Did Jesus Know What It’d Take to Convince Jews? (My Rebuttal)
’s subtitle to the original article read,
If he were really the Son of God, why couldn’t he make his own people believe him?
To this I would respond, if God is really the God of Israel, why did Israel refuse to believe Him over and over again in the Old Testament? The logic sounds weird right? That is because it is. People believing or not believing something has no bearing on whether it is true. The more pertinent question if we are to follow Tanner’s logic though is, “If Jesus is not really the Son of God, why do so many people in the world today (Approximately 2.9 billion) believe He is? Why did His disciples who were hard core monotheistic views believe He is the son of God and true God in the flesh?
Tanner states- The storyline is this: the Jews didn’t believe Jesus and got him executed — under a law supposedly made by his own Father, previously. So now Jews are to blame. They should’ve been convinced. But if Jesus really wanted to convince the Jewish people he was the Messiah, he failed hard. And not just a little. He died rejected by the very people who were supposed to be waiting for him.
The issue here is that the Hebrew scriptures explicitly prophesied that the Messiah would be rejected and killed by His people. Isaiah writes,
“I gave My back to those who struck Me,
And My cheeks to those who plucked out the beard;
I did not hide My face from shame and spitting.”
(Isaiah 50:6)
And again,
“He is despised and rejected by men,
A Man of grief.
And we hid, as it were, our faces from Him;
He was despised, and we did not esteem Him.”
(Isaiah 53:3)
And again,
“He was taken from prison and from judgment,
And who will declare His generation?
For He was cut off from the land of the living;
For the transgressions of My people He was stricken.”
(Isaiah 53:8)
David in the Psalms writes,
“But I am a worm, and no man;
A reproach of men, and despised by the people.
All those who see Me ridicule Me;
They shoot out the lip, they shake the head…”
(Psalm 22:6–7)
Daniel writes,
“And after the sixty-two weeks
Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself”
(Daniel 9:26)
Zechariah also writes,
“And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn.”
(Zechariah 12:10)
The theme in all these scriptures is that the Messiah will be rejected and then vindicated by God. Zechariah says they will mourn in regret for what they did by piercing God, Isaiah 50:8 states how God who justifies the Messiah is near, Daniel 9:24 says the Messiah will make an end of iniquity and usher in everlasting righteousness, Isaiah 52:13–15 talks about how the Messiah will be exalted and sprinkle many nations, Isaiah 53:11–12 talks about how the work of God will prosper in the Messiah hands and the Messiah will see the fruit of His labour despite being killed, Psalm 22:21–31 talks about how God eventually hears the Messiah and vindicates Him. This is why Peter could boldly say to the Jews he preached to during his first sermon,
“Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death; whom God raised up, having pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it.”
(Acts 2:23–24)
The fact the Messiah died rejected was all part of the plan. The more important part is that this rejected Messiah is justified by God and raised from the dead to prove He is who He said He was all along, that is the part Tanner does not tell you.
Tanner claims- So here’s the big question: Did Jesus know what it’d take to convince the Jews and just choose not to do it? Or was he guessing, fumbling around, trying things — and just didn’t have the power or charisma to pull it off?
Because if he did know and held back, or didn’t know at all — either way, it doesn’t look good.
First off, the fact we are talking about Jesus Christ today more than 2,000 years after He walked the earth is evidence that He lacked neither the power nor the Charisma necessary to back up His claim. No disrespect to Tanner but it is surprising if anyone will remember his name 100 years after he dies. And I am not taking unnecessary shots at the guy, my name will likely not be remembered either, but you know whose name will continue to be on the lips of people? Jesus Christ!
Secondly, Tanner seems to be under the impression that Jesus mission was to make everybody believe in Him. Far from that! Jesus came to save people, as many as would believe in Him, whether people believe in Him or not is their call! Hence Jesus says,
“He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.”
