Is Yeshua/Jesus necessary?

[dodari]

I need to pose some questions. I will use common terms for names and such as I need to keep it simple stupid, I'm the stupid I guess.

So here goes. Is "salvation" necessary so that in the world to come one may be on the good side of things? Is "salvation" based on believing that Jesus is the Saviour/Messiah? Is the foregoing predicated on the necessity of sacrificial blood as per Lev. 17:11?

Is there any other way, short of keeping Torah perfectly, understanding that no one does that except for Jesus? I am not aware of another way considering there now is no Temple. But I have heard from my traditional Jewish brethren that their repentance, prayer and tzedakah is sufficient and redemptive or atoning as it were.

My father was Native American, my mother was a Conservative Jew. That makes me a Jew according to my Rabbi. It's ok with me.

My wife and I attend a Conservative Shul, sometimes we go to a church, as long as it's not RC, I left RC about 57 years ago. We have gone to a Messianic group locally, the role playing is over the top, gentiles becoming Kohen HaGadols, zoweeee.

To restate, I guess, is Jesus necessary for "salvation/redemption" and to be with G-d in the world to come. Is this predicated on the need for blood to atone for sin like Lev. 17:11?

Having just gone through Yom Kippur at our shul I know I have no personal merit of my own to deserve HaShem's mercy.

This issue goes back and forth betwixt my wife and myself.

Please, no fighting. Please.

 

[visionary]

I need to pose some questions. I will use common terms for names and such as I need to keep it simple stupid, I'm the stupid I guess.

Questions are not stupid, they show an inquirying mind.

So here goes. Is "salvation" necessary so that in the world to come one may be on the good side of things?

Is salvation necessary? absolutely. Is it so that in the world to come, you can be on the good side of things? how about so that you can be of the right frame of mind to appreciate what God has done, and why.

Is "salvation" based on believing that Jesus is the Saviour/Messiah?

Now that is a loaded question. Yes, in a thousand ways. God loves us. God wants to save us. God is willing to do what it takes to bring us back to Him. God came in the flesh. God sacrificed Himself, His position, His power, His authority, and became our sacrifice, our example, our suffering servant, our healer, our redeemer, our advocate, and so much more, so that we may know Him, appreciate Him, honor Him, seek Him, search Him out, follow Him, and be like Him. In this sense Yeshua is our Savior/Messiah.

Is the foregoing predicated on the necessity of sacrificial blood as per Lev. 17:11?

yes... and more. It is to teach us the wages of sin, the cost of redemption, and the willingness of God to reach out and save us from sin in all its roots, branches and fruit.

Is there any other way, short of keeping Torah perfectly, understanding that no one does that except for Jesus?

Keeping Torah has to be done in the spirit and intent in which it was meant to be kept. Not as a prescribed methodology but a fundamental starting point that the Holy Spirit can instruct from.

, but I am not aware of another way considering there now is no Temple.

those things that have to do with the daily living a godly life is still alive and well worth learning how to apply into ones own life, for they contain wisdom and knowledge that you can not get anywhere else. Reading and praying and applying it to your life is where you gain the knowledge and wisdom. God will be your teacher.

But I have heard from my traditional Jewish brethren that their repentance, prayer and tzedakah is sufficient and redemptive or atoning as it were.

Has that been spiritually satisfying to your own soul? There is always something missing when I find myself doing all the prescribed as an ends in themselves, like there is something I can give God that could possibly be sufficient. I have found on the other hand, that with God actively walking by my side, instructing me in the walk, which is in accordance to His Word, far more rewarding, not only for my own soul's salvation, but for the "peace that passes all understanding".

My father was Native American, my mother was a Conservative Jew. That makes me a Jew according to my Rabbi. It's ok with me.

My wife and I attend a Conservative Shul, sometimes we go to a church, as long as it's not RC, I left RC about 57 years ago. We have gone to a Messianic group locally, the role playing is over the top, gentiles becoming Kohen HaGadols, zoweeee.

lol...Rehearsals, trying it out, finding gems among the dust of traditions, .. yeah... sometimes in the zeal gentiles have gone over the top... the pendulum does swing as believers search for the balance in Him. .. At least it is a good thing rather than living in the world corrupted with lusts, greed, and worly pride.. The earnest efforts to honor God in a time worn tradition of a good Jew, like the apostles, still reflects man's traditions [Jewish] and may God continue to work on cleansing them from all sins.

