence.
Read the full article: The command to destroy →Psalm 137 and its curse
What is a curse on infants doing in the Psalms?
Galut liturgy; lex talionis plea for measure-for-measure justice.
Jewish tradition receives this psalm as the quintessential expression of Galut (exile). Rabbinic literature amplifies the exiles' resistance, and verses 5–6 form the halakhic foundation for Zecher l'Churban (remembrance of the destruction), mandating that every peak moment of joy be tempered by mourning for Jerusalem. Medieval exegetes like Ibn Ezra and Radak interpret the harsh imprecations strictly within the context of lex talionis—measure-for-measure justice—reflecting a plea that Babylon suffer what it inflicted. The psalm is recited before Grace After Meals on weekdays in many rites, while Psalm 126 is used on Shabbat, underlining the contrast between exile and redemption.
Read the full article: Psalm 137 and its curse →Slavery
Does the Bible endorse slavery, and how were these texts used?
The Torah regulates and limits servitude; it does not command it as an ideal, and the legal tradition adds protections that move toward liberation.
Classical Jewish exegesis reads Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25 as civil law for ancient Israel, not as a timeless endorsement of slavery. The Talmud and later codes interpret the statutes restrictively, requiring humane treatment, limiting the master's power, and providing release at the Jubilee or seventh year. The principle that Israel is God's servant undergirds the tradition's suspicion of absolute human ownership. Modern Jewish authorities generally reject chattel slavery as incompatible with the divine image, while noting that the Torah permits a regulated form of servitude in its historical context.
Read the full article: Slavery →Deuteronomy 22 and the violated woman
What did this law require, and how should its words be translated?
A binding halakhic law imposing a fine and lifelong marriage, unless the woman or her father refuses.
Rabbinic tradition reads this as one of the Torah's laws concerning the rape of an unbetrothed virgin. The fifty silver pieces are the statutory fine paid to her father, in addition to compensation for pain, humiliation, and damage; the requirement that he marry her is understood as a safeguard for the woman's future, because in that society a violated virgin had lost her marriage prospects. The prohibition on divorce is absolute, binding the man for life as a form of redress. However, the Talmud clarifies that the marriage cannot be forced upon the woman: if she or her father refuses the match, the man still pays the fine but does not marry her. Maimonides codifies these rules in the Mishneh Torah.
Read the full article: Deuteronomy 22 and the violated woman →The binding of Isaac
Why does God command Abraham to sacrifice his son?
Tenth and severest trial; actualized merit; Isaac's willing self-offering.
Jewish tradition reads Genesis 22 as the Akedah, the tenth and most severe of Abraham's trials. Ramban explains that a divine test (nisayon) does not inform God but enables the righteous to translate potential virtue into actualized merit, earning reward. Rashi notes the incremental phrasing in verse 2 as designed to prevent shock and heighten spiritual magnitude. Midrashic traditions emphasize Isaac as a mature adult who willingly participated, making it a shared act of devotion. The Akedah is recited daily in morning liturgy and read on Rosh Hashanah, linked to the shofar.
Read the full article: The binding of Isaac →Jephthah's daughter
Did Jephthah sacrifice his daughter, and does the text approve?
Classical rabbinic consensus: literal sacrifice; medieval rationalists: perpetual virginity.
The Talmud (Ta'anit 4a) and Midrashim understand the vow as an illegal, rash act resulting in actual human sacrifice. The sages condemn Jephthah for halakhic ignorance and pride, noting he and the high priest Phinehas both refused to humble themselves to seek annulment. Rashi follows this tragic reading. Later medieval commentators such as Radak and Ralbag rejected the literal sacrifice, arguing the daughter was dedicated to a life of seclusion. The narrative warns against rash vows and the deadly consequences of arrogance and ignorance of Torah.
Read the full article: Jephthah's daughter →Not peace but a sword
What did Jesus mean by bringing a sword?
A Christian text reflecting early sectarian conflict, not a Jewish teaching.