(John 3:18)
But more on this later
Tanner claims Let’s compare this to Moses. According to the Torah, when Moses showed up, the Jews didn’t believe him at first either. So what did God do? He stacked the miracles. Plagues, rivers turning to blood, parting the Red Sea — he pulled out every flashy trick in the book. And guess what? It worked. The Israelites followed him, even if they whined the whole time.
Now Jesus? What’d he do?
A few healings, some fish and bread, a water-to-wine party trick — and then he gets nailed to a cross like a criminal. After that? He drops in on a few friends for a spiritual tour. That’s it?
This is a very interesting point from Tanner. Here is the problem though, Jesus performed the most miracles in the Bible, nobody comes close. So Tanner is horribly misinformed when He says all Jesus did were a few healings and party tricks. Despite the miracles by Moses during the plagues, the Israelites continually rebelled against Moses , in fact they made a golden calf (Exodus 32) when Moses was gone a few days just after he had brought them out of Egypt with signs from God and God Himself had showed up before them on Mount Sinai in Exodus 19 and 20. In Numbers 16, a priest named Korah and at least 250 members of the congregation were in open rebellion against Moses, so much so that the earth had to open up and swallow them.
So if Tanner’s standard is that everybody ought to have believed in Jesus, then even Moses does not meet that standard.
Tanner claims And during his trial — according to the Bible — he chose not to clear things up. He let the confusion ride. Didn’t defend himself. Just stood there while people misunderstood who he was. Meanwhile, the Father sits back and watches his own Son die — slowly and painfully — because of a law he supposedly wrote. Why? Because it was “crucial” for Jesus to die.
Fine. But was it also crucial to make it look like the Jews were to blame? That little setup had some nasty consequences for the next two thousand years.
And what — God didn’t see that wrong conviction coming”
Again, woefully wrong. Even Jesus’ trial and “that wrong conviction” was foreseen by God and predicted in Isaiah,
“He was oppressed and He was afflicted,
Yet He opened not His mouth;
He was led as a lamb to the slaughter,
And as a sheep before its shearers is silent,
So He opened not His mouth.
He was taken from prison and from judgment,
And who will declare His generation?
For He was cut off from the land of the living;
For the transgressions of My people He was stricken.”
(Isaiah 53:8)
The fact that Jesus would not mount a defence at His trial was also foreseen by Isaiah when he writes, “He opened not His mouth” twice in the above verse.
Why did Jesus not mount a defence? Not just because it was the divine plan, but because no matter what He said, it would not have made a difference. The people putting Him on trial had already made up their minds to reject Him. This is why He started speaking in parables. He had performed miracle after miracle from chapters 4 through 12 and yet they kept asking Him for a sign which He declined and then the parables He spoke was to further confuse them,
“Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says:
‘Hearing you will hear and shall not understand,
And seeing you will see and not perceive;
For the hearts of this people have grown dull.
Their ears are hard of hearing,
And their eyes they have closed,
Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears,
Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn,
So that I should heal them.”
(Matthew 13:14–15)
On Tanner asking whether it was necessary for the Jews to be the villains, uhm, that is a very weird take away from the whole story. The Bible is a story of the Old Testament revolves around the Jews, the New Testament picks up precisely where the Old Testament left off, with the Jews and their Messiah. Hence the Jews are not just the villains in the story, they are the heroes as well. Jesus is a Jew, His disciples were mostly Jews, those who killed Him are Jews, those who believed in Him and wrote the New Testament (Other than Luke) were Jews, the Jews preached the gospel to the world and then the Gentiles come into the covenant at the end of the gospels, in Acts and the epistles. It takes a very weird person to take “It is the Jews’ fault” from the gospel story.
“Tanner claims — Let’s say Jesus wanted to convince people. Then why didn’t he show up at the Temple with a glowing face and a sky full of angels? Why didn’t he roll into Rome, call down fire from the heavens, and tell Caesar to sit down and shut up?