To restate, I guess, is Jesus necessary for "salvation/redemption" and to be with G-d in the world to come. Is this predicated on the need for blood to atone for sin like Lev. 17:11?

I see you have a serious stumbling block on this point. God is obviously working on your heart on this point. May you be like Jacob as you wrestle with Him, become victorious in knowing as the morning dawns from this struggle in your spiritual night, that He is the one you are struggling with and when you realise it, you will be like Jacob and cling to Him until He blesses you.

Having just gone through Yom Kippur at our shul I know I have no personal merit of my own to deserve HaShem's mercy.

Recognising that is the first step.

This issue goes back and forth betwixt my wife and myself.

Please, no fighting. Please.

May you both be blessed to walk together in a closer relationship with Him who is all truth, the only Way, and our redeemer, who lovese you very much.

 

[alegator21]

John 3 in the Bible presents Jesus as the only means to salvation.

• "you" (salvation is a personal and individual transaction)
• "must be" (salvation is a very exclusive, narrow, and quite directive command from Jesus to lost sinners who need to be saved)
• "born again" (salvation is an obedient, personal confession that your first birth into what ever family, religion, heritage, ethnic group, and so on is insufficient to get you to Heaven, and unless a supernatural, conscious miracle called conversion takes place, only Hell lies ahead).

 

[yonah_mishael]

Dodari,

Thanks for writing in. I think your question's quite appropriate. Jesus is necessary as long as you are pre-conditioned to believe that you have no personal merit, that you are unable to choose what's good, that God demands blood to atone for the eternal soul, etc. There are a lot of assumptions that must be made before one could think that Jesus is necessary for salvation. If you assume these things, then you might think that he's necessary.

 

[yonah_mishael]

Is there any other way, short of keeping Torah perfectly, understanding that no one does that except for Jesus? I am not aware of another way considering there now is no Temple.
...
Is this predicated on the need for blood to atone for sin like Lev. 17:11?

Just to direct an answer toward these two things...

(1) You do not need to have kept Torah perfectly your whole life. If you turn to HaShem, he is able to forgive your sin as soon as you ask. He's merciful and good, and he'll turn to you. "Come let us reason together...."

(2) Blood is not a necessary part of the atonement. Leviticus 17:11 doesn't say that "you must have blood" but that "blood is the part of the animal that atones". It is not the kidneys. It's not the heart. It's not the liver. It's the blood. Why? Because the Torah says that the life-force of the animal is in the blood. But, blood isn't the only means of atonement, nor is it a necessary part of the process.

Blessings,
Yonah

 

[dodari]

Visionary, Alegator21, and Yonah Mishael,

Thank you all for concerned, considered, thoughtful and reasoned responses, I do value such.

Today I had to have the upper and lower GI tests which involved voiding my alimentary system for X-rays and scoping and so on. I feel very weak and am struggling getting blood sugar and electrolytes back leveled out. Don't even worry, HaShem has seen me through many, many times, He is so good. Seriously. I think such tests are for healthy people, oh well.

I can see I am still not very good at getting to what I want to ask in words. I'm an old engineer, I do calculus, English(?) not so hot. Barely passed english in college.

Yonah I am indeed interested in the things you mentioned and would like to pursue such later. It would seem, possibly, those are in the area about which my wife and I have somewhat spirited discussions. I am so worn out I must go sleep now. I am intereted to learn what you have found, the information, not to start a furor. I'm still pretty much an engineer I guess, maybe too detail oriented, gathering design data, Seems like.

laila tov, Ari

 

[zaksmummy]

Hi dodari, I hope you are feeling a little better.

I would like to try and answer your question, from my understanding, so it will be quite simple

One of the things our church friends have asked in the past is "how did the people in the old testament get saved?"

My husband would always smile and say "they believed in Jesus."

"Well how can that be, because he wasnt even born yet?"

"They believed in the Messiah"

John 8v54
Jesus replied, “If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and obey his word. Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.”

Now the question becomes "Is Jesus the Messiah?"

Matthew 16v15
“But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God. Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven."

