QUESTION/COMMENT: But doesn't Paul say that good deeds are worthless?

RESPONSE: What Paul/Saul does is ask a question: Should we place our trust in our own works, or should we place our trust in G-d's works? Should you put more faith in man's deeds than in HaShem's deeds?

QUESTION/COMMENT: How can you say that there is to be a "New Covenant"? Isn't the covenant made at Sinai to last forever?

RESPONSE: "I will maintain My covenant between Me and you, and your offspring to come, as an everlasting covenant throughout the ages." (Gen. 17:7).

There are several covenants spoken of in Tanach (as with Noah, for example; or with David and his descendants). In one, G-d promises that Abraham and his descendants possession of the Land and gives the sign of the circumcision. This is a "one-way" promise on the part of HaShem. In Gen. 15:9ff, a blazing fire passes between the halves of the slain animals; this signifies a promise. However, ONLY the fire passes between the halves - not Abraham. It doesn't depend upon Abraham doing anything - if it did, it wouldn't be a holy promise, but a kind of contract. But, this promise is not conditional; it's simply a promise - and the promise of HaShem, at that - and it cannot be broken. And THIS is the covenant that is declared to be "everlasting".

However, the covenant at Sinai is never declared to be 'everlasting'. And it is conditional:

"If you will only obey the L-rd your G-d, by diligently obeying all his commandments...the L-rd your G-d will set you high above all the nations of the earth; all these blessings shall come upon you and overtake you, if you obey the L-rd your G-d...." (Deut. 28:1ff)

"But if you will not obey the L-rd your G-d by diligently obeying all of his commandments and decrees...then all these curses shall come upon you and overtake you...." (Deut. 28:15ff)

The new covenant mentioned in Jeremiah 31:31-33 is specifically said to be NOT LIKE the covenant made when the people were led out of Egypt.

And Jeremiah goes on to say, "I will make an everlasting covenant with them, never to draw back from doing good to them; and I will put the fear of me in their hearts, so that they may not turn from me." (Jer. 32:40)

In this covenant no conditions are laid down. Again, this is not like the covenant made at Sinai. So we have gone from a covenant in which the blessings are dependent upon conduct to one in which the people, who failed to obey the first covenant, will now have Torah written in their hearts - and they no longer have to do anything to be sure of the blessings.

Yet, another way in which this new covenant is different is that in the covenant made at Sinai, atonement for sin had to be made. There had to be a yearly covering for sin. But, now HaShem says, "their sins and iniquities I will remember no more". This means that something happens which makes the covering permanent instead of annual. So, ergo, something new must have happened.

QUESTION/COMMENT: Don't Messianic Jews and Christians simply pick out the verses from Tanach which seem to them prophecy about Yeshua, while ignoring the context of those verses?

RESPONSE: There is a constant refrain in the literature of Qumran about the suffering which someone (perhaps their Teacher of Righteousnes) receives at the hands of the unrighteous. They scorn him and gnash their teeth at him. Those who have eaten his bread have lifted up their heel against him (Psalm 41:9). They persecute him and plan evil against him. And yet, they do not understand that it is G-d who is permitting them to attack him, in order that the wicked may suffer judgment (on account of this). He is a test for the wicked. And it is only by the mercy of G-d that he is able to resist all that is planned against him, for there are even those who would seek his life.

It is not known exactly who this "Teacher of Righteousness" was. Qumran writings suggest (though the matter is not certain by any means) that he was a high priest during the Maccabbean period, who was deposed when the Maccabbean kings usurped his office. (There are many candidates who could fit this picture.) In any event, this "Righteous Teacher", or "Right Interpreter of the Torah" was then forced into a desert exile with those of his party, while the Temple and its services were taken over by their opponents.