Instead, he spoke in riddles, refused to prove himself, and hung around with fishermen and tax collectors. And then we’re told most people just didn’t get it.
If you’re trying to convince people you’re the Son of God, don’t make it look like a side quest. The Jews were expecting a king, a military leader — someone who’d free them from Roman rule and bring justice. Jesus came in riding a donkey, preaching peace, and flipping tables. Not exactly what they ordered.”
One crucial point Tanner misses is that Jesus mission on earth was not to glorify Himself but rather to glorify God, His Father. Jesus humbled Himself as a man, followed His Father’s divine plan for His coming, which was not to be an all conquering king, but rather the despised, rejected, suffering and crucified Messiah.
Jesus’ point was not to prove Himself to anybody. What Tanner asks for is very similar to the Devil asking Jesus to turn stones to bread or throw Himself from the top of the temple if He is truly the Son of God. Jesus did not need to prove Himself to Satan and He definitely did not need to prove Himself to men! Jesus had the ability to do what Satan asked but that would have been Him using His deity to His advantage and bringing glory to Himself, for the same reason, He does not show up as an all conquering king.
However what Tanner is asking will come! Jesus says,
“For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works.”
(Matthew 16:27)
And again,
“…Again the high priest asked Him, saying to Him, “Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?”
Jesus said, “I am. And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.”
(Mark 14:61–62)
Jesus coming as an all-conquering king is reserved for His second coming. You can read all about that in the book of Revelation. The fact people expected an all-conquering king rather than a crucified Messiah is irrelevant and we cannot blame God for their misplaced expectations. Israel asked for a king in 1 Samuel 8 and look how it turned out for them, they and their king ended up going into exile! So if Israel expected an all conquering king again, why does Tanner think it is incumbent on God to grant that to them and succumb to their misplaced expectations? Why does Tanner think the Israelites would be correct this time around?
Jesus proving He is the Son of God was not the point, He outlines His mission thus,
“for the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost.”
(Luke 19:10)
Proving His divinity was besides the point. Salvation was the purpose of His first coming.
Tanner claims — If Jesus didn’t know what it’d take, then what was he doing playing Messiah in the first place? That’s not a plan from God. That’s guesswork. Trial and error. You don’t walk into the most ancient and stubborn religion on Earth and just hope your message catches on. You’d better know exactly what they’re expecting — and either meet it or blow past it.
And don’t blame the Jews for not believing. If Jesus couldn’t do what Moses did, that’s on him. Not them.
If your product doesn’t sell — even though it’s the best and cheapest on the market — do you fire your marketing manager, or sue the potential buyers for not realizing how good it is?
Again, we have shown Tanner misses the point. Jesus message did catch on, so much so that it is in fact the biggest religion in the world today. Tanner presumes God should bow to people’s expectations…because he says so of course and again Jesus did more miracles then Moses could have ever done in 1000 life times so how Tanner could say Jesus could not do what Moses did is beyond me. To use Tanner’s metaphor, the product sold because it did exactly what the company said it would! Everything went according to plan and the Jews themselves has their minds blown looking back at the Hebrew scriptures and seeing how it played out in history before their very eyes hence the gospel according to the well established tradition handed to and taught by Paul was,
“that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve.”
(1 Corinthians 15:3)
Tanner claims — People love to say Jesus wasn’t just there for the Jews — he came to save the whole world. Sure. But read the Bible. He said over and over that he was sent to “the lost sheep of Israel.” That was his main audience. If he couldn’t convince them, then either he wasn’t who he said he was, or he was playing some cosmic game nobody asked for.
And if the Jews were just a stepping stone — just a group meant to reject him so he could “open salvation to the Gentiles” — then that’s even worse. That turns the Jewish people into props in someone else’s play. Disposable.
