Introduction
Recently, there has been a bit of a controversy stirred up by R.L. Solberg, when he asked the question of whether God still requires animal sacrifices to atone for sin. In response to this question, Caleb Hegg, on his podcast Messiah Matters, accused Solberg of not knowing the basics of salvation because he asked this question. This led some discussion in the comments on the Messiah Matters video, followed by an invitation from Caleb to have a discussion on video about the nature of the sin sacrifices and how they relate to the work of Christ.
Caleb graciously allowed me to present a biblical case for my view on the sin sacrifices, as well as why they do not continue under the New Covenant. I believe that conversation was very fruitful, and revealed the weaknesses in Caleb’s position.
In response to that conversation, Caleb wrote an article about his views on sin sacrifices. Currently, the only link I have is to the PDF, linked from the Torah Resource Facebook page, here. https://tr-pdf.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/articles/sin-sacrifice.pdf.
The Necessary Background
Before getting into the article itself, please indulge me for putting here, in writing, the case I made to Caleb in our interview.
I became a Christian through apologetics, and especially through carefully considering what the Scriptures say. As a new Christian in my 20s, though I had a lot of theological background, I was still full of questions. The question of the animal sacrifices was one of them. I had learned about them through the lens of the New Testament, so I knew they, like much of the Law of Moses, were shadows of the realities we have in Christ (Col. 2:17, Heb. 8:5, 10:1). I already knew that the sacrifices served as a reminder of sins (Heb. 10:3).
What I didn’t know was the meaning of the sacrifices in their own context. Were they commanded in the same way as the New Testament speaks of them? As I read through the Torah that first time, I was struck by simple, direct language of atonement. It certainly didn’t sound like mere shadows.
All its fat he shall offer up in smoke on the altar as in the case of the fat of the sacrifice of peace offerings. Thus the priest shall make atonement for him in regard to his sin, and he will be forgiven.
Leviticus 4:26
On a simple, plain reading, it seems that the sacrifices actually did atone for sin, and even brought forgiveness. Also, outside of the regulations regarding the sacrifices, we see examples of real atonement in the narrative of the Torah.
Moses said to Aaron, “Take your censer and put in it fire from the altar, and lay incense on it; then bring it quickly to the congregation and make atonement for them, for wrath has gone forth from the Lord, the plague has begun!” 47 Then Aaron took it as Moses had spoken, and ran into the midst of the assembly, for behold, the plague had begun among the people. So he put on the incense and made atonement for the people. 48 He took his stand between the dead and the living, so that the plague was checked. 49 But those who died by the plague were 14,700, besides those who died on account of Korah.
Numbers 16:46-49
Here, the people are grumbling against God’s judgment of Korah and his family, and so a plague begins among the people. Aaron took fire from the altar and stood among the people and “made atonement” for them. Thus, God’s wrath was checked. And remember, this fire came from the ascension offering, or burnt offering, that was to always be going. The offering itself was not for any specific sins, but it still served to make atonement for the sins of the people here.
This teaches us several important things about the sacrifices. First, even a type of sacrifice that isn’t called a “sin” or “guilt” offering is still, in some sense, for atonement of sin. This isn’t the only time fire from the altar does this. Remember that when God called Isaiah, the angel took a coal from the fire of the altar and touched his lips, so that his iniquity is “taken away” and his “sin is forgiven” (Isaiah 6:7).
Second, this episode with Moses and Aaron shows us that the atonement brought by the offering accomplishes its purpose, irrespective of the faith or repentance of the one being atoned for. We have no indication that the grumbling people had repented of their rebellion, but the plague is checked nonetheless.
Third, and most importantly for our purposes here, we see the nature of God’s wrath and what it meant for atonement to check that wrath. God’s wrath against the people caused a plague to begin. It brought physical, earthly death to those who were in rebellion. And the atonement put a stop to that physical, earthly death.
When we read through the Torah, and take note of the consequences for sin, we notice this commonality. Whether it is the consequences commanded within the Law, such as restitution, debt slavery, or the death penalty, or the divine consequences promised by God, good or bad (Deut. 28), all of the legally prescribed consequences were on this same earthly, physical level.
So how does this square with what the New Testament says about these sacrifices?
For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near. 2 Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, because the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have had consciousness of sins? 3 But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins year by year. 4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
Hebrews 10:1-4
Based on what I knew of the animal sacrifices, it now made sense. The sacrifices in the Torah were, like so many other parts of the Old Testament, operating on two levels. On the one hand, their actual function was to, in their limited way, atone for sin and bring forgiveness, so that God’s earthly wrath, expressed in the penalties and curses found in the Torah, would not come on the people. On the other hand, these sacrifices were also prophetic pictures of the coming once-for-all sacrifice of Christ, which would be the all-sufficient sacrifice that takes away sin.