Among the writings found at Qumran are a series of "Hymns", called the "Thanksgiving Hymns", because most of them start with the phrase, "I give you thanks, L-rd", which scholars believe may be depicting the struggles and suffering of this Teacher at the hands of his persecutors. A great many allusions are made in these Hymns to Psalms 22 and 69, which also depict a righteous sufferer. This indicates clearly that the people of that era were familiar with these Psalms and their content; and so it would naturally occur to them to apply them to any righteous sufferer - they did not have to go hunting later for something which they might connect them with Yeshua; such a connection was natural.

And there is a possible use of a portion of Isaiah 53 in one of these Hymns (Hymn 14, according to the Geza Vermes numbering), where the sufferer is said to be "familiar with disease, forsaken in his pain, his wounds are terrible, the strength has left his body, he can no longer speak, he is silent, close to death - and yet he has not been cast aside by G-d."

The speaker also declares here that G-d has hidden the truth for a little while, but that in the end the sufferings and punishments G-d has inflicted on him will be turned to joy, and his diseases to eternal healing and happiness. The mockery of his enemies will be made into a crown of glory, and G-d will make the speaker's light shine forth from the darkness he has endured.

That these same themes occur in the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah and in the same order make it seem possible that the author was drawing on this chapter as a model. The earlier part of the Hymn speaks of a planting of G-d, made in an arid land, which brings forth a shoot, a fountain of everlasting truth, and a Branch of glory. (Again, this recalls the opening of Isaiah 53, "He grew up before Him like a tender shoot, like a root out of dry ground."). This planting - which may refer only to the Teacher's exile in the wilderness - is, however, according to the Hymn, a mystery, and its meaning is hidden. Not all will understand it, nor will they be allowed to approach the fountain of life. (Isaiah 53 says, "Who has believed our report, and to whom has the arm of the L-rd been revealed?")

(It should be noted that the sufferings of the speaker in the Hymns do not bring forth redemption. Others are not forgiven because of what he has endured. Instead, his enemies are punished, and he is justified. There is no concept of a substitutional offering.) However, the terms "Branch", "Shoot", and "Planting" used here do recall certain messianic passages in which the coming messiah is announced as the "Root", the "Branch", and the "Shoot of David". These allusions would have been immediately obvious to the Essenes, who were familiar with the scriptures.

It is unknown who wrote this Hymn, nor who the intended speaker is; perhaps it is about the Teacher of Righteousness, or perhaps it is about the coming messiah, or perhaps about neither. The content does not tell us. We do not know if the Hymn intends to speak of the messiah or only of one who, because of his sufferings, is like the coming messiah, or even if he intends to speak about the messiah at all. And yet it remains possible that there may be a reference to a suffering messiah in this Hymn, which was noticed by the Essenes and which pre-dates the Christian era.

In the New Testament Yeshua directs his followers to the Scriptures, which, he says, indicate that the messiah must suffer. It is possible, then, that he was not referring to a new doctrine, but rather to an interpretation that was already established in the Jewish thought of his day, and which was derived in part from these passages.

QUESTION/COMMENT: Why can't the messiah arrive at any time?

RESPONSE: In Daniel 9:26 it states that the "Anointed One" (i.e., messiah) will be "cut off" (and one way to read the rest of the verse is, "but not for himself").

Daniel goes on to say, "The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary." Thus, the Anointed One spoken of here will be "cut off", and THEN the city and the Temple will be destroyed.

It is also clear from the rest of this passage in Daniel that the messiah had to come at the appointed time (i.e., the "seventy weeks"). If Yeshua is to be rejected there is no other potential messiah-candidate who can fit the bill. (One result of this has been a tendency in later rabbinical Judaism to repudiate attempting to calculate when the appointed time will come:

R. Samuel Bar Nahmani said in the name of R. Yohanan: "May the bones of those who calculate the times of (Messiah) rot! Just as soon as the time arrives and the Messiah has not come, they say, 'He's not coming!.' Instead, wait for him, as it is written, 'Though he tarry, wait for him.' (Hab. 2:3)..." (Sanhedrin 97b)