Jewish tradition does not receive this text as Scripture; modern Jewish scholarship reads it historically as reflecting the early Jesus movement's conflict with Jewish communities. Claude Montefiore saw the saying about bringing a sword as a stark expression of the rupture between followers of Jesus and their families and synagogues. Amy-Jill Levine places the family division in the context of first-century Jewish apocalyptic movements, where allegiance to a messiah could override kinship ties. The passage is studied not as a command for Jews but as a window into the social cost of early Jewish-Christian separation.
Read the full article: Not peace but a sword →His blood be on us
Does this verse lay guilt on the Jewish people, as it was long used to claim?
The text does not establish Jewish guilt and has been used to fuel antisemitism.
Jewish readers do not treat Matthew as Scripture. Medieval polemicists noted discrepancies such as the misattributed prophecy in verses 9-10, and modern historians like Joseph Klausner and Geza Vermes point out that crucifixion was a Roman penalty for sedition, not a Jewish religious execution. The evangelist's shifting of blame from Pilate to the Jewish crowd is understood as a sectarian move within a post-Temple Jewish-Christian conflict. Verse 25 has a catastrophic history: it was used for centuries as the foundational text for the charge of deicide and fueled systemic violence against Jewish communities.
Read the full article: His blood be on us →Your father the devil
Whom are these sayings addressed to, and how have they been misused?
Texts are Christian polemic, not fact; used to fuel anti-Jewish violence.
For Jewish readers, these passages are not neutral; they have been used to justify persecution, expulsions, and murder. John 8:44's "children of the devil" and 1 Thessalonians 2:14–16's charge of deicide and misanthropy echo pagan slanders and became proof texts for anti-Judaism. Jewish scholars like Geza Vermes and Adele Reinhartz place the texts in the late first century, as the Jesus movement defined itself against the synagogue. They emphasize that the polemic is intra-Jewish sectarian rhetoric, not a factual description of Jewish belief or practice. The ethical task is to read historically and repudiate the harmful legacy.
Read the full article: Your father the devil →No one comes to the Father except through me
Is salvation found only through Christ, and what does that mean for other faiths?
Not a Jewish text; Jewish salvation is covenantal, not through Jesus.
The Gospel of John is not part of Jewish scripture, and Jewish tradition does not use John 14:6 to define salvation. Jewish engagement with this text is external and historical, often noting that it reflects Christian claims about Jesus that Judaism does not accept. Jewish sources speak of the covenant between God and Israel and of the Noahide laws as the path for righteous Gentiles, not of Jesus as mediator. Thus, for Jews, the question of salvation through Christ is a Christian theological question, not a Jewish one.
Read the full article: No one comes to the Father except through me →Virgin or young woman?
Does Isaiah's almah mean 'virgin' or 'young woman', and is the verse about Jesus?
`almah` means young woman; the sign is immediate for Ahaz
Classical Jewish commentators such as Rashi and Ibn Ezra read almah as 'young woman,' noting that the Hebrew term for virgin is usually betulah. They understand the sign in verse 14 as an immediate reassurance to Ahaz during the Syro-Ephraimite crisis, so the child must be born in that generation. Rashi identifies the young woman with Isaiah's wife; others consider Ahaz's wife. The chapter's later threat of Assyrian invasion is interpreted as divine punishment for Ahaz's refusal to trust God. Jewish educators use this text to model reading prophetic signs within their immediate historical context.
Read the full article: Virgin or young woman? →The longer ending of Mark
Did Mark's Gospel end at 16:8, and what of the verses after it?
Judaism treats Mark 16 as a historical text, not Scripture.
Jewish tradition does not receive the Gospel of Mark as authoritative, so its reading of the chapter is historical and comparative. Medieval Jewish polemics, such as Sefer Toledot Yeshu, offered counter-narratives to the empty tomb. Modern Jewish scholars, for example those contributing to The Jewish Annotated New Testament, highlight the women's Sabbath observance and situate resurrection belief within first-century Pharisaic eschatology. Some, like Pinchas Lapide, have argued that a historical resurrection could be accepted within Jewish theological bounds, though without confessing Jesus as Messiah.
Read the full article: The longer ending of Mark →The Johannine Comma
Is the explicit Trinitarian line in 1 John 5 original?
The Comma is a Christian text with no canonical authority in Judaism; it has been noted in polemics.