All of this I believed before I ever knew about the Torah movements or the arguments made by people like Caleb Hegg. Also, some years ago, still before studying the Torah movements, I encountered scholarship that pointed out that atonement had a broader meaning than just dealing with the consequences of a person’s sins. There are passages, especially in the Day of Atonement commands, that point to the fact that atonement is also made for the altar and the tabernacle (Lev. 16:16-19). This was to create a sacred space in which God could dwell among His people without destroying His people.
The Present Controversy
In my interview with Caleb, I expressed all of the above facts, and he had no argument, because it lined up with his beliefs. But of course, this was not all I presented. Now, allow me to present to you the argument I made to Caleb, such that he wrote his article on the sin sacrifices. Then we will evaluate his article to see if he has offered a sufficient response.
First, I’ll give you an overview of the argument, and then defend the various premises.
- In the Torah, atonement for sin, through sacrifice, addressed the earthly consequences of sin, both in terms of the tabernacle (Lev. 16), and God’s wrath apart from the tabernacle (Num. 16).
- As it pertains to the tabernacle, atonement was for both sinful uncleanness and non-sin ritual uncleanness. The purpose of this atonement was to create an earthly place where God could dwell with His people (Ex. 25:8).
- Though atonement could be made for unintentional sins, defiant sins (Num. 15:27-31) and more grievous sins like murder (Num. 35:16) could not be atoned for at all through animal sacrifice and had other, stricter penalties.
- These commandments and events revealed several things about the problems caused by sin.
- Because of sin, God cannot dwell among the people without destroying them.
- Through great effort, only some sins could be dealt with by the sacrifices of the temple, while others were un-atoneable, so there is a built-in deficiency in the animal sacrificial system
- These deficiencies show that ultimate salvation could never come through this system. Something greater was needed.
- In Christ, all of God’s judgment for sin, eternal and temporal, is propitiated, such that we are made perfect (Heb. 10:14).
- This spells the end of the animal sacrifices because Jesus’ sacrifice actually takes away sin, which the animal sacrifices could not do (Heb. 10:4). This doesn’t mean we never sin, but it does mean that in the context of sacrifice, which Hebrews 10 is about, there is no longer any sin to deal with.
- Because of this, Christians are now the temple of God, and the Holy Spirit dwells in us (1 Cor. 3:16-17).
- Thus there is no purpose in the New Covenant for a physical temple to be God’s dwelling, and there is no sin left among God’s redeemed people to be atoned for.
- This conclusion is not just a reasonable one based on the evidence already presented, but it is also the very argument of Scripture, as I will show.
Premise 1 – Sacrifices for Earthly Effects of Sin
I’ve argued for this premise in the introductory parts of this article. What I would re-emphasize is that the temporal effects of sin were greater than just the ability to worship at the tabernacle. They involved God’s wrath itself, in its earthly expression.
Not only does the term “kafar”, or atonement, get used of these sacrifices, which could be used in both sin and purity contexts, but also “salach”, or pardon. This is the term that gets translated “forgiven” in Leviticus 4:26 and many other places. This term does not ever get used to talk about ritual purity. It means to pardon sin, irrespective of that sin’s connection to the tabernacle service.
Premise 2 – The Purpose of the tabernacle
The important point here is to understand that the tabernacle was not an end in itself. God commanded its construction, and all of the priestly regulations to go with it, so that He could dwell with His people.
Let them construct a sanctuary for Me, that I may dwell among them.
Exodus 25:8
As we’ve established concerning sacrifices, God commanded these things as a revelation of the ultimate way He would accomplish His purpose. God commanded the limited sacrificial system to show how He would ultimately redeem us. Likewise, God commanded the tabernacle itself to show that He would ultimately dwell with us in a much fuller way.
Premise 3 – The Limitations of Animal Sacrifices
As another point of evidence that this system was not the ultimate way of dealing with sins, there were many sins for which there was no sacrifice at all. Both defiant and serious sins called for other penalties, such as death.
Premise 4 – The Conclusions Drawn From the Torah Sacrifical System
These facts show us that while there were real effects of the sacrifices, there had to be something greater that God would do to bring about ultimate redemption.
- Because the way of dealing with sins was sacrifice, a greater, ultimate sacrifice was going to be needed.