Rav said, "All the times have already run out, and the matter (of the coming of the Messiah) depends now only upon repentance and charity." (Sanhedrin 97b)

In the school of Elijah it was taught, "The world will exist for 6000 years. For two thousand years there will be chaos; then there will be two thousand years of Torah; and then two thousand years of Messiah. But on account of our sins, which are numerous, many of these years of messiah have already passed." (Sanhedrin 97a-b)

Thus it is probable that even the rabbis of this period understood Daniel's prophecy in this way, and thought that the time had expired. (And there is further speculation that a part of the reason why there was so much unrest in Judea during the late Second Temple period, with so many aspirants to the claim of messiah - as opposed to the Maccabbean period, when even the Maccabees themselves did not try to claim to be messianic - is that the people, indeed, could read and calculate from the prophecies, and they knew that the time was near.)

QUESTION/COMMENT: How can you claim that Yeshua is descended from King David?

RESPONSE: The genealogies were listed by the gospel writers specifically so that they could prove Yeshua's descent from David and thus his right to be Messiah. Up until the destruction of the Temple, these records were available and could be inspected in the Temple (See, for example, Yev. 49b, Bavli, for a later example). Thereafter, the records were destroyed. Since then it has been impossible for anyone to prove beyond any doubt that they are descended from David.

(There are many who claim this descent today, but they must depend upon oral traditions, usually within their own families, that they are descended from other people who were in their turn descended from David. These people may or may not be correct; but given human nature, and the experience in other instances of this sort - i.e., the number of claimed descendants of Thomas Jefferson, for example, or the fact that there are twice as many people in France today who claim aristocractic heritage as could be entitled to it - the likelihood that all of these claims are authentic is not very likely. No claimant arising today could "prove" a line extending all the way back to Jesse.)

That the genealogies in the gospels differ didn't seem to bother the evangelists; they obviously had something in mind when they wrote about the two different lines. (If they were complete charlatans, of course, if would have been easy for them to coordinate their lists. And the same would be true of the early church fathers, who, likewise, could easily have cleared up any supposed "discrepancies".) But at a time when it was still possible to inspect the records in Jerusalem, the writers didn't feel any further explanation of what they wrote was necessary. It is only because we, living 2,000 years later, don't have access to these records that we feel at a loss and think that there must be a discrepancy.

QUESTION/COMMENT: Judaism doesn't require a blood atonement! What is required is repentence and charity!

RESPONSE: It is true that there are some occasions in Tanach when atonement was obtained other than by the shedding of blood. For example, the poor could make a cereal offering (Lev. 5:11-13). Sometimes other sacrifices, such as by the burning of incense (Num. 16:46) or by payment of gold (Num. 31:50) were made. But the cereal offering was an exception to the general rule, ordained for the poor who could not afford to sacrifice an animal. The last two instances were not offerings made for atonement and forgiveness of sins, but rather in order to avert the immediate wrath of G-d.

Traditional Jewish thought says of blood atonement:

Does the laying on of the hand make atonement for someone? Doesn't atonement come through the blood, as it is said, "For it s the blood that makes atonement by reason of the life" (Lev. 17:11). Does the waving make atonement? Doesn't the blood which makes the atonement, as it is written, "For it is the blood that makes atonement by reason of the life"? (Yoma 5a). For certain atonement can only be made with blood, as it says, "For it is the blood that makes atonement by reason of the life". (Zevahim 6a)

After the destruction of the Temple and the end of the sacrifices one sect of Judaism determined that - surprise! - the sacrifices had never really been very important after all. (This would, however, have been news to Solomon, Hezekiah, and Ezra.) But another sect of Judaism retained the traditional emphasis on the need for blood atonement, and continues to do so to this day.

QUESTION/COMMENT: But, weren't the sacrifices only for unintentional sins?

RESPONSE: The sins listed in Leviticus 5:20-26 (6:1-7 in Christian versions) are certainly intentional! "If anyone sins and is unfaithful to the L-rd by deceiving his neighbor about something entrusted to him or left in his care or stolen, or if he cheats him, or if he finds lost property and lies about it, or if he swears falsely, or if he commits any such sin that people may do...he must bring to the priest, that is, to the L-rd, his guilt offering, a ram from the flock, one without blemish...In this way the priest will make atonement before the L-rd, and he will be forgiven for any of these things he did that made him guilty."

QUESTION/COMMENT: For what crime was Yeshua executed? Claiming to be Messiah isn't a capital offense in Judaism!

RESPONSE: Perhaps not - although we do not fully know how the laws were interpreted in the Second Temple period. Our present records (i.e., the Mishnah, for example) depict mostly the practices of the Pharisee sect and even these are presented in their "idealized" form; but the extent to which the Sadducees, who formed most of the Temple priesthood, and other groups concurred with the Pharisees on these and other matters is not always certain.

However, the penalty under Jewish law for being a false prophet WAS to be executed. Yeshua was also accused of blasphemy, and of wanting to destroy the Temple. Were these capital crimes during the Second Temple period?

Josephus records an incident ("Wars" VI 5.3) in which another man (ironically also named Yeshua) predicted the end of Jerusalem (and therefore the Temple). The authorities arrested him and handed him over to the Roman governor for punishment. (Obviously this must have been for a "serious" punishment, probably death, which they did not have the power to inflict themselves.) The Roman governor (Albinus) had the man flogged until his bones showed, but finally released him after deciding that he was a madman. This incident suggests that prophesying the fall of the Temple might in itself have been considered a serious crime, as well (at least by the priesthood).

And while we're on the subject, do you think that Yeshua should have been executed? Was he guilty of such a crime that he should have been put to death? In other words, do you agree with the sentence?

QUESTION/COMMENT: Didn't Yeshua expect to lead a revolution? Didn't he go to the Mount of Olives expecting a miracle to take place and his kingdom to begin?

RESPONSE: Is this why he is in agony, so that his sweat is like blood, and he pleads, "Father, if it is Your will, let this cup pass from me"? Doesn't sound like he expects to be crowned king anytime soon.

QUESTION/COMMENT: Wasn't he disappointed then that there was no miracle, so that he gave up and ordered his talmidin not to resist any longer?

RESPONSE: He says to Peter, "Put your sword back in its place"; and, "For all who draw the sword will perish by the sword. Do you not think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? But how, then, would the Scripture be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?"

Doesn't sound like Yeshua has given up; rather, he understands what is happening. (And, in fact, this is what he has been predicting and announcing will happen for some time.) He expects it, because he believes that the Scriptures which speak of a suffering messiah must be fulfilled. Modern Judaism may not believe in the suffering of the messiah, but this does not mean that Yeshua did not.

QUESTION/COMMENT: But why did he tell his talmidin to buy swords if not for a revolution?

RESPONSE: In this passage Yeshua is comparing the instructions he gave to his talmidim when he was with them to those he is giving to them now that he will no longer be with them.

"When I sent you (i.e., previously, when they had gone throughout the country preaching, and he had instructed them to take nothing with them) without purse, bag, or sandals, did you lack anything?"

'Nothing,' they answered.

"He said to them, 'But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.'"

These aren't preparations for a battle - they're instructions for a road trip.

There are some scholars who want to remake the Yeshua of the Gospels into the concept of a more traditionally "politically-correct" Jewish warrior-messiah, and they hunt for evidence of this. But the evidence of the Gospels is that Yeshua did NOT intend to establish his kingdom by force. ("My kingdom is not of this world.")

QUESTION/COMMENT: So why did he cry, "My G-D, my G-d, why have you forsaken me?"

RESPONSE: If you read the whole of Psalm 22 you'll see how appropriate that Psalm (which begins with these words) is for one in Yeshua's position to recite. It doesn't indicate a lack of faith to recite this, but exactly the reverse. (Take a look at how the Psalm ends.)

NOTE FROM THE REFINER'S FIRE: According to Andrew Gabriel Roth's Aramaic English New Testament (translated directly from Aramaic into English) the correct translation of Mark 15:34 and Matthew 27:46 is: And in the ninth hour, Y'shua cried out in a loud voice and said, Eil! Eil! lmana shwaqthani, that is "My El! My El! Why have you spared me? Roth suggests:

Y'shua was not necessarily quoting Psalm 22, although the imagery of the Psalm is certainly intended by Matthew. Greek is transliterated Eli, Eli lama sabacthani, but Peshitta and Psalm 22 read: Eli, Eli lama azbatani. Many Bibles read "forsaken" from which came a false teaching that the Father left Y'shua destitute (Marcionite thinking). Isaiah 53:4 indicates that "we" reckoned him smitten of Elohim, but it is not YHWH who tortured his own son, it was men motivated by religious tradition. Psalm 22 references those who scorned Y'shua for his Faith in YHWH, and called him a worm (detested), but Father YHWH does not forsake the righteous, nor does He at any time "forsake" His own Son: see Psalm 9:9, 10; 37:25; 71:11; Isaiah 49:14-16. Y'shua says "Eli" (my El), he is in great physical pain after being brutally tortured, those around him were confused to what he was saying, "Eli-yah" or "Eliyahu". If Hebrew eyewitnesses were not sure of what he was saying, it shouldn't be a surprise that Greek transliteration was also wrong, putting "lama sabacthani" rather than "lemana shabakthani". Perhaps the reason Y'shua says "why are you sparing me" is because he has proven his commitment by laying down his life and has already undured (endured) about 6 hours of the execution! So, it's not a matter of being "forsaken" but that he literally means, "Father, I'm ready, why can't we finish this?" In a matter of moments from saying this, he dies, which fully supports this interpretation.

QUESTION/COMMENT: Doesn't Matthew make a mistake and say that Yeshua rode into Jerusalem on two donkeys?

RESPONSE: Zechariah 9:9 prophecies that the messiah will enter Jerusalem riding on a donkey (and not on a charging horse, like a conqueror, but with humility. One wonders how Bar Kochba entered the city.... "Behold, your King comes to you, righteous and having salvation, gentle and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey." This passage has long been accepted by Judaism as messianic, and there are many references to it in both Jewish literature and art through the centuries. (Depending on the edition, one can look up "messiah" in the Encyclopedia Judaica and see a number of depictions of the messiah entering Jerusalem on a donkey.)

Matthew says that Yeshua's talmidim brought him a donkey and her colt. "They brought the donkey and the colt, placed their cloaks on them, and Yeshua sat on them (i.e., the cloaks)"

The colt was an animal which had never been ridden before (see Mark 11:2; Luke 19:30). This was an important sign, as the sacrificial red heifer used for cleansing had to be one which had never known a yoke, and likewise the cart which brought back the ark (I. Samuel 6:7) had to be one which had never been used before.

Some critics like to say that Matthew misunderstood the Hebrew of Zechariah and thought that there are two donkeys mentioned there because of the parallel repitition; but Matthew was not a first-semester student of Hebrew. He grew up in that culture, and therefore was much more familiar with Hebrew than most "scholars" are today. And since he specifically cites Zechariah, distinctly having it in mind, he would have been aware of its contents. He does not say that Yeshua rode on two donkeys, only that two were brought to him - the mother, perhaps because to separate it from her colt would have unsteadied the colt, whereas by keeping them together the colt could be calmed. It is suggested that he includes this detail because he was an eyewitness (unlike Mark and Luke).

QUESTION/COMMENT: How can you say that G-d would sacrifice his "son"?