So the real question is all of this is - who do you say that Jesus is?

When you can answer this question you will have got your answer.

 

[dodari]

Oh rats tails, I've not posed the question I have well at all. I'm an old Civil Engineer, I do calculus, bridges, structures, roads, water and sewer systems well, I barely passed English and making sense in English seems to elude me. I also have been told I have a "native", I guess meaning Native American, "syntax". I could make a stupid joke about syntax, but I'll spare you all that.

Perhaps I should say where my belief is, insofar as Jesus goes. I unequivocably believe that He(Yeshua/Jesus) is absolutely the Messiah. But, it seems to me that His work was not done until He had shed His blood on the cross(execution stake?), that He was buried, raised by the Father on the third day, witnessed alive by His disciples and many others, ascended into Heaven and sat down next to the Father and now intercedes to the Father for us as our High Priest, without which I would not have a "snow ball's chance in H***" of avoiding an eternal bad end, whatever H*** is. My point is, based on Lv. 17:11, that the Father requires blood for atonement for sin. I'm not aware that the requirement went away. It seems to me that if Jesus had not fulfilled specifically that by the shedding of His blood on the cross, then He could not have possibly "kept Torah" at this specific point, therefore He would not qualify as Messiah and we would be in a pile of trouble. I hope I expressed that right and didn't add nor subtract(Duet 4:2). Also, I believe the Sh'ma, G-d is One, period. I do not believe there are three or maybe more potentially competing godlets, yet scripture states Father, Son and Holy Spirit. How does G-d do it? I dunno. He's too big for me to squeeze Him into my little man made box. I like it that he is smarter than me. Gives me a feeling of safety.

So, the cockle-burr under my saddle. I am half Lakota(father), half Jew(mother--Kahn/Levin). Historically all my family(both sides) knows, of Christianity(the organization) is not pretty at any point(the organization). So, somehow, by G-d's grace I guess one might call it, I was given the ability to sort of make a surgical-psycho/spiritual separation between what mere frail human beings had done and what the true living G-d had done and said, which I think is of utmost ultimate importance. What and Who G-d is, I mean to say, important is He. In His Word I came to believe He is the creator, therefore He has the right, the power, the responsibility yes(?) to set the standards(Torah). I fell so short it was pathetic. But that's why He provided for repentance and atonement(but with the shedding of blood), but by His standards, not mine. I see Him as absolute. Maybe I'm missing something?

My wife is of German-Irish American heritage, nothing at all wrong with that as far as I know. She may be descended from Avraham Gieger, one of the founders of Reform Judaism, she thinks, possibly. I am sure I do not know.

When I began to explore Judaism(Conservative and Orthodox, when the latter was available) I did so with a great deal of fear, knowing history and American history somewhat. Why get whacked on both sides of my genetic heritage? I am old enough to remember "restricted neighborhoods" here in America, I remember sheenie, yid, kike, etc., certain "people" couldn't have certain jobs, go to certain schools, run for certain offices and so on. But nevertheless I went to shul(s) and found a very accepting and loving family of folks that understood and I think accepts me as the mixed breed puppy that I am. I was fully aware that today's Judaism is rabbinically derived I guess it is said. As a matter of fact the gentleman I call my rabbi explained precisely that to me, though I knew it beforehand. But the rabbi understands that I am one of those Jews that believes that Jesus/Yeshua is The Messiah. We have discussed blood atonement several times, I have asked him so now how do you do blood atonement? I get a kind of circuitous non-specific answer, if answer be it at all. Anyway my wife has decided that Jesus was not, and is not, required for atonement, she feels that since there is no standing Temple there is no need for the blood at all.

And therein raises the question I wished to ask, that being: Is there some other way? I can't get anyone to state Biblicaly based specifics. I am willing to allow as how there may exist such specifics, but I am not aware of what they are. It is an honest question, I really wonder??????????? Anyhow our praying together is sort of hindered, it troubles me.

I do apologize for being so long winded, writing and keeping my sentence structure the way english is supposed to go according to what ny teachers said is hard for me. Wish this was a calculus problem or a bridge design, a snaperootie. I have not desired to offend any of you, your responses show a caring and the expense of your personal effort and energies, thank you.

Peace and wholeness to you all, shalom,
Ari.

 

[yonah_mishael]

Ari,

I also wish you good health. One thing that's got me stumped is how you believe Lev 17:11 makes some sort of claim that there is no atonement without blood. Where did you come up with that idea?

Yonah

 

[dodari]

Yes Yonah,

I'm doing much better. Blood sugar and pH are coming into line pretty good.

I guess I hook up Lev.17:11 with Heb.9, especially verse 22, but not exclusive from the rest of the chapter, verse 22 I made the connection. Well, and then it seems to continue into Heb.10. especially verse 29, boy I don't want to be one who has "trampled the Son of G-d underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace?". May I say that the text around verse 29 and on here in chapter 10 troubles me as to be honest for me, I still screw up and RATS!!, I'm 70 for crying out loud. I confess to the Father as fast as I am aware and I believe He forgives, but I really thought I'd be better than this. I'm glad Paul wrote Rom. 7 & 8, the part in Rmn. 7 where he says verse 14 on he has problems too. Romans 8 to me is somewhat of a victory banquet to me.

So while I was thinking Lv.17:11 I was also thinking about Heb. 8 & 9, but I didn't write it down. But that's how I hooked it up I guess one might say.

Peace,
Ari

 

[yonah_mishael]

It's that connection that gives you a perspective that doesn't exist in the Torah, Ari. In the Torah, you will not find the idea that atonement cannot be achieved without blood. That idea has been added by the book of Hebrews. It doesn't show up in Lev 17, nor does it show up anywhere else in the Torah. It certainly doesn't show up in the prophets, where they say clearly that God is not pleased with sacrifices but with repentance. If there's no need for blood according to the Torah, where did that need come from in the New Testament? Don't you think it interesting at least?

 

[cyberlizard]

for a good eximination of the subject I would suggest people listen to Tom Lancaster's series on the book of Hebrews which can be freely downloaded from Beth Immanuel.


Steve

 

[cyberlizard]

blood is indeed required for atonement, just not for forgiveness. You only need look at the custom of waving a chicken in the air to see that.

When the temple is rebuild, sacrifices will be offered. Let all the animal rights people complain, but the instruction to offer blood came from God himself, not the mind of some sage or rabbi.


Steve

 

[yonah_mishael]

blood is indeed required for atonement, just not for forgiveness. You only need look at the custom of waving a chicken in the air to see that.

When the temple is rebuild, sacrifices will be offered. Let all the animal rights people complain, but the instruction to offer blood came from God himself, not the mind of some sage or rabbi.

Steve

"Some sage or rabbi" sounds rather dismissive and insulting. Was this on purpose?

I agree that God required blood offerings. I agree that the Tanakh teaches that these will be re-instituted at the time of the ingathering (which is something that should be kinda offensive to Christians, I think, since it's taught that Jesus was the final sacrifice). I agree that God gave the command for blood, according to the Torah.

This is not our disagreement.

Our disagreement is in the need for blood in order to accomplish atonement. God did command that people give blood. But, if someone could not afford that, they could substitute their offering with grains. In fact, reliance on blood for atonement is something the prophets were against. They railed on people who thought that giving an animal was enough to satisfy God. What God wants ultimately is your mind and heart -- not the blood of your choice cow. What he wants is your obedience, not the spilling of your lamb's life-blood.

Atonement is achievable by repentance without blood, as we even see in the case of Ninevah -- an extremely sinful city that repented of their wrongdoings and returned in remorse. Their sins were forgiven without a blood atonement.

The Torah doesn't teach that blood is necessary for atonement. It teaches that if you give an animal, it is the blood that atones. That's the teaching of Lev 17:11.

 

[visionary]

Blood is used to cover the sins recorded in our book of life.

Psalm 51:9
Hide thy face from my sins, and blot out all mine iniquities.


Psalm 51:1
Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy lovingkindness: according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions.


Exodus 32:32
Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin--; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written.

Repentence brings on the task of blotting out the sins in the Book of Life by our Heavenly Priest Yeshua.

Isaiah 43:25
I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins.


Nehemiah 4:5
And cover not their iniquity, and let not their sin be blotted out from before thee: for they have provoked thee to anger before the builders.


Numbers 5:23
And the priest shall write these curses in a book, and he shall blot them out with the bitter water:

Acts 3:19
Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.

Revelation 3:5
He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.

 

[cyberlizard]

"Some sage or rabbi" sounds rather dismissive and insulting. Was this on purpose?

Not at all, I like to read the writings of the Sages and Rabbi's. Just that you get the impression that prayer, charity and repentance are the be all and end all of the process of forgiveness and/or atonement.

I agree that God required blood offerings. I agree that the Tanakh teaches that these will be re-instituted at the time of the ingathering (which is something that should be kinda offensive to Christians, I think, since it's taught that Jesus was the final sacrifice). I agree that God gave the command for blood, according to the Torah.

I would disagree on this point completely. The death of Messiah / Jesus did not do away with the temple system or the sacrifices. I am not sure why the church teaches this rubbish, but it can be clearly seen that the early Jewish believers were fanatical about the temple system. We see them worshipping there every day in line with the tamid offerings. We see them being on fire for observance of Torah commandments, though back then Halakhah seemed less stringent and multiple views had sway amongst multiple viewpoints. We see the early Jewish believers maintaining their Jewish identity and promoting circumcision. I think the book of Hebrews plays a large part in the confusion as everyone overlooks one small comment near the start of the book... that it is discussing the 'age to come'. Easily overlooked and by overlooking it, the entire theological tone is missed.

This is not our disagreement.

Our disagreement is in the need for blood in order to accomplish atonement. God did command that people give blood. But, if someone could not afford that, they could substitute their offering with grains. In fact, reliance on blood for atonement is something the prophets were against. They railed on people who thought that giving an animal was enough to satisfy God. What God wants ultimately is your mind and heart -- not the blood of your choice cow. What he wants is your obedience, not the spilling of your lamb's life-blood.

That is obvious. Sacrifice without true faith and real repentance was not an easy way of gaining forgiveness. In fact without complete sincerity on the part of the 'worshipper', forgiveness could not be gained. As you rightly said this is all the way through the Prophets. But it begs the question, if God does not want sacrifices (which He asked to be brought), thenwhy bother with the temple at all. Of course we could say that the temple is required for God to have His dwelling with man, but the temple would still become defiled, the priests would still be in need of cleansing and a red heiffer would still have to die. When Messiah comes / returns, then these arguments will be null and void and we can ask him directly. Sacrifices do not negate obedience and obedience does not negate the need for sacrifices. Of course we cannot bring them right now, but the day will come when you can and then it will be expected.

Whilst the sin-offering (chatat) can be flour (therefore not dead animal), this does not diminish the need for blood as even if not brought directly by the worshipper, the sacrifice of Yom Kippurim would be sufficient.

Atonement is achievable by repentance without blood, as we even see in the case of Ninevah -- an extremely sinful city that repented of their wrongdoings and returned in remorse. Their sins were forgiven without a blood atonement.

I disagree. Forgiveness is achievable without blood, but atonement requires it. Subtle but huge difference.


The Torah doesn't teach that blood is necessary for atonement. It teaches that if you give an animal, it is the blood that atones. That's the teaching of Lev 17:11.




Steve

 

[dodari]

Hi y'all,

It's going better the health thing. Thank G-d. Slow.

The following quote Yonah's is the first time I have ever pushed the quote button on any web page thing, I have no idea how it will turn out. Soooo, here goes.

It's that connection that gives you a perspective that doesn't exist in the Torah, Ari. In the Torah, you will not find the idea that atonement cannot be achieved without blood. That idea has been added by the book of Hebrews. It doesn't show up in Lev 17, nor does it show up anywhere else in the Torah. It certainly doesn't show up in the prophets, where they say clearly that God is not pleased with sacrifices but with repentance. If there's no need for blood according to the Torah, where did that need come from in the New Testament? Don't you think it interesting at least?

Yes, pretty much it has been teaching along the line of Hebrews sometimes hooked with the Akedah where G-d provides the ram, rather than Isaac, as the sacrifice. Their conclusion would be 'see, G-d requires blood, G-d provides, and therefore, in the New Covenant the sacrifice is Jesus but it's His blood that atones for sin, or covers sin', that was the way I recall they presented it. I would agree, no problem, that the prophets express, several instances as a fact, G-d's displeasure with sacrifices lacking true repentance. As a matter of fact this is precisely one of the big things that has always bothered me about christianity. It was like say the sinner's prayer and that fixes everything. Or, when I was with the catholics on the rez in my youth it was jump through the catholic hoops and everything is just peachey.