- Because the purpose of the tabernacle was so God could dwell with His people, a greater tabernacle/Temple was going to be needed for God to truly and permanently dwell with His people.
- Because not all sins were covered by sacrifices, that greater sacrifices needed to atone for all sins, not just unintentional ones.
- Because the sacrifices didn’t make people permanently right with God, that greater sacrifice needed to go beyond earthly wrath and truly wash away sins.
Premise 5 – Jesus’ Sacrifice is the Ultimate Answer to All of the Needs Revealed in the Torah Sacrificial System
Jesus’ sacrifice is the answer to all of the questions. It is the ultimate sacrifice, given once for all, to make us perfect.
For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.
Hebrews 10:14
What the animal sacrifices could never do has now been done.
Premise 6 – No Sin Left to Atone for
But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins year by year. 4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
Hebrews 10:3-4
In the Torah sacrifices, sin was constantly brought to mind. The people could not dwell with God unless these constant sacrifices were performed. But the sins were still with the people. The sacrifices didn’t take it away, like Jesus’ sacrifice did.
This shows strongly that there is no place for the animal sacrifices within the New Covenant anymore. Jesus’ sacrifice did take our sins away. We no longer have sin that needs atonement. It is all atoned for in Christ.
While sin has not been completely destroyed from the world, it has been taken away from us, with regard to sacrifice and atonement, the very context of Hebrews 10. It is not merely the spiritual or heavenly effects of sin that Christ atoned for, leaving the earthly effects untouched and still needing animal sacrifices. It is the sin itself that was taken away. That is the language of Scripture.
Premise 7 – The Church is the Temple of God
Because of the redemption of Christ, the Church is now the Temple of God.
Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? 17 If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him, for the temple of God is holy, and that is what you are.
1 Corinthians 3:16-17
This is the exact language we had for the purpose of the tabernacle. In order to dwell with His people, God commanded the tabernacle and all the priesthood regulations. Now, in Christ, believers are the temple of God. The Spirit dwells in that temple. That temple is holy.
Also, when Jesus promised the destruction of the physical temple, He never promised a new one would be built. Instead, the temple is the people. God’s purpose to dwell with His people is now fulfilled in an infinitely greater way.
Thus there is no purpose for a new building to ever be built as God’s temple God’s temple is on the earth, and growing, and filling the whole earth.
Conclusion – All that the Temple and Sacrifices Could Do is Done
Because God dwells within, not just with, His people, and because our sin is taken away, there is nothing left for the sacrifices of the Torah to accomplish. We are fully united with Christ and there will never again need to be an external building housing the presence of God.
Conclusion Confirmation – Scripture Makes This Exact Argument
In addition to the simple fact that everything that made the tabernacle and sacrifices necessary has been accomplished in Christ, thus rationally leading to the conclusion that the animal sacrifices are no longer necessary, this truth is taught directly by Scripture, and that’s where I’ll turn now.
Sacrifices in the New Covenant
Hebrews 7-10 is the most detailed, sustained teaching section on the relationship between the New Covenant and the Sinai Covenant, with special attention given at many points to the nature of the priesthood and sacrifices. In my interview with Caleb, I highlighted just a few verses that make the case I’ve made above that there is no more place for the sin sacrifices in the New Covenant.
I will again present that case here, drawing from the same passages that I presented to Caleb, to show that Scripture confirms what I said about the sacrifices.
Now if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the people received the Law), what further need was there for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be designated according to the order of Aaron? 12 For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also.
Hebrews 7:11-12
This verse speaks of the coming of Christ as our Great High Priest. He came after the order of Melchizedek, and not as a member of the tribe of Levi or family of Aaron. The text simply says that, since perfection could not come through the Levitical priesthood, a change was needed, with Christ coming as a priest of a different kind, not according to the Law. The text then clearly says that this change necessitates a “change of law”.
When I argued that this was a change from the Levitical high priest to Jesus, Caleb disagreed. He said Jesus was added as a heavenly high priest, and didn’t replace the earthly one. He also referred to the change as taking place in “heavenly law”, which is a new term I had never heard before. The text of Hebrews never refers to a “heavenly law” that is somehow separate from the earthly. Without an exegetical case for such a thing, I can only assume it’s an ad hoc idea to try to invent a different law that somehow “changed” other than the Law of Moses, which is the one the passage is actually talking about.