RESPONSE: Look, Abraham was ready to sacrifice what was most precious to him, what he loved more than himself - his only son. What about G-d? Did Abraham out-perform G-d? Even though G-d may give gifts greater than this, even though He can send Torah, and He can send choirs of angels, yet consider the gifts relative to Himself. Creatures are nothing compared with Himself. G-d is happy in Himself, and He is His own most precious possession. So it seems that unless G-d sends Himself to die for our sins in the flesh, Abraham has out-done G-d in some restricted and relative sense. Abraham has out of love given up his only son...And in our belief, G-d has exceeded that, not only on an absolute scale - which would be no problem at all (G-d could send a legion of angels much greater than Abraham's son Isaac), but also on the relative scale - He has sacrificed One He loves as much as Himself, One that is co-substantial with Himself - and not sacrificed for G-d's sake, as Abraham did, but for the sake of us sinners...How wonderful G-d is!

QUESTION/COMMENT: Doesn't Paul condemn the Jews in I Thessalonians 2:14,15?

RESPONSE: Some people like to read this passage as: "...You suffered from your own countrymen the same things those churches suffered from the Jews, who killed the Lord Yeshua and the prophets and also drove us out. They displease G-d and are hostile to all men."

However, in the Greek the word for "Jews" is the same as the word for "Judeans". Also, the placement of commas is arbitrary (as after the word "Jews", above.) A more logical rendering of this passage, in its entire context, would be more like follows:

"...become imitators of G-d's congregations in Judea...You (i.e., the Thessalonians) suffered from your own countrymen the same things those churches (i.e., in Judea) suffered from the Judeans (thus making a parallel between what the Thessalonians are suffering from their countrymen and the followers of Yeshua in Judea were suffering from THEIR countrymen, the JUDEANS) who killed the Lord Yeshua and the prophets and also drove us out" (i.e., from those specific Judeans who did these things, not necessarily all in Judea - which would include, presumably, the very ones he is pointing out to the Thessalonians as examples to emulate).

"They displease G-d and are hostile to all men in their effort to keep us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. In this way they always heap up their sins to the limit. The wrath of G-d has come upon them fully."

Clearly, for Saul (Paul), if someone was trying to prevent the Gospel from being preached to someone else then that person had to be hostile to them. But equally clearly, again he has to be referring only to those who are doing these things. He cannot mean ALL Jews here - because he himself, and Peter, and James, and John, and all the rest of the apostles, and so on, were also Jews, and so were the vast majority of those who believed in Yeshua at that time.

"They always heap up their sins to the limit. The wrath of G-d has come upon them fully." So, in other words, let G-d take charge of their punishment. Leave them to G-d, it is not necessary to defend against them oneself.

The use of the term "Jews" or "Judeans" may have differed in the ancient world than in our own day. The Essenes were fond of referring to themselves as "Israel", and others Jews as "Jews" (or perhaps "Judeans"). The Samaritans liked to think of themselves as the true descendants of the faith of Abraham, while the rest were "Jews", or "Judeans". There is some weight behind the idea that the term "Hebrews" was sometimes used then to designate those who were not "hellenized" Jews. (Thus, Saul/Paul says, "I am a Hebrew of the Hebrews"). Ergo, the writers of the NT might have used the term "Jews" to mean any number of things APART from simply the concept of the "Jewish" people, which is the way we understand it today (divorced as we are by 2,000 years from their culture.)

QUESTION/COMMENT: But, there are others who will will interpret this differently!

RESPONSE: To say that the above passage (and others) are intended to be anti-Semitic is (1) illogical; and (2) is to permit the anti-Semites to perform your exegesis for you. This would permit the anti-Semites to be the "scholars" who interpret the real meaning of scripture. However, we refuse to allow them or persons of their ilk to be the filter through which I must read scripture, and therefore, we also reject their interpretation of this (and other) verses.

QUESTION/COMMENT: If Yeshua was so popular and so loved by the common people, why was he so despised by the teachers?