Yes I think if blood is not required in The Torah I am interested how it came to be developed in the New Testament. Yes.

Again, quoting Yonah, later:
"I agree that God required blood offerings. I agree that the Tanakh teaches that these will be re-instituted at the time of the ingathering (which is something that should be kinda offensive to Christians, I think, since it's taught that Jesus was the final sacrifice). I agree that God gave the command for blood, according to the Torah.

This is not our disagreement.

Our disagreement is in the need for blood in order to accomplish atonement. God did command that people give blood. But, if someone could not afford that, they could substitute their offering with grains. In fact, reliance on blood for atonement is something the prophets were against. They railed on people who thought that giving an animal was enough to satisfy God. What God wants ultimately is your mind and heart -- not the blood of your choice cow. What he wants is your obedience, not the spilling of your lamb's life-blood.

Atonement is achievable by repentance without blood, as we even see in the case of Ninevah -- an extremely sinful city that repented of their wrongdoings and returned in remorse. Their sins were forgiven without a blood atonement.

The Torah doesn't teach that blood is necessary for atonement. It teaches that if you give an animal, it is the blood that atones. That's the teaching of Lev 17:11. 22nd September 2010 06:25 AM "

Perhaps I am hazy about the difference between atonement and forgiveness. My impression has been that they were one and the same. Is there a difference? I think perhaps there is, but with my background I am at a loss to differentiate between the two.

I am thinking that base-lining this whole thing from a historic Hebrew basis, seeing as how G-d picked Avraham to work with, and his descendants, would be helpful to me. I've heard lots of explanations but usually always from the perspective of the church, when they even bothered.

I find it notable that Ignatius of Antioch(35 CE to 110 CE ??), in his letter to the Magnesians, does not care for Shabbat, Torah or Jews, as I recall. Some regard him as a saint, I was thinking schmuck. Just my opinion. Seems to me that there is 3 degrees of separation right there. The chaps that follow even depart from Torah further, bit by bit, until we have Constantine, Nicea, Athanathius(can't spell), Chrysostum, Augustine, clear to the reformers Luther and Calvin, antisemites all. I find it hard to follow a religion based on such hatred and such departure from the founding text of the whole thing to start with, namely Torah. It does NOT make sense.

I love Zechariah 14. It has encouraged me many times. "One".

I'm probably in trouble for this. Oh well.

Shalom shalom, Ari

 

[Elisha_7]

Shalom, I got an article from Dr Michael Brown website. I hope this helps..

Dr. Michael L. Brown is founder and president of ICN Ministries

Can Jewish People Be Saved Without Believing in Jesus?

I wish that I could say, “Yes! God has made a special way for Jews to be saved without believing in Jesus.” After all, my wife and I are Jewish. Our families are Jewish. Many of our friends growing up were Jewish. To this day, I am in close, ongoing contact with religious Jews, and we have had many in-depth discussions about the things of God. They would tell me plainly that they love God deeply but they do not believe that Jesus is the Messiah. Isn’t there a way for them to be saved without faith in Yeshua?

Certainly, each individual, Jew and Gentile, will have to stand before God on his or her own, and we cannot claim to know the fate of every human being. But of this we can be sure: God has not made a special covenant with the Jewish people that allows them to be saved without Yeshua. The testimony of the Scriptures is clear.


Why then do some Christians teach that Jews can be saved without believing in Jesus? For some, it is primarily a sentimental issue. That is to say—in overly simplistic terms—they go to Israel, they see Jews praying at the Wailing Wall, they recognize that the Jews are the chosen people, they read about the church’s past persecution of the Jews—in the name of Jesus no less—and they simply cannot imagine them being lost. After all, at certain times in history, it appears that the Jews have been far more righteous than the Christians! Isn’t it arrogant, then, to think that believers in Jesus are saved while these righteous Jews are lost? The unspeakable tragedy of the Holocaust has also made it difficult for many Christians to believe that Jews who do not believe in Yeshua will not be saved.


