I do agree that we need to take all of scripture into account, so that we aren't creating opposing views. Truth has to be consistent.
There are other instances where Christ alludes to a relationship as being key too when it comes to salvation (abiding in the vine so you don't wither and die, where Jesus tells those who practice lawlessness that he doesn't "know" them). I view it like this...
- Salvation = Relationship with Christ (Which at the core includes faith. You can't have a relationship without faith. That makes no sense.)
- Understanding atonement/justification is for knowledge and not a requirement of salvation.
“Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life." -John 5:24
Jesus never taught about his blood. He gave symbolic references to it and essentially tied it in passover with him being the sacrificial lamb during the last supper but he never once said to believe in atonement of what he does, he constantly says to believe in
Him. Could you believe in his blood that cleansed us? Sure, but it's not necessary or a requirement for salvation, just a nuance for understanding what Christ did on the cross and how it applies to the laws requirements.
If understanding the nuances of what Christ did/does for us is a requirement for salvation, then that would have been repeated several times, at least by Jesus. Because then the question of how successful his ministry was comes into question when you have instances of his preaching and teaching crowds that he never mentions anything about his blood, or atonement. Instead, he consistently just refers back to himself being the way the truth and the life.
Praise the Lord—you seem quite amenable and reasonable. Thanks for the turnaround and demonstration of grace.
Yes, I also agree that abiding is key. That is what every believer who has faith will do—that’s what faith looks like. Someone who has faith in Christ
in general will also have specific faith in the blood, trusting the gospel, and will be abiding in Christ—knowing Him relationally—and, even more, will bear fruit and mortify the deeds of the body.
True faith has understanding which effects the heart unto obedience and fruit - acts of love!
This shows that knowing the gospel—what He did and who He is—is not enough per se. One must understand it;
but ultimately, it’s faith in the gospel
rightly understood that Scripture indicates as salvation. Otherwise, without correct understanding (as you seemed to be indicating), simply “know the gospel (death, burial, resurrection) and believe” would be enough for salvation. But riddle me this: isn’t it also necessary to have the right gospel understanding and the right Jesus?
If you don’t believe He is sinless or God, will you still be saved—or is that a different Jesus? If you believe Jesus didn’t need to shed blood to redeem us (cf. Leviticus 17:11) and that only His dying was sufficient—is that the true gospel, or the true Savior whom Scripture defines as “our Passover Lamb” (this implies sacrificial blood atonement) ?
If Jesus died by drowning, would that atone for our souls?
Scripture doesn't say we receive the propitiation through faith in his life, or death, but in his blood - well the greek seems to strongly indicate that. Translations steer away from the blood - the esv even changes levitus 17:11 to point back to the life on the altar and not the blood - to potential disaster. The ESV points away from the blood nearly if not all every time. If salvation really depends on this faith and understanding in the blood - that would be dire - potentially.
I hope you see my point: one must have a correct understanding of the gospel and of who Jesus is to be saved—not a complete theology, but the
vital elements. Would you agree with this—that we need to understand something in order to be saved? Or is mere vague belief sufficient—“a person named Jesus died for me”—without knowing how or why that matters, beyond the historical facts of His death, burial, and resurrection? Even non-believers can affirm those facts.
When we take other scripture into account (faith in the blood, abiding, calling out, doing the will of the father, etc) surely we can see this logically rules out vague belief. Yet, believe in Jesus still saves, but it's a general summary statement, but only according to the word and understanding of it. In short - it's shorthand. He doesn't need to explain justification and atonement every time the gospel is mentioned.
I believe God calls us to a
specific faith (in the blood - or sacrificial blood atonement - as part of the gospel - not a different or new one) in a
specific Person (the sinless Godman) ; otherwise He could have commanded simple belief from heaven without needing to die. If His death alone were enough, why have an altar on earth and in heaven receiving blood to make atonement for our souls? The blood is a vital piece of the story and our faith; we should appreciate it and preach it.
Some will say the altar on earth pointed to christ as the true propitiation, which is the once and for all atonement, not just the blood atonement of past which was temporary - therefore the blood is not necessary as it points to the Christ himself. Yet, take heed, If that were try, why would Christ himself still sprinkle His blood in heaven? He fulfilled the law of moses. Answer me this, is that possible if he changed the blood atonement sacrifice by not offering it, or it somehow wasn't even necessary? How can it be said he fulfilled the law via every jot and tittle - and take heed - leviticus 17:11 is not just a tot an tittle but potentially THE dot and tittle.
Thus even the new testament is in the blood of Christ - this potentially so called jot and tittle which the ESV and others seem to dismiss as but a shadow and not the very medium of salvation to trust in, not apart from christ, but in christ, it takes place in him so it can be say everything culminates in christ - even the entire levitical sacrificial system!!!!!
I love how deeply you’re thinking here—the same thoughts occurred to me too, believe me.
“Jesus never taught about His blood. He gave symbolic references to it and tied it to Passover—presenting Himself as the sacrificial Lamb at the Last Supper—but He never once said to believe in atonement. He constantly says to believe in Him. You could believe in His blood that cleansed us, sure, but it’s not necessary or a requirement for salvation; just a nuance for understanding what Christ did on the cross and how it applies to the Law’s requirements.”
This was
spoken before the cross—technically still within the Old-Covenant era He was fulfilling—
in which blood on the altar was required (and which He fulfilled, as Hebrews explains). Yes, on the cross the payment was made—“It is finished”—and
yet He also appeared in heaven as High Priest at the true mercy seat with His own blood, so the sacrifice would be
presented and applied to all who believe (Hebrews 9–10).
Correct me if I’m wrong, but that seems to be the argument.
John the Baptist says, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.” That links to Leviticus 17:11 (life is in the blood, given on the altar) and to Passover. This is “indirect,” as you say, but Paul’s epistles—his gospel expounded to him by revelation—explain
explicitly the ground of justification:
“justified by His blood,” “through faith in His blood.” Paul, by the Spirit, pieces together what it all meant: we are justified through the sacrificial blood-atonement of Christ. To have faith in this is to have faith in the gospel
and in Jesus. The blood matters because of
who He is—the sinless God-Man.
This magnifies His glory. By presenting justification via blood, God grounds our faith not in vague abstraction but in a concrete altar.
Even a child can “see” the blood on the mercy seat. That concreteness aids assurance.
You’re right: “faith in the blood,” and even the gospel as stated in 1 Corinthians 15:3–4, is not laid out with the same clarity in the four Gospels; there we see shadows and types. The fuller clarity comes later through Paul
in this New-Covenant era opened widely to the Gentiles. To the Jews steeped in Messianic expectation, believing He is the Messiah may have been framed differently
within their existing Scriptural categories. To us Gentiles, in a different culture, the dispensation emphasizes grace and
apostolic explanation rather than inherited Messianic categories.
I hope that makes sense and helps. A lot is going on—feel free to ask any questions if I was unclear. I don’t expect you to take my word for it;
be a good Berean!
), yet you say he lied. He's just inarticulate. It's obvious what he was saying.