Judaism does not receive 1 John as Scripture, and no Jewish tradition reads the Comma as authoritative. Medieval Jewish apologists such as Isaac of Troki pointed to the Trinitarian formula in later Christian manuscripts as contrary to Israel's confession of God's absolute oneness. Modern Jewish scholarship, such as that found in The Jewish Annotated New Testament, notes the Jewish conceptual background of the author's language about commandments not being burdensome and the distinction between sins, while treating the Comma as a later Christian interpolation. The passage is studied academically and in interfaith dialogue, not liturgically.
Read the full article: The Johannine Comma →Divorce and the exception clause
When, if ever, may a marriage be ended and another begun?
Jesus' teaching reflects first-century halakhic debate, not normative Jewish law.
Matthew 19 has no history of canonical or theological reception in traditional Jewish exegesis, because the New Testament is not Jewish Scripture. Modern Jewish New Testament scholarship, such as Amy-Jill Levine and Geza Vermes, reads verses 3-9 as a direct engagement with the Hillelite-Shammaite divorce debate, noting that Matthew's exception aligns Jesus with Shammaite halakha. Jewish law permits divorce according to Deuteronomy 24:1, and the passage is studied as a historical window into first-century Jewish midrashic methods. Judaism does not apply the text liturgically or normatively.
Read the full article: Divorce and the exception clause →Tithing
Must Christians tithe, and does giving bring material blessing?
Tithing is a Torah commandment for agricultural produce in the land of Israel.
In Jewish tradition, the tithe (ma'aser) is part of the Torah's command for the support of the Levites, the poor, and the Temple service, applicable to agricultural produce in the Land of Israel. The Talmud records that Malachi 3:10 is the one permitted exception to the prohibition against testing God: one may test God's promise of blessing by faithfully giving tithes. Medieval commentators such as Rashi emphasize God's covenant faithfulness behind the promise. The passage is also read eschatologically, with Elijah as the messenger of the covenant.
Read the full article: Tithing →Obeying the government
Must Christians obey every government, and are there limits?
No canonical status; analyzed as Paul's Jewish political pragmatism.
Judaism does not treat Romans as Scripture, so the passage has no halakhic or liturgical application. Modern Jewish scholars of Christian origins analyze Paul as a first-century Jew, often comparing the civil obedience teaching to the rabbinic principle dina d'malkhuta dina ('the law of the land is the law'). Mark Nanos has proposed (debated) that the 'higher authorities' in verse 1 refer to synagogue leaders in Rome, not the Roman Empire. Jewish scholars also recognize verses 8-10 as a standard Pharisaic summary of Torah, paralleling Hillel and Rabbi Akiva. The passage is thus studied in interfaith contexts to show Paul's embeddedness in Jewish legal and ethical reasoning, not as a normative command.
Read the full article: Obeying the government →Judge not
What did Jesus forbid when he said "Judge not"?
Continuous with Pharisaic ethics; a proverb against hypocritical faultfinding.
Jewish scholars point to the speck-and-beam metaphor as a popular proverb cited by Rabbi Tarfon in the Babylonian Talmud (Arakhin 16b), and to the principle of measure for measure in Mishnah Sotah 1:7. These parallels locate Jesus' saying within the ethical teaching of Pharisaic Judaism rather than as a sharp break from it. The passage has no normative status in Judaism, but it is used in interfaith dialogue to show shared moral ground. For Jewish readers, the warning functions as a rebuke of hypocrisy and a call to self-correction before criticizing others.
Read the full article: Judge not →Creation and the age of the earth
Are the days of Genesis 1 literal, and what do these chapters teach about origins?
Readings vary: literal or symbolic; creation establishes God's sovereignty.
Jewish interpretation is vast and layered. Rashi, noting grammatical anomalies, argued that Genesis 1:1 describes ordering pre-existing matter, while Ramban defended creation out of nothing. Some rabbinic sources interpret the days literally, while others, especially medieval philosophers, read them allegorically or as divine time. The 'evening and morning' pattern and the seventh day ground the Sabbath, and the creation of humanity in God's image is foundational for ethics. The plural 'let us make man' is often read as God consulting the heavenly court.
Read the full article: Creation and the age of the earth →