I didn’t press the point in the interest of getting to more Scripture, but I would simply point out that, while the tabernacle Jesus presented His offering in is described as “heavenly”, it is not ever presented as operating by design alongside the earthly tabernacle. Rather, the earthly tabernacle and its work are described a “copy and shadow” of the heavenly (Heb. 10:1), and a “shadow…and not the very form of things” (Heb. 8:5), and the holy place on earth is said to be a “copy of the true one” in heaven. In all these passages, we see that the heavenly tabernacle is the real thing, and the earthly is not the real thing. That is the way the Bible puts it. It never posits coexistence or cooperation between the two kinds of tabernacles.
For, on the one hand, there is a setting aside of a former commandment because of its weakness and uselessness 19 (for the Law made nothing perfect), and on the other hand there is a bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God.
Hebrews 7:18-19
This is just a few verses later in the same chapter, contrasting the Levitical priesthood with that of Christ. Once again perfection is named as the deficiency in the Law and its priesthood. The Law made nothing perfect, and so the “former commandment” is “set aside”. In context, this is related directly to the commandment setting up the Levitical priesthood. That priesthood commandment is set aside, in order to bring in a better hope, Jesus and His eternal priesthood, “through which we draw near to God”.
There’s that dwelling language again. The former priesthood could, in an imperfect way, make a sacred space by which God could dwell near His people, but now there is a better hope, and we draw near to God through the perfect sacrifice of our Great High Priest.
But of course, the language here is inescapable, the bringing in of that better hope comes about after the “setting aside of a former commandment”. This language is pretty clear. The one priesthood has replaced the other, which has been “set aside”.
The former priests, on the one hand, existed in greater numbers because they were prevented by death from continuing, 24 but Jesus, on the other hand, because He continues forever, holds His priesthood permanently. 25 Therefore He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.
Hebrews 7:23-25
Same chapter, a fiew verses later. Same context. Now a very interesting argument is made. The reason there were many priests is because of death. It seems the author is referring here to the many high priests, with one at a time serving, but many over the centuries. But now, we have a high priest who never dies, so a succession of priests is unnecessary.
For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens; 27 who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself. 28 For the Law appoints men as high priests who are weak, but the word of the oath, which came after the Law, appoints a Son, made perfect forever.
Hebrews 7:26-28
Jesus doesn’t need to offer repeated sacrifices like the priests who die and never make anyone perfect. Notice what it says in verse 27. Those high priests offer up sacrifices, first for their own sins and then for the sins of the people. Why doesn’t Jesus have to do this? “Because this He did once for all”. The text clearly links what the high priests did with what Jesus did. “THIS HE DID”. What the other high priests did, Jesus did also, except once for all, and fully, making us perfect.
Don’t miss that. Caleb and other Torah observant people who make his argument want to say that the sacrifices of the priests are wholly different, and therefore can coexist alongside the sacrifice of Christ. But here in Hebrews 7:27, it says that what the priests did daily, Christ did once for all. He’s doing the same thing.
Now I know what Caleb will try to say to that last sentence, and if he does, he is guilty of taking me out of context. Because I am not saying that what Christ did and what the priests did were completely the same. Obviously Christ did infinitely more. But this verse shows that the sacrifices the priests offered were the same kind of sacrifice in that they atoned for sin and brought forgiveness. Jesus did that, but then so much more. Their sacrifices atoned for sin by washing away its earthly stain and brought forgiveness from earthly wrath. Jesus did that, too, but then He took the sin away. Jesus’ sacrifice isn’t a wholly different kind. It is of the same kind, but infinitely greater. And unlike the animal sacrifices, it can actually save.
Therefore it was necessary for the copies of the things in the heavens to be cleansed with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us;
Hebrews 9:23
The earthly tabernacle was not just a different tabernacle with a different jurisdiction than the heavenly one. It was a copy of the “true one”, meaning it was the untrue one. The less-than-true one. The copy. It was a way to create the proper context for people to understand the true one.
And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment, 28 so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.
Hebrews 9:27-28
Just like the dispensationalists, almost all Torah observers think that Christ will come back and establish, in a “millennial kingdom”, a new temple, reinstating sacrifices for sin. The dispensationalists who hold this belief usually believe that these sacrifices are meant to memorialize Christ. Some in the Torah movements say this, too, which is interesting, since that would still be a change in the very purpose of the sacrifices.
I bring up this verse, however, to show that this is false. Christ came and was offered once to bear the sins of many, but the second time, His appearance will be “without reference to sin”. It will be to those “who eagerly await Him.
Jesus is not coming to continue to offer repeated sacrifices for sins. He is coming without reference to sin because He has already taken our sins away (Heb. 10:4), cleansed our consciences (Heb. 9:14), and made us perfect (Heb. 10:14). There will be no sins to deal with when Christ returns. His sacrifice dealt with them all, once for all.
For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near. 2 Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, because the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have had consciousness of sins? 3 But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins year by year. 4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
Hebrews 10:1-4
The Law’s sacrifices had to be offered year by year, precisely because they could make no one perfect. And notice what it says there in verse 2. If those sacrifices could do that, they would have ceased to be offered. Don’t miss that statement. The sacrifices are not an end in themselves. They served a purpose. Since they could never make anyone perfect, they didn’t cease during the entire time of the Sinai Covenant.
And notice it doesn’t say that they would have ceased, but since they were designed this way, they will never cease. Rather, they didn’t cease because the WORSHIPPERS were not cleansed and perfect. If they had been cleansed, the sacrifices would have ceased.
And since Jesus’ sacrifice did cleanse us and did make us perfect, those sacrifices have ceased.
Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; 12 but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God, 13 waiting from that time onward until His enemies be made a footstool for His feet. 14 For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.
Hebrews 10:14
Jesus did exactly what verse 1 of this same chapter said the Torah sacrifices could never do. He has made us perfect. He did the very thing that verse 2 of this same chapter said would have caused the sacrifices to cease. He made us perfect.
Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin.
Hebrews 10:18
Still in that same chapter. Where there is this kind of forgiveness. Not the limited, earthly forgiveness of the Torah sacrifices, but the full forgiveness of Christ, “There is no longer any offering for sin”.
Do you see the consistent language of Hebrews? Does Hebrews present Torah sacrifices as physical, while Christ’s is spiritual, and so these are separate things that will coexist alongside one another?
No, it clearly does not. The language is inescapable. The former priesthood commandment is set aside (7:18). If those sacrifices could make perfect, they would have ceased (10:1). Jesus made perfect (10:14). Since there is now forgiveness for those things, there is no longer any offering for sin (10:18) Also, what the priests’ sacrifice did, so Jesus’ sacrifice did (7:27). Jesus didn’t do something completely different, but rather something more, infinitely more. And when Jesus returns, it will not be to setup the old sacrificial system to deal with sins, since His second coming is “without reference to sin” (9:28).
So, what is our response to this? Since we don’t offer animals, what do we do?
Through Him then, let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that give thanks to His name.
Hebrews 13:15
We offer a sacrifice of praise, not animals. We praise because our sin is has been cleansed. There is no more need of such offerings, except to praise and thank God.
Caleb’s Article
After I made this case, or the majority of it, Caleb didn’t offer a response on the spot. He did say he had written down the verses I cited and that he was going to write an article on this topic. I took that to mean that it would contain a response to the case I made in the interview. Sadly, I was wrong.
Let me run down the rough outline of Caleb’s article for you. After that, I’ll respond to a few key points.
After introducing the controversy itself, that Christians generally believe the Torah sacrifices have ceased, Caleb’s first major section is on the Holy Spirit. He offers an argument that there is no difference between the indwelling of the Spirit before or after Christ. If this seems out of place it’s because he didn’t introduce the concept of God dwelling with His people first, but we will get to that.
After talking about the Holy Spirit, Caleb’s next section is on the earthly nature of the sin sacrifices in the Torah, something we largely agree about, but I will have some things to say about this as well
The next section is called “Continuity in Scripture”. It is not about the sacrifices, but is rather a standard bundle of arguments for Torah observance theology itself.
This is followed by a section on a future physical “millennial” temple, arguing that the sacrifices will be reinstated there.
And then, the next section is an answer to an objection that we can’t sacrifice, so it can’t be required.
Finally, in his conclusion, Caleb actually offers, for the first time in the article, some clear statements of his position on the sacrifices and how they relate to Christ.
Now, in that whole outline, you may notice something missing. At no point does Caleb deal with the deep and clear message presented to him from Hebrews on the sacrifices. Of course, he quotes Hebrews where he thinks it helps his case, and he does mention in an offhand way, that people do bring Hebrews into this discussion
Hebrews is another place where Christianity has historically interpreted Christ’s work on the cross, which addresses sin in an eternal sense, as eliminating the temporal elements of sin in our physical world. This, however, cannot be if we want to align the book of Hebrews with the Torah and even the Tanach itself. Not only does the Torah say that the sacrificial system is a statute forever, but we see this system continue to be implemented in a future sense within the prophetic narratives.
Caleb Hegg, “Sin Sacrifice” p. 11
This is it. This is all he has to say in response to the case I presented to him, outlined above. He does not even try to offer an alternate understanding of a single verse presented to him. Rather, he brings up two arguments not related to Hebrews or sacrifices, namely the spurious “forever” argument that misunderstands the Hebrew underlying that term, and his own eschatological view that there will be a future physical temple, and this proves his theology.
This, right here, is an admission of defeat. I presented a contextual exegesis of Hebrews, a book that is, itself, a clear, well-reasoned argument. Hebrews is not prophetic poetry. Hebrews is clear teaching. Caleb had all the time in the world to write this article. He chose to avoid the argument that actually challenges his view, and lean on favorite arguments for his general theology instead.
This is the most disappointing aspect of the article. Caleb had a chance to come out and answer his critics. He had the chance to show me how wrong I am about Hebrews. Instead, he simply ignored the central, biblical argument against his position.
Responding to What’s In The Article
Despite this glaring omission, there are still things in Caleb’s article worth addressing, so let’s do that.
Old Testament Indwelling of the Holy Spirit
In the first section of the article, this is Caleb’s main point.
Many believers want to stop here and say, “Yes, salvation has always been by faith in the living God.” But then they also imply that salvation has changed in some way by claiming that the Holy Spirit did not indwell believers before the Pentecost event in Acts 2. We can look at Galatians 3:5-6 again to see why such a view is flawed. Paul writes, “Does He who supplies the Spirit…” Here, Paul contends that righteousness in the eyes of God is connected to the Spirit. Some may believe this presence of the Spirit only relates to the new believers in Christ, but Paul connects this phrase with Abraham by using the Greek Καθὼς (“Just as”). Paul is not only referring to the working of miracles but also to the supplying of the Spirit. God supplies the Spirit to believers today in the same way He did with Abraham when he believed.
Hegg, p. 4
Here, Caleb is arguing that the Spirit must have been supplied “in the same way” for Abraham as for us. This is good Calvinistic theology, and I approve, to a certain point. The problem, of course, is that this just isn’t how the Scriptures present these things. Yes, we are born again by the Spirit and salvation is by faith, and yes, that was true for the Old Testament saints as well.
Why, you may ask, is Caleb even arguing this point? The reason is to attempt to counter the argument that believers are now the temple of God. He thinks that if he can establish that the Holy Spirit was at work in the same way in the Old Testament, then there’s nothing special about how He works in believers now, and so it doesn’t do damage to his beliefs about the tabernacle/temple in the Torah.
Does it work? No. There are three major problems with his position here. Two affect his position on the Spirit and one on the issue of believers as God’s temple.
First problem is that the texts he cites don’t actually make the case he’s trying to get out of them. Notice in the quote above that Caleb cites a partial sentence from Galatians 3:5-6 as “Does He who supplies the Spirit…”, implying this general supplying of the Spirit to everyone who believes, regardless of time and covenant. Let’s read that section.
Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith— 6 just as Abraham “believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”?
Galatians 3:5-6 ESV
Caleb’s treatment of these verses has the order completely backwards. God supplies the Spirit “to you”, meaning his readers in the New Covenant, and notice it is linked with working of miracles. Paul asks whether this is “by the works of the law” or “by hearing with faith”. Paul is not talking about saving faith coming by the Spirit, but rather the powerful indwelling of the Spirit that comes “by faith”. Caleb mentions the “just as” as if this is Abraham receiving the Spirit “just as” the current believers, but again, that is not what is being said. Abraham “believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness.” So, just as, by faith, you believers have the Spirit and do miracles, Abraham, by faith, was credited with righteousness.
The “just as” is connected to the faith, not the Spirit in this passage. And I know exactly what Caleb would say to this. “But doesn’t faith require the work of the Spirit?” Yes, of course, but that isn’t what this verse is about. Clearly, in this verse the Spirit and the miracles are supplied by God “by faith”. In this verse, faith is the instrument by which God supplies the Spirit. This establishes my and most Christians’ point that something new really did happen at Pentecost. The coming of the Spirit in power is not merely the saving work of the Spirit in regeneration. It is a new thing, and the verse Caleb cites proves it.