Others, however, base their views on a number of scriptural arguments, most of which boil down to the claim that God gave Israel the Mosaic covenant, and Jews who adhere to that covenant remain in right standing with the Lord. This is allegedly reinforced by Paul, who taught that “those who obey the law who will be declared righteous” and that there will be “glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile” (Romans 2:13, 10), implying that Torah-keeping Jews will be accepted by the Lord as righteous.


These arguments, however, do not stand up to close scrutiny, and the overall message of the New Testament stands against this line of reasoning. Jesus told His fellow Jews that if they knew the Father, they would know Him also, and those who rejected Him rejected the Father as well (see Luke 10:16; John 5:36-47; cf. also 9:39-41). In keeping with this, John wrote that “he who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life,” and that “no one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also” (1 John 5:12; 2:23).


Repeatedly in the book of Acts, the Jewish apostles shared the Good News with their people, and repeatedly their message was rejected by many of their people. Did the apostles say, “Well, that’s not that big of a problem. You still have your own way to God.” No, Peter plainly stated to the Sanhedrin, the Jewish governing body, “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12—yes, this verse was originally spoken by a Jewish man to a Jewish audience, not by a narrow-minded, fundamentalist preacher on TV). Paul too made himself clear when his people rejected the message of the Messiah: “We had to speak the word of God to you first. Since you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life, we now turn to the Gentiles” (Acts 13:46; this is basically how Acts ends; see Acts 28:16-31). That’s why Paul had “great sorrow and unceasing anguish” in his heart: so many of his people were not saved (see Romans 9:2), including those whom he said were “zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge” (Romans 10:2). In fact, it was for those very people that he prayed (see Romans 10:1), “Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness” (Romans 10:3).


So, according to Paul, despite the religious zeal of the Jewish people, they failed to understand the gift of God’s righteousness and therefore “his heart’s desire and prayer to God for [them was] that they may be saved” (Romans 10:1). Let me repeat: Even Jewish people who are zealous for God (Romans 10:2) and are pursuing a law of righteousness (9:31; 10:3) are in need of salvation through Yeshua.


As for the notion that Jewish people can be saved by observing the Mosaic covenant, Paul wrote:


Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin (Romans 3:19-20).
I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing! (Galatians 2:20)


All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.” Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, “The righteous will live by faith.” (Galatians 3:10-11)


That is why, to the end of his life, Paul reached out to his people: He longed to see them saved. And that is why he was willing to suffer so much persecution from his own people, coming back again and again to share the Good News (see, e.g., 2 Corinthians 11:24; Acts 21-22).



It is also important to remember that, in Jesus, God made a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah (see Jeremiah 31:31-34; Luke 22:19-20; Hebrews 8:7-12), and, “By calling this covenant ‘new,’ he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear” (Hebrews 8:13). So, Israel’s way to God is through the new covenant rather than the Mosaic covenant, a point made emphatically clear with the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70, a destruction that has lasted to this day.


Jesus made it clear that He was the fulfillment of the Torah and Prophets (see Matthew 5:17-19), while the disciples recognized Him to be the one of whom Moses and the prophets spoke (see John 1:45; Acts 3:24-26). After His resurrection, the Lord said to His disciples, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms” (Luke 24:44), commissioning them to preach “repentance and forgiveness of sins . . . in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem” (Luke 24:47).


All this means that Jesus is either the Messiah of the Jewish people or the Messiah of no people; He is either the Savior of everyone, Jew and Gentile alike, or the Savior of no one.


I personally agonize over these issues, wishing at times that somehow, almost everybody could just make it in, especially my own Jewish people. But I know that all of us fall infinitely short of God’s standards and that, without His mercy displayed in the cross, there is no hope for any of us, Jew and Gentile alike. And it is significant that religious Jews who come into a life-transforming faith in Yeshua do not simply say, “I had the same relationship with God before I believed, but now I just understand things a little better.” To the contrary, their normal response is, “Now I’ve found the truth! Now I really know God! Now my sins are forgiven!” That’s what happens when we enter into the new covenant through Messiah’s blood.