RESPONSE: He was opposed by the Pharisee sect since his interpretations of the Law (and his more-or-less dispensing with the Pharisees' interpretations of the Oral Law) went contrary to the Pharisees' views. In modern terms, he was of "another denomination". (You'll note that none of the sects - Essenes, Sadducees, Pharisees - had very much good to say about one another. So it's not to be expected that they would have much good to say about yet another sect, the Nazarenes, either.)

QUESTION/COMMENT: Didn't the Gospel writers make a mistake when they have Yeshua entering Jerusalem while the crowds wave palm branches? This is only done at Sukkot!

RESPONSE: Too great a leap in logic! Simon haMaccabbee also entered Jerusalem in triumph in just this fashion, and it wasn't Sukkot:

"It was on the twenty-third day of the second month in the year 171 (Greek dating) that he made his entry, with a chorus of praise and the waving of palm branches, with lutes, cymbals, and zithers, and hymns and songs" (what hymns and songs? perhaps psalms?) to celebrate Israel's final riddance of a formidable enemy" (I Maccabbees 13:51).

QUESTION/COMMENT: Do you really think Hashem would have given us Torah if He didn't think we could keep it?

RESPONSE: Do you know of anyone - ever - who has kept it all?

Perhaps Torah is only like a doctor's concept of perfect health. None of us has a perfect body; but we do have a perfect standard by which to measure ourselves against. (However, having the standard does not by itself make us healthy.)

QUESTION/COMMENT: Why haven't any rabbis ever accepted the claims of Yeshua?

RESPONSE:

• Rabbi Isaac Lichtenstein, Orthodox rabbi from Hungary: "I will remain among my own nation. I love Messiah, I believe in the New Covenant, but I am not drawn to join Christendom. Just as the prophet Jeremiah...chose to remain and lament among the ruins of the holy city with the despised remnant of his own people, so I will remain among my own brethren, as a watchman from within and to plead with them to behold Yeshua the true glory of Israel."
  
  
• Rabbi Dr. T. Tirschtiegel of Breslau: "Thou dear brother Yeshua, also my brother and my Savior who has at last led me to your Salvation."
  
  
• Rabbi Max Wertheimer, D. D. (Reform): "In Messiah I have found my only abiding comfort for every sorrow."
  
  
• Rabbi Rudolf Hermann Gurland, from Vilna: "Yeshua haMashiach is a living, mighty Savior. He can protect me; if he does not, I am willing to suffer, and to die for him."
  
  
• Rabbi Asher Levy (ordained orthodox in Romania; later served in Belgium and Hungary): "I want to confirm that my heart does not condemn me for my new belief, because I feel that I am still a Jew and shall always be a Jew. I have not renounced our inheritance of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Like Paul I can say, 'Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they the seed of Abraham? So am I.'"
  
  
• Rabbi Chil Slostowski: "At first I was no more than a secret believer. In my inward being I knew that Yeshua was the Messiah of Israel and my personal Redeemer but I continued nonetheless to fulfill my tasks and duties as rabbi. Two months I lived like this...At last I realized that I could no longer live a double life...I had to confess the messiah publically - whatever the consequences might be."
  
  
• Rabbi Leopold Cohn, D.D.; Rabbi Charles Freshman; Rabbi George Benedict; Rabbi Ephraim Ben Joseph Eliakim; Rabbi Henry Bregman, and many, many more could be added to this list....

QUESTION/COMMENT: All that is needed for Gentiles to please Hashem is for them to follow the commands given to Noah!

RESPONSE: But doesn't it appear that Adam was also given some more commands? For example, we see Cain and Abel (Cayin and Hevel) offering sacrifices. So, some sort of instruction must have been given about this - perhaps about the need for a sacrifice. And we see that Cain's offering was rejected - he didn't follow the rules, and his offering was not accepted. And note that there is a belief that these sacrifices were offered at the sight of the future Temple, on Mount Moriah, and even that "Adam was created from the place from where he would be granted atonement" (Bereshith Rabbah 14:8). So, this system of sacrifices involves all mankind at this point; that is, they are included in it and, through Adam, in the atonement which is to come. Such a system has already been set up, and is all-inclusive, but it will yet need one more ingredient.

QUESTION/COMMENT: Why did none of the sages ever accept the claims of Yeshua?

RESPONSE: It's probable that some did. Ben Zoma, for example, was said to have "lost his senses" and gone mad, and gone "outside". (He is perhaps most famous for his proverb, "Who is wise? He who learns from every man".) He is believed to have made (sometimes covert) references to the crucifixion, the Last Supper, Resurrection, Baptism, and Yeshua as G-d come in human form. "Going mad" would be one way in which such a person would be described. (See Samson H. Levey, "Best Kept Secret of the Rabbinic Tradition", Judaism 21 (Fall 1972), p. 469; cited in Dr. Michael Schiffman, "Return of the Remnant", pp. 9-10).

Rabbi Eleazor ben Hyrcanus, the teacher of Rabbi Akiva, is known to have been familiar with Nazarene doctrines. He was once arrested by the Romans on suspicion of being one of them, but released. On another occasion, when asked by his students about the place of "a certain person" (Yeshua) in the world to come, he gave evasive answers (Yoma 66d) R. Eleazor was later excommunicated. It was said that this was because he would not accept a majority decision by the sages. According to the story, even though R. Eleazor's view was supported by miracles, and a voice from Heaven came to his defense, he was still overuled, because the sages claimed that they, and they alone, had been given the right to determine halacha. (Some ingredients of this story may have been intended as a rebuff to the Nazarenes, who could point to the miracles of Yeshua and even to a voice from heaven as proof of his identity and authority.) There may be more to the story of R. Eleazor, then, since these elements of miracle and a bat kol are specifically included in the account of his excommunication, and the penalty seems very severe.

Simon the Small, who composed the "birkhat haMinim", later claimed (only a year later) to be unable to remember the words. Since anyone who could not remember the words, or who stumbled while speaking it, were to be held suspect, and since the time lapsed was only a year, it is curious that Simon found himself unable to repeat it.

An apocryphal gospel even asserts that Gamaliel the elder, the teacher of Saul/Paul, later became a Nazarene, though there is no evidence elsewhere to support this view.

However, given the silence with which the Talmud normally treats those whom it wishes to forget (a la 1984), it is not impossible that there might have been other sages, as well, whose names have simply been "blotted out".

QUESTION/COMMENT: Doesn't Judaism stress repentance and good works over "grace"?

RESPONSE: "Sovereign of all worlds! Not on account of our own righteousness do we place our requests before you, but on account of your abundant mercy." (Shacharit, or morning daily prayer.)

'Our Father, our King, be gracious to us and answer us, because we have no good works of our own; deal with us in graciousness and loving kindness, and save us.' (Minhah, or afternoon daily prayer)

In the Maariv (evening daily prayer), Psalm 51 is included, which again speaks of the need to rely upon G-d's mercy, because we are sinners.

Tanakh is full of examples of G-d reaching down to man--not of man proving himself 'good enough' to receive G-d's gifts.

• You didn't have Torah - He gave you Torah.
  
  
• You didn't have food - He gave you manna.
  
  
• You didn't have water - He gave you water from the rock.
  
  
• You didn't have a leader - He gave you Moses.
  
  
• You were stuck in slavery - He brought you out.
  
  
• You were scattered because of your disobedience - He will bring you back, not because of anything you do, or because you deserve it (see, for example, Ezekiel 36:22,32), but because of His promise to Abraham.

"All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteousness is like filthy rags." (Isaiah 64:5, 6 in Christian versions)

These examples don't demonstrate men becoming "good enough" on their own. Their redemption is always brought about as a gift from G-d.