The second problem with Caleb’s view is that it makes nonsense of Pentecost. Caleb is so busy trying to argue that the Spirit is doing the same thing in both Testaments that he misses a huge issue. What, exactly, was the Holy Spirit’s relationship with Jesus’ disciples before Pentecost? If they have the Spirit just as all believers of all time always have, and nothing changes in the New Covenant, then the Spirit did not come on the people at Pentecost. They already had Him. Nothing changed. But of course that is preposterous. The text is clear that they received power, that Christ promised that He would send His Spirit and He would lead them into all truth. Clearly something did happen. But if Caleb is right, nothing happened. Or Caleb could say that they didn’t have the Spirit, which would mean that all the disciples were unbelievers until Pentecost. Again, this is absurd. The correct understanding, of course, is that the Spirit had regenerated them, and so they were saved, but had not yet come upon them to indwell them as He did at Pentecost.
The third problem with Caleb’s view of the Spirit is that it serves a conclusion that is just not found in Scripture. Caleb wants to minimize the importance of texts that speak of the church as the temple of God. This is to make room for a physical temple in his theology. The problem is, if he is right about the Spirit, then the people of God have always been the Temple of God. I know that’s what he’s going for, but that is just not in the Bible. The tabernacle/temple of God in the Old Testament was always the physical, external structure. God used it to dwell with, not in, His people.
In the New Testament, while there are references to the still-standing temple of the time, that temple was promised destruction by Jesus (Mark 13:1-2). No other building was promised to be built, but Jesus did refer to Himself with temple language (John 2:19). And in the epistles, Paul refers to the people of God as the Temple (1 Cor. 3:16-17). This is a brand new thing. The Old Testament does not ever refer to the people as the Temple of God, nor does it say that God “dwells” in the people of the Old Testament. Yes, the Spirit was doing His regenerative work in people, but that is a different activity than what the New Testament describes. Thus Caleb’s position on the Spirit is clearly false.
Again, I explained this distinction in our interview, but it seems he is dead-set against it, despite not being able to refute it from Scripture.
The Sin Sacrifices of the Torah
As I’ve said, Caleb and I mostly agree on this issue. My criticism of him when it comes to these sacrifices has been that he attempts to roll all of the sacrifices into ritual purity sacrifices for keeping the temple pure, not really dealing with sin sacrifices outside of that context, despite the fact that the Torah clearly does talk about them outside of that context.
In our interview, Caleb appeared to agree with what I was saying. He seemed to agree that it wasn’t just all about the temple, but it was all earthly and physical, which has been my position from the start.
However, when I read this article, Caleb is back to putting everything under the umbrella of ritual purity.
The sin sacrifice is not about atoning for the soul or the eternal justification of a person, but rather about addressing the sanctity of the space itself. The sanctuary of God, whether in the tent of meeting or in the temple, was a unique place where the glory of God pushed through the spiritual realm and entered our sinful world. This concept is perplexing to the human mind because it seems unimaginable that God’s infinite holiness could dwell in a place where sin resides. Such a reality is accompanied by significant regulations, as the place where God’s holiness dwells in the physical world is safeguarded by numerous stipulations designed to keep sin away from His glorious presence. When sin encroaches upon this sacred and holy space, it is met with swift and forceful retaliation from God or His representatives.
Hegg, p. 7
Notice that for Caleb, the question about the sacrifices is whether atone “for the soul or the eternal justification of a person” or whether they are “addressing the sanctity of the space itself”, that is, the “sanctuary of God”. Notice what’s missing? What about atoning for the sin of the person, but in an earthly way? As I pointed out above, atonement in the Torah, while earthly, was real atonement, and not just limited to making sacred space in the sanctuary.
At no point in this chapter does Caleb acknowledge this fact. He sets up a false dichotomy that says it has to be about either “eternal salvation” or “sacred space” without any warrant from the text.
Yes, sacred space is a real thing, but Caleb has artificially narrowed his focus to just that, and has ignored the rest of what the Torah says about atonement. For example, what does Leviticus 4:26 mean when it says that the sin sacrifice atones for the sin, and the person will be “forgiven”? That Hebrew term is never used in the context of atoning for space or atoning for the altar. It only applies to people. In what sense was a person “forgiven” or “pardoned” when he brought a sin offering?
It’s clear, too, why Caleb would ignore this aspect of sin offerings. You see, if an offering actually does something about actual guilt for actual sin, even if it is on the earthly level, it begins to sound kind of like what Christ did in the ultimate sense. It’s much easier to defend sacrifices that have nothing to do with anything outside the temple than to defend sacrifices that have to do with peoples’ life out in the world. That’s where he knows Jesus’ death begins to overlap. As we’ve seen, they really do overlap, and the greater subsumes the lesser.