How then should we view Jewish people who died without ever hearing the Gospel, especially those who were only exposed to a hypocritical, anti-Semitic “church”? We must leave their fate as individuals to God—just as we must do for all who died without hearing the Gospel—but we should not hold to the hope that somehow, they were still under the Mosaic covenant and were thereby good enough to become accepted by God. That is simply not true, as well-intended as it may be.


This much we know. Israel’s salvation matters dearly to the Lord, and to the extent that Christians share His heart for Israel and pray and intercede, to the extent that Christians better understand the Jewish roots of their faith and become more considerate in their witness, to that extent they can help bring the Good News to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and to that extent they can help hasten the day in which “all Israel will be saved.”


May that day come quickly—even in our lifetimes!



Article From Dr Brown

 

[hamashiachagape]

I need to pose some questions. I will use common terms for names and such as I need to keep it simple stupid, I'm the stupid I guess.

So here goes. Is "salvation" necessary so that in the world to come one may be on the good side of things? Is "salvation" based on believing that Jesus is the Saviour/Messiah? Is the foregoing predicated on the necessity of sacrificial blood as per Lev. 17:11?

Is there any other way, short of keeping Torah perfectly, understanding that no one does that except for Jesus? I am not aware of another way considering there now is no Temple. But I have heard from my traditional Jewish brethren that their repentance, prayer and tzedakah is sufficient and redemptive or atoning as it were.

My father was Native American, my mother was a Conservative Jew. That makes me a Jew according to my Rabbi. It's ok with me.

My wife and I attend a Conservative Shul, sometimes we go to a church, as long as it's not RC, I left RC about 57 years ago. We have gone to a Messianic group locally, the role playing is over the top, gentiles becoming Kohen HaGadols, zoweeee.

To restate, I guess, is Jesus necessary for "salvation/redemption" and to be with G-d in the world to come. Is this predicated on the need for blood to atone for sin like Lev. 17:11?

Having just gone through Yom Kippur at our shul I know I have no personal merit of my own to deserve HaShem's mercy.

This issue goes back and forth betwixt my wife and myself.

Please, no fighting. Please.

Let me explain this. Yeshua is the High Priest, the Altar and the Sin Sacrifice. He is the red heiffer sacrifice, (the 10th one that the Jews have been looking for, see Hebrews 9), and as we all know, the Passover lamb.

On your being Jewish, since the blood of Jews comes from the mother, you would be considered half Jewish. To be fully Jewish, the Jewish blood must come from the father. Thats the Biblical application, and not the Orthodox, that your Rabbi is utilizing . I'm half Jewish too.

Our bodies are the temple. The application of the sacrifices are now being applied in a spiritual manner.

Is Leviticus 17:11 necessary? You better bet your bottom dollar this is the case.

If you have sinned, you are in need of a Sin Sacrifice. We no longer have to walk up to the temple and present a sacrifice which is now found in Yeshua ha Mashiach. I'd recommend some books to read. See Dr. Michael L. Brown's book "Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus" volumes 1-3.

 

[hamashiachagape]

"Some sage or rabbi" sounds rather dismissive and insulting. Was this on purpose?

I agree that God required blood offerings. I agree that the Tanakh teaches that these will be re-instituted at the time of the ingathering (which is something that should be kinda offensive to Christians, I think, since it's taught that Jesus was the final sacrifice). I agree that God gave the command for blood, according to the Torah.

This is not our disagreement.

Our disagreement is in the need for blood in order to accomplish atonement. God did command that people give blood. But, if someone could not afford that, they could substitute their offering with grains. In fact, reliance on blood for atonement is something the prophets were against. They railed on people who thought that giving an animal was enough to satisfy God. What God wants ultimately is your mind and heart -- not the blood of your choice cow. What he wants is your obedience, not the spilling of your lamb's life-blood.

Atonement is achievable by repentance without blood, as we even see in the case of Ninevah -- an extremely sinful city that repented of their wrongdoings and returned in remorse. Their sins were forgiven without a blood atonement.

The Torah doesn't teach that blood is necessary for atonement. It teaches that if you give an animal, it is the blood that atones. That's the teaching of Lev 17:11.

Once again, incorrect. Leviticus 17:11 states "11 For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life."

Scripture overrides man's interpretation.

This is without the animal being mentioned. Hence Leviticus 17:11 is not conditional upon an animal being sacrificed.