In the same gospel Jesus says,
“I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
(Matthew 15:24)
He ends up saying to His disciples in the end,
“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations…”
(Matthew 28:19)
The same Jesus also says,
“But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”
(Acts 1:8)
It was the same people Jesus went to, the Jews, who first believed in Him and spread the message to the world so Tanner’s point here completely falls apart.
Tanner claims — It must’ve felt like a great honor for the disciples to be chosen to spread Jesus’ message. But little did they know — they were actually chosen to spread the wrong version of Christianity. Why? Just because.
Jesus trained his disciples for three years. They lived with him, ate with him, heard every teaching straight from the source. Eyewitnesses were clearly important to his ministry.
And then Jesus got arrested. The disciples ran away. One denied even knowing him — three times. One betrayed him outright. And even after the resurrection, they were still confused, scared, and unsure what to do. All because Jesus forgot to tell them the real point of the mission — that he had to sacrifice himself for the sins of humanity, but he’d be back in about 36 hours, basically giving up his weekend.
First, Jesus told His disciples exactly what His mission was, both before His death,
“From that time Jesus began to show to His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised the third day.”
(Matthew 16:31)
And after His resurrection,
“Then 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.” And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures.
Then He said to them, “Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ 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. And you are witnesses of these things.”
(Luke 24:48)
To quickly address the “gave up his weekend point”, which is almost as insulting as it is stupid, but picture this thought experiment,
A group of kidnappers capture a woman’s daughter and they plan to kill her, however the woman makes the kidnappers a deal, she will let them torture and assault her in any way they please for a whole day in exchange for her daughter’s freedom. The kidnappers take the deal, molest the woman for a whole day and then release her and her daughter back into the world. Would it not be stupid to say all the mother did for her daughter’s freedom was “give up a few hours” of her time? There is a tangible experience and tangible scars, both physically and emotionally which are tied to “those few hours” endured by the mother. Jesus bears the physical scars as an eternal reminder of what He went through, hence He could show them to Thomas post resurrection. To say all He did was give up a weekend is to despise His sacrifice and as the book of Hebrews says,
“Anyone who has rejected Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. And again, “The Lord will judge His people.” It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.”
(Hebrews 10:28–31)
Tanner claims — And to top it off, instead of correcting them, Jesus let his disciples go on preaching a wrong and unfinished version of Christianity — one that didn’t even have the basics nailed down, like the nature of God or the meaning of the crucifixion. He didn’t give the update to the people he personally trained. No — after his death, he gave it to a complete outsider. Jesus wanted the Gentiles — specifically the Romans — to get the right version while fools in the Middle East were being preached something different.
This is an idiotic claim Tanner keeps making over and over again. I have addressed it exhaustively in the below article:
Tanner claims — Look — if you believe Jesus was God, then you believe he knew every human mind, every cultural expectation, every need for proof. You believe he could’ve spoken one sentence that convinced every doubter. He could’ve shown up glowing in glory, parting the skies. He didn’t even need convincing for his servants to understand he’s God.
But he didn’t.
And if he didn’t, that leaves two possibilities:
- He didn’t want to convince everyone because he needed someone to blame for his rejection.
- He couldn’t convince them because he wasn’t who people say he was.
Either way, it’s a mess. Either Jesus failed on purpose, or he just failed.
Again, Tanner seems to think Jesus was just obsessed with people believing in Him. That could not be further from the truth. God’s ways/thoughts are not the ways/thoughts of Tanner and it was neither Jesus’ job nor mission to make everybody believe in Him and I understand if Tanner were the Son of God, He would part the skies and have his face all glorious but that is precisely why Tanner is not the Son of God. Jesus did not come to bring glory to Himself but to follow God’s predetermined salvation plan culminating in His death/resurrection and He did that to perfection.
Tanner’s options are thus based on false premises and nonsensical. They are only relevant if Jesus’ main goal was to convince people of who He was.
All Tanner’s conclusions are based on false premises so are invalid.
On hell, please see the below article:
