DID THE CHURCH INVENT THE IDEA OF THE TRINITY?

Did the Church invent the Trinity? Did they borrow this concept from paganism? These are charges that we increasingly hear.

Therefore, I just want to look at the evidence from the Hebrew Scriptures. Although this OT evidence is not as substantial as what we find in the NT, it is still weighty and demonstrates the continuity between the two sets of our Scriptures:

GOD REFERS TO HIMSELF THROUGH PLURAL PRONOUNS

• Genesis 1:26-27 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

• Genesis 3:22  And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

• Genesis 11:7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.

• Isaiah 6:8 Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me.

OTHER PLURAL NOUNS REFERRING TO GOD

• Eccles. 12:6  Or ever the silver cord be loosed, or the golden bowl be broken, or the pitcher be broken at the fountain, or the wheel broken at the cistern.

• Psalm 149:2 Let Israel rejoice in him that made him: let the children of Zion be joyful in their King.

DISTINCTION OF PERSONS IN THE GODHEAD

• Genesis 19:24 Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven;

• Psalm 110:1 The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

• Isaiah 44:6 Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

• Isaiah 48:16 Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord God, and his Spirit, hath sent me.

• Isaiah 48:12 Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last.

• Isaiah 49:7 Thus saith the Lord, the Redeemer of Israel, and his Holy One, to him whom man despiseth, to him whom the nation abhorreth, to a servant of rulers, Kings shall see and arise, princes also shall worship, because of the Lord that is faithful, and the Holy One of Israel, and he shall choose thee.

• Isaiah 63:9 In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the angel of his presence saved them: in his love and in his pity he redeemed them; and he bare them, and carried them all the days of old.

• Exodus 33:2 And I will send an angel before thee; and I will drive out the Canaanite, the Amorite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, the Hivite, and the Jebusite:
• Exodus 33:14 And he said, My presence shall go with thee, and I will give thee rest.

• Hosea 1:7 But I will have mercy upon the house of Judah, and will save them by the Lord their God, and will not save them by bow, nor by sword, nor by battle, by horses, nor by horsemen.

• Zech. 2:10-11 Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion: for, lo, I come, and I will dwell in the midst of thee, saith the Lord. 11And many nations shall be joined to the Lord in that day, and shall be my people: and I will dwell in the midst of thee, and thou shalt know that the Lord of hosts hath sent me unto thee.

• Zech. 12:10  And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

DEITY OF THE SON

• Psalm 2:7 I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. Psalm 2:12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.

• Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

• Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

• Jeremiah 23:5-6 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. 6In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.

• Jeremiah 33:15-16 In those days, and at that time, will I cause the Branch of righteousness to grow up unto David; and he shall execute judgment and righteousness in the land. 16In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely: and this is the name wherewith she shall be called, The Lord our righteousness.

• Micah 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

• Malachi 3:1-3 Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of hosts. 2But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he is like a refiner's fire, and like fullers' sope: 3And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness.

• Proverbs 30:4 Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?

THE DIVINE SPIRIT

• Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

• Zech. 4:6 Then he answered and spake unto me, saying, This is the word of the Lord unto Zerubbabel, saying, Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the Lord of hosts.

• Ezekiel 2:2-3 Then the Spirit entered me when He spoke to me, and set me on my feet; and I heard Him who spoke to me. 3And He said to me: "Son of man, I am sending you to the children of Israel, to a rebellious nation that has rebelled against Me; they and their fathers have transgressed against Me to this very day.

• Ezekiel 11:5 Then the Spirit of the Lord fell upon me, and said to me, "Speak! 'Thus says the Lord: "Thus you have said, O house of Israel; for I know the things that come into your mind.

IF WE ARE NO LONGER UNDER THE LAW OF MOSES, DO WE NEED TO OBEY IT?

Are we to obey the Law of Moses? From one perspective, the answer would seem to be “no,” since we are no longer under the Law:

·       For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. (Romans 10:4; ESV)

However, even though we are no longer under the Law, this does not settle the question. Why not? For one thing, the New Testament often quotes from the Law as if it is still normative for us. Here is just one small example:

·       Every charge must be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. (2 Corinthians 13:1; referencing Deuteronomy 19:15)

Besides, the New Covenant does not legalize crimes like murder and adultery. In fact, it seems that the teachings of Jesus embody much of the wisdom of the Mosaic Covenant like:

·       But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. (Matthew 5:28)

We therefore are left perplexed. It seems that we are no longer under the Law but it also seems that we still have to obey it. And this perplexity is not new. Manfred T. Brauch, formerly a professor of biblical theology, had commented of Romans 10:4:

·       This radical word about Christ as the end of the law—and similar expressions in other letters of Paul—have been the object of intense discussion throughout the history of the church. (“Hard Sayings of Paul,” IVP, 1989, 56)

Brauch is correct. Paul had often taught that we are no longer under the Law. Here are just a few references:

·       For he himself is our peace…abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace. (Ephesians 2:14-15)

·       But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code. (Romans 7:6)

·       And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. (Colossians 2:13-14)

However, Paul wasn’t alone in insisting that the Law had come to an end. James also suggested that we are now under a new regime, the “law of liberty”:

·       For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty. (James 2:10-12; also see Hebrews 8:13)

Although James was not as direct as Paul in declaring the Law null and void, he suggested that we are no longer under the Mosaic Law. Jesus was even more cryptic about this:

·       “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.” (Matthew 5:17-18)

When was the Law “fulfilled” and “accomplished?” When Jesus proclaimed “It is finished” on the Cross” and the veil, which had separated us from the symbolic presence of God within the Holy of Holies was torn in two indicating that God’s plan had been accomplished. The way had been opened for us to boldly come into the presence of God.

Jesus had been secretly preparing for this moment all along:

·       And he said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.) (Mark 7:18-19)  

In contrast, under the Mosaic Law, certain foods and external contacts would make us unclean. However, Jesus revealed that these laws were only symbolic and, therefore, temporary. Consequently, Mark commented, “Thus he declared all foods clean.”

Besides, Jesus initiated the New Covenant:

·       And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the [New] covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” (Matthew 26:27-28)

Under the New Covenant, sins would now be utterly eradicated (Jeremiah 31:31-34). Under the Mosaic Law, they had been “forgiven” but not eradicated. Consequently, the consciences of the Israelites had never been cleansed, God had never been propitiated, and the Israelites could not enter into His presence (Hebrews 9:13-15; 10:19-23). This was why Jesus came to initiate the New Covenant in place of the Old, which failed to bring about any real forgiveness and cleansing (Malachi 3:1-3; Hebrews 10:5-10).

Clearly, we are no longer under the Mosaic Covenant. Instead:

·       Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. (Romans 7:4)

However, this does not resolve our confusion. It seems that we still must uphold the Mosaic Law:

·       Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law. (Romans 3:31)

But why? We are no longer under the Law. Why then uphold it? At this point, we must make a critical distinction. We are no longer under the Law, but many of the stipulations of the Law are eternal, like not murdering, stealing, or bearing false witness. These laws do not suddenly become irrelevant under the New Covenant. However, now we fulfill them in a new way, by the Spirit:

·       For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death. But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter. (Romans 7:5-6; NASB)

Besides, the new way of following the Lord, we also have been given a new and richer understanding of the Law, illuminated by Jesus:

·       And he [Jesus] said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.” (Matthew 22:37-40)

Notice that these two great commandments do not invalidate the teachings of the Old Covenant. Instead, they summarize them. The Law and the Prophets are all about love, and we still need them to educate us about how love is to be expressed. The Prophets of Israel have shown us that love can take many forms, even through denunciations and the severest of warnings. They also teach how to love God:

·       And he humbled you and let you hunger and fed you with manna, which you did not know, nor did your fathers know, that he might make you know that man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by every word that comes from the mouth of the LORD. (Deuteronomy 8:3)

Jesus quoted this against the Devil during His temptation in the desert (Matthew 4:4). According to Jesus, loving God was a matter of living by His every word.

Therefore, the Old Testament remains the Word of God (2 Tim. 3:16-17), even those highly symbolic passages that had been fulfilled by Jesus. However, since they have been fulfilled, we need not follow them as the Israelites had:

·       Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. (Colossians 2:16-17)

Since Jesus is the reality which fulfilled the shadows, we should now focus ourselves on Him. However, studying the shadows brings understanding and confidence in the faith.

Brauch suggests that the Mosaic Law taught salvation by good deeds (by obedience to the Law):

·       [Jesus’] coming signals its [the Mosaic Covenant] end with regard to the attainment of righteousness (that is, right relationship with God). (61)

Instead, we find that no one had ever been declared righteous by their obedience to the Law. Abraham had been considered righteous because he had believed God (Genesis 15:6). King David, perhaps Israel’s most obedient king, found blessedness, not through his own attainments but through the mercy of God (Psalm 32, 51).

In contrast with the hope of attaining our own righteousness (Romans 10:3), the entire Mosaic sacrificial system declared that Israel depended upon the mercy of God. King Solomon affirmed this when he consecrated the Temple:

·       “If they sin against you—for there is no one who does not sin—and you are angry with them and give them to an enemy, so that they are carried away captive to the land of the enemy, far off or near, yet if they turn their heart in the land to which they have been carried captive, and repent and plead with you in the land of their captors, saying, ‘We have sinned and have acted perversely and wickedly’”… (1 Kings 8:46-47)

Israel’s blessedness depended upon the mercy of God through faith/repentance, not their meritorious good deeds, as the Psalms repeated proclaim:

·       If you, O LORD, should mark iniquities, O Lord, who could stand?...O Israel, hope in the LORD! For with the LORD there is steadfast love, and with him is plentiful redemption. And he will redeem Israel from all his iniquities. (Psalm 130:3, 7-8; 143:2)

God would graciously pay the price (redeem) for all of Israel’s sins. Why? This is the only way that any of us could ever make it into heaven.

Consequently, Israel misunderstood their own Scriptures in believing that they could attain the goal by their own virtue:

·       Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, as it is written, “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense; and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.” (Romans 9:31-33)

Israel refused to recognize their sinful and unworthy state and, therefore, thought that they could attain righteousness through their own efforts. For them, the mercy of God and His Messiah were irrelevant.

However, the main purpose of the Law was to lead to the Messiah rather than to prove that we didn’t need one. How?

·       Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. (Galatians 3:23-24)

How would the Law lead us to Christ? By showing us our dire need:

·       Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. (Romans 3:19-20)

If properly understood, the Law should stop any boasting and show us that we are under condemnation (Deuteronomy 27:26) apart from the mercy of God. To not see this is to sinfully repress the truth (Romans 1:18-20). It is also to reject the one hope that God has made available.

Although we are now under Christ (1 Corinthians 9:20), we have no choice but to respect the Hebrew Scriptures as God’s actual words. Jesus certainly did and quoted from them as if to say, “If Scripture says it, that settles it.” How then do we uphold them? Through the guidance of the New Testament!

WAS THE SHEDDING OF BLOOD NECESSARY FOR FORGIVENESS?

Is the Bible internally consistent? More specifically, does the New Testament line up with the Old, or does it misrepresent the Hebrew Scriptures as the rabbis have often charged? If the rabbis’ indictment is correct, then the NT cannot be considered God’s words. However, if the uneducated NT writers have a more accurate understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures than do the rabbis, this would suggest that they had been divinely inspired.

This chapter will examine just one example where the NT and the rabbis differ. According to the New Testament, forgiveness requires the sacrifice of a substitute: “The law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness” (Hebrews 9:22). However, since the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, Orthodox Judaism has tended to regard the Old Testament sacrifices as unnecessary. In favor of this point of view, Rabbi David Rosen writes:

·       “Judaism does not accept the idea of vicarious [substitutionary] atonement. We can only atone for our own sins and are responsible for our own actions.”[1]

If animal sacrifice is necessary, and the Temple no longer exists, then the Christian claim that Messiah has fulfilled and replaced them becomes embarrassingly compelling. This represents a threat to Judaism. Well, if animal sacrifice wasn’t necessary, why then had God commanded it? For its symbolic value! Rosen writes:

·       Our ancient sages affirm that… “sincere repentance and works of lovingkindness (charity) are the real intercessors before God’s throne” (TB Shabbat 32A) and that “sincere repentance is the equivalent to the rebuilding of the Temple, the restoration of the altar and the offering of all the sacrifices” (TB Sanhedrin 43B). In terms of Jewish understanding of the sacrificial rites in the temple, while the blood of the sacrifice did indeed represent life, it was seen precisely in a representational role symbolizing “the complete yielding up of the worshipper’s life to God” (Hertz, Pentateuch and Haftorahs)…[2]

The New Testament also understands the sacrificial system as symbolic (but also mandatory), a foreshadowing of the once-and-for-all substitutionary offering of God’s Son. Instead, much of Rabbinic Judaism maintains that it represents the yielded life.[3] The Orthodox Jewish columnist, David Klinghoffer, also argues in favor of divine forgiveness without blood:

·       …the idea that penitence was not enough would have come as a surprise to the large majority of first-century Jews, who lived in the Diaspora and therefore had no regular access to the Temple rites. In not availing themselves of these rites at all times, they were relying on scripture, which taught that forgiveness could be secured without sacrifice.[4]

Klinghoffer supports this claim by citing Solomon’s prayer at the consecration of the Temple as proof:

·       …and when they return to You with all their heart and with all their soul in the land of their enemies who led them away captive, and pray to You toward their land which You gave to their fathers, the city which You have chosen and the temple which I have built for Your name: then hear in heaven Your dwelling place their prayer and their supplication, and maintain their cause, and forgive Your people who have sinned against You, and all their transgressions which they have transgressed against You; and grant them compassion before those who took them captive, that they may have compassion on them (1 Kings 8:48-50).

For Klinghoffer, this constitutes proof that a sacrificial offering isn’t necessary. This is odd. How could Solomon, on the one hand, bless the inauguration of his costly, God-ordained Temple, while, at the same time, preach that the Temple wasn’t necessary? Instead, there are other ways to explain the fact that God would forgive the Israelites without an immediate Temple sacrifice. Simply because blood wasn’t required at that time doesn’t mean it wasn’t required! A bank will grant a loan, if repayment is guaranteed. The loan doesn’t represent a free-ride, but a postponement of payment. Similarly, God could postpone payment of the debt in view of the Messianic guarantor (Gen. 15:8-21, Heb. 9:26), even for the sins that had formerly been committed during the first covenant (Heb. 9:15).[5]

Even though the sacrificial system was symbolic, the shedding of blood was also a requirement (Lev. 16:34) through which God passed over Israel’s sins (Rom. 3:25). Thus, it couldn’t simply be set aside or loose its potency, but had to be fulfilled by a once-and-for-all bloody atonement (Heb. 10:14), through which God Himself would make atonement (Deut. 32:43).

An Unnecessary System is a Wasteful System

The expenditures underlying the Temple system were tremendous. Add to this the cost of maintaining the priesthood and the lives of multitudes of animals. It seems unreasonable that this was merely as a symbol of Israel’s duty to live in submission to God.

It was a Requirement

The sacrificial system had been so central to God’s workings with Israel that Moses and Aaron informed Pharaoh,

·       The God of the Hebrews has met with us. Please, let us go three days' journey into the desert and sacrifice to the Lord our God, lest He fall upon us with pestilence or with the sword. (Exo 5:3)

Either Israel would sacrifice animals or they would be sacrificed. Christian apologist, Michael Brown, correctly concludes, “The very reason God gave for calling his people out of Egypt was to offer sacrifices to him.”[6] He adds:

·       A careful study of the Five Books of Moses indicates that more chapters are devoted to the subject of sacrifices and offerings than to the subjects of Sabbath observance, high holy days, idolatry, adultery, murder, and theft combined.[7]

Indeed, Moses explicitly states that the blood offering was necessary to cover or atone for sins (Lev. 17:11). Sacrifice was never optional. When the Angel of Death destroyed the firstborn from the land of Egypt, he passed over and spared those Israelite homes that had the blood of the offering upon them (Exo. 12:23). Any firstborn without the blood on his doorposts would have been killed. Blood was also required to cover all the sins of Israel (Lev. 16:21-22) in accordance with the New Testament (Heb. 9:22).

Anti-Christian-Missionary, Rabbi Tovia Singer, also asserts that animal sacrifice was unnecessary: “The prophets loudly declared to the Jewish people that the contrite prayer of the penitent sinner replaces the sacrificial system…”[8] He assumes that since Israel no longer had its Temple, prayer and repentance would now suffice. He cites Hosea 14:2-3 to prove that the sacrificial system had been replaced by “words”:

·       Take words with you, and return to the Lord. Say to Him, "Take away all iniquity; Receive us graciously, for we will offer the sacrifices (‘bulls’ in Hebrew) of our lips.”

Singer is correct in pointing out that Hosea foresees “words” replacing the offering of “bulls.” However, this change is associated with the Cross and God’s declaration that "I will heal their backsliding, I will love them freely, for My anger has turned away from him” (Hos. 14:4). Therefore, it wasn’t a matter of blood sacrifices being unnecessary, but rather fulfilled by the Messianic atonement!

No Indication that Sacrificial Offerings were ever Set Aside under the Mosaic Covenant

There is nothing in Moses’ Law that suggests that sacrifices were optional or that they would be abrogated apart from the Messianic atonement of Jesus.[9] However, there are a number of verses that communicate God’s displeasure with the offerings (Psalm 50:8-15; Prov. 15:8; 21:3; Isa. 1:11-17; Jer. 7:23; Amos 5:21-27; Hos. 6:6). However, these in no way indicate that God was doing away with offerings, leaving no substitutionary blood offering in their place. Instead, these verses can be explained in either of two other ways. First, God’s displeasure didn’t reflect a disdain for the offerings themselves but for the hypocrisy of the offerers. Psalm 51:16-19 illustrates this:

·       For You do not desire sacrifice, or else I would give it; You do not delight in burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit, a broken and a contrite heart--these, O God, You will not despise…Then You shall be pleased with the sacrifices of righteousness, with burnt offering and whole burnt offering; then they shall offer bulls on Your altar.

God was “pleased…with burnt offerings” when they were offered with a broken and repentant heart. However, when offered hypocritically, God refused to hear even the prayers of Israel (Isa. 1:15). In this regard, the highly regarded Jewish thinker, Abraham Joshua Heschel, wrote,

·       Of course, the prophets did not condemn the practice of sacrifice in itself; otherwise we should have to conclude that Isaiah intended to discourage the practice of prayer…Men may not drown out the cries of the oppressed with the noise of hymns, nor buy off the Lord with increased offerings. The prophets disparaged the cult [of animal sacrifice] when it became a substitute for righteousness.[10]

Second, the other verses that assert that God didn’t desire the blood of animals (even though He commanded it) are explained by recognizing that animal blood was merely a symbol of the ultimate Messianic offering. Israel had a dim understanding that something had to take the place of the Mosaic system and that the repeated offering of the same sacrifices only gave Israel a temporary reprieve (Heb. 10.1-4). They had also been graphically instructed by the Temple and offerings that intimacy with God was not yet a reality. They could not enter into God’s presence (nor did they dare to!), and yet, they had been promised betrothal to their God (Hos. 2:18-19). Furthermore, they had been promised a “New Covenant” through which their sins would truly and permanently be forgiven (Jer. 31:31-34). Consistent with this understanding, Psalm 40:6-8 declares that Israel’s God was preparing a sacrifice that would put an end to all other sacrifices:

·       Sacrifice and offering You did not desire, but a body You have prepared for Me. In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You had no pleasure. Then I said, “Behold, I have come--in the volume of the book it is written of Me--to do Your will, O God” (Hebrews 10:5-7 quoting Psalm 40:6-8).[11]

After the two times where Psalm 40 dismisses animal sacrifice, it then presents a human body, suggesting that the latter sacrifice will take the place of the former. This shouldn’t have been foreign to Israelite ears. They had often been promised, starting with Moses (Deut. 32:43), that God Himself would ultimately atone for Israel’s sins.

Never a Matter of Either Blood Sacrifice or Repentance

Although Job had never been short on animal sacrifices, Elihu counseled him that a special ransom was required in addition to repentance (Job 33:24-28). However, Tovia Singer claims that there are three types of atonement (sacrifice, repentance, alms), and that any one will suffice! However, this is contradicted by the fact that any one of them was incapable of bringing forgiveness:

Speak to the children of Israel: “When a man or woman commits any sin that men commit in unfaithfulness against the Lord, and that person is guilty, then he shall (1) confess the sin which he has committed. He shall (2) make restitution for his trespass in full…in addition to the (3) ram of the atonement with which atonement is made for him. (Numbers 5:6-8; Lev. 5:5-6).

Gerald Sigal erroneously writes, “It is clear from the Scriptures that sin is removed through genuine remorse and sincere repentance.” In support, he cites Micah 6:8, stating that the Lord requires justice and mercy.[12] However, this also falls short of proving that sacrifice isn’t part of the equation.

Blood atonement, without confession and repentance, never accomplished anything (Amos 5:21-24). Nevertheless, it was still mandatory. There is no Biblical evidence that it was or could be simply set aside apart from the Messiah’s coming. After surveying the rabbinic literature, Michael Brown concludes:

·       It was only after the Temple was destroyed [in 70 AD] that the Talmudic rabbis came up with the concept that God had provided other forms of atonement aside from blood.[13]

Prophecy: A Ransom and Redeemer

There had to be the payment of a ransom. Even in the midst of God’s earliest response to humankind’s sin, a ransom was cryptically provided when He replaced the first couple’s inadequate fig leaves with animal skins (Gen. 3:21), foreshadowing His Messianic endgame (Isa. 61:10).

A ransom is inseparably and necessarily connected to Israel’s return to God (Isa. 35:10; 51:10-11; 48:20):

·       …“He who scattered Israel will gather him, and keep him as a shepherd does his flock.” For the Lord has redeemed Jacob, and ransomed him from the hand of one stronger than he (Jer. 31:10-11).

God Himself would have to pay the ransom. The Israelite couldn’t afford it (Psalm 49:7-9)! So God Himself would pay the price (49:15):

·       I have blotted out, like a thick cloud, your transgressions, and like a cloud, your sins. Return to Me, for I have redeemed you. (Isa. 44:22)

Without God’s ransom, Israel couldn’t return to God (Psalm 65:3-5; 78:38; 130:7-8; Deut. 32:43; Isa 54:5-8; Hosea 13:12-14). Although repentance is necessary, it isn’t sufficient (Isaiah 59:16-20). Psalm 24 offers a graphic, if perhaps cryptic demonstration of this principle. It asks the question, “Who may stand in His holy place!” The answer is discouraging—only the perfect (Psalm 15)! Because of this dismal response, even the gates are hanging their heads in despair, until the mysterious appearance of the “King of Glory” entering through the Temple gate into God’s presence to make intercession!

Messiah would pay with His own blood. Singer asserts, “…nor does Scripture ever tell us that an innocent man can die as an atonement for the sins of the wicked.”[14] However, according to the Zohar, the most-esteemed Jewish mystical book:

·       The children of the world are members of one another, and when the Holy One desires to give healing to the world, He smites one just man amongst them, and for his sake heals all the rest [according to Isa. 53:5—Zohar].[15]

Israel’s salvation depended upon Messiah’s substitutionary atoning death and not upon the Israelites sufficiently yielding themselves:

·       Break forth into joy, sing together…For the Lord has comforted His people, He has redeemed Jerusalem. The Lord has made bare His holy arm…(Isa. 52:9-10; 59:16; 63:5).

His “holy arm,” the Son (53:1), will pay the price:

·       But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all. (Isaiah 53:5-7; Psalm 40:6-8; Dan 9:24-27; Zech 12:10-13:1, 7; Psalm 22, 69)

Singer maintains that God’s provision of a ram in the place of Isaac (Gen. 22) proved that He would never accept a human sacrifice:

·       When Abraham was ready to sacrifice Isaac, the Almighty admonished him that He did not want the human sacrifice…The Almighty’s directive—that He only wanted animal sacrifices rather than human sacrifices—was immediately understood. This teaching has never departed from the mind and soul of the faithful children of Israel.[16]

This, however, wasn’t the lesson that Israel learned, but rather the opposite - that God would provide: “And Abraham called the name of the place, The-Lord-Will-Provide; as it is said to this day, ‘In the Mount of The Lord it shall be provided’” (Gen. 22:14). However, it was more than just a matter of God’s faithfulness. It was also prophetic, Gospel-centered! The mountain wasn’t named “The Lord-has-provided,” but that He will provide! Nor would God provide in general! Instead, God would provide a greater offering (overshadowing what He had already provided), “in the mount of the Lord,” a phrase that “referred to the Temple mount in Jerusalem”[17]! This became the very place that God did provide on the Cross at Calvary.

Rather than symbolizing our yielded lives, the animal sacrifices symbolized the very opposite—our un-yielded, condemnation-worthy lives. That’s why every Israelite had to confess his sins upon the head of the sacrificial animal, which paid the price for his un-yieldedness. In this way, the Israelite was taught that his hope couldn’t be in his own righteousness or virtue (Deut. 27:26), but in a perfect substitution. 

The Secular Form of this Challenge

“If God is truly omnipotent, why couldn’t He have simply forgiven without the bloody murder of His Son? That’s child abuse! Why couldn’t He have merely said, ‘You’re forgiven?’”

This challenge is based on a misconception about the “omnipotence of God.” While it is true that God can accomplish anything that He so desires, He can’t accomplish it through any means. Jesus prayed that, if possible, He wouldn’t have to endure the Cross (Mat 26:39, 42). However, if He was to redeem humankind, the Cross wasn’t optional!

“But why was forgiveness, apart from the Cross, not possible for God?” I could explain that the Cross was psychologically necessary for humanity (Heb. 9:14-15). I could also explain that God had to demonstrate that He is dead serious about sin and that His righteous nature required propitiation (Rom. 3:25). However, whatever I’d answer, the skeptic would always be able to question, “Why couldn’t your God have accomplished this in a less costly way?”

This unanswered challenge doesn’t reflect a defect in our Biblical conception of God but rather our human inability to answer such questions comprehensively. A quick survey of these why-questions can illustrate this. We can’t answer why God made the sky blue or the grass green. Oh yes, we can say that green was necessary for photosynthesis, but we’d never be able to eliminate the question, “Couldn’t He have done it with red?”

Instead, it must suffice us to conclude that His holy nature requires an adequate payment for sin. The buck must stop with God.

I have tried to point out how the rabbis missed the message of their Bible in many regards, while the uneducated writers of the New Testament understood it, but how? Simply this - they had been inspired by the Holy Spirit.

---

[1] R.T. Kendall and David Rosen, The Christian and the Pharisee (New York, Faith Words, 2006), 109-110.

[2] Ibid, 109.

[3] However, this latter view is hard to maintain in light of Mosaic revelation. Unblemished animals, representing sinlessness, were substituted for Israel’s sins. That’s why the Israelite had to place his hands upon the sacrificial offering (Lev. 1:4; 4:4, 15, 29, 33), confessing and conferring his sins upon it (Lev. 16:21).

[4] David Klinghoffer, Why the Jews Rejected Jesus (New York, Doubleday, 2005), 111.

[5] This same reasoning can also reconcile other verses that seem to suggest that a covering (“kipper”) could be obtained by means other than blood. In any event, these verses can’t be used to overturn the many explicit verses requiring blood sacrifice.

[6] Michael Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. Two (Grand Rapids, Baker Books, 2007), 73. Contains a very extensive rebuttal of Rabbinic arguments.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Tovia Singer, www.outreachjudaism.org/jesusdeath.html.

[9] Although the poor could offer grain as a sin offering, this was only because this offering was laid alongside a blood offering (Lev. 5:12).

[10] Brown, 86.

[11] Hebrews quotes the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament. In this instance, this text differs from its competitor, the Masoretic text. Although the Masoretic doesn’t read, “A body you have prepared for me,” both texts read, “Behold, I have come to do thy will!” However, this “coming” alone seems to suggest a replacement of the sacrificial system.

[12] Gerald Sigal, The Jew and the Christian Missionary (New York, KTAV Publishing House, Inc., 1981), 16.

[13]Brown, 111.

[14] Singer.

[15] Brown, 157.

[16] Singer.

[17] The NIV Study Bible (Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1985), 38.