And focusing on the space does something else. It takes the focus off the person, but it is clear that atonement also applied to people. If this atonement applied to people, though, and yet it’s all about the space, things start to sound a little weird, as this statement quoted from Tim Hegg in the article sounds.
We have seen that the animal sacrifices in the Tabernacle and Temple did have a valid function, namely, effecting ritual purity and thus allowing the person or object that had become ritually impure to return to an acceptable status for participation in worship at the Tabernacle or Temple. In this sense, the animal sacrifices made atonement for the ritual impurities that separated a person from participation in the Tabernacle or Temple services.
Hegg, p. 9
There is definitely something a little circular about that. You have to go the temple to offer sacrifices so that you can go to the temple to offer sacrifices.
Now, since that was the only dwelling place God had chosen under the Sinai Covenant, it needed to be done. And also, since the atonement was actually more than just about ritual purity, and served to check God’s wrath in other areas, the sacrifices did make sense. It’s Tim and Caleb’s artificial restriction of the effect of these sacrifices to the temple that creates this absurdity.
As noted, after this chapter, Caleb abandons arguing specifically for the sacrifices and decides to just throw in all his favorite Torah Observance proof-texts.
Continuity, or Grasping at Straws
No matter the specific area of theology, you can bet that if you’re arguing with someone in the Torah movements, you’re going to hear a certain handful of arguments brought up, even if they have nothing to do with the topic. And that’s what we get here.
In this section, Caleb leaves sacrifices behind to talk about how he thinks the Bible teaches Torah Observance theology, and since it teaches Torah Observance theology, any argument showing a change in the Law must be wrong, since that is inconsistent with Torah Observance theology.
I’ll address the two arguments he makes in a moment, but I would just point out that this is circular reasoning. Caleb is assuming his ultimate conclusion, that Torah Observance theology is true, in order to prove a subordinate point that the sacrifices haven’t changed. But this kind of reasoning is reversible. I could just as simply argue that since the sacrifices have clearly changed, Torah Observance theology is clearly false.
Of course, Caleb doesn’t just come out and say it this way. He does present two very common arguments for Torah observance back to back.
We must always remember that God does not contradict Himself, and thus, His Word cannot contradict itself. The sacrificial system includes numerous references to sin sacrifice, where God declares that these laws are a statute “forever” (Lev. 3:17, 6:18, 22, 10:9, 15, 16:29, 34, 17:7). The suggestion that these commands and the sacrificial system are now done away directly contradicts the commands found in the Torah. Beyond this, it directly contradicts the words of our Lord:
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. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:17–19 ESV)
Hegg, p. 10
So, let’s address these one at a time.
Forever, or Lasting?
Whenever Torah movement teachers talk about these passages sometimes translated with “forever” out of the Law, they almost always present them just as Caleb has here. There is never a deep study of the context or the original language. I have only seen one time where anyone even mentioned the Hebrew in these texts, and that was Caleb and his co-host Rob VanHoff on their podcast, Messiah Matters. This was because they received a question specifically about that term, so they discussed it. That discussion did not succeed at all in making their case, as I demonstrated in a video here. https://youtube.com/live/j79hMsbYlp4?feature=share
So, let’s discuss this issue. The Hebrew term olam, found in all of these texts that Caleb cites, does not literally mean “forever”. Look up any lexical source not actively trying to promote Torah Observance and you will find that the term translated this way has a range of meaning that depends on context. Brown-Driver-Briggs has quite a long entry for the term. The one thing you can say about all of the possible meanings is that it’s always referring to a long time, at least contextually for the person being spoken about.
When it refers to the past, it actually never means “eternal”. Scripture doesn’t refer to God’s uncreated, eternal past existence with this term. Referring to the past, it is rendered “ancient” or some equivalent.
When it refers to the future, it might refer to a truly eternal amount of time, or it might not, depending on context. Let’s look at three consecutive uses of the term, all from Exodus, to show this difference
The Lord will reign forever and ever.
Exodus 15:18
And the Lord said to Moses, “Behold, I am coming to you in a thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with you, and may also believe you forever.”
When Moses told the words of the people to the Lord,
Exodus 19:9
then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his slave forever.
Exodus 21:6
There is no question that the first example really means, in our current English, forever with no end. God will reign forever and ever.
In the second example, God is telling Moses how He will appear to the people, and this is so they will believe Moses “forever”. Now, the only people who saw that thick cloud were the Exodus generation, Moses’ contemporaries. God is saying He will do this sign so they will believe Moses for the rest of their lives.
The third example makes this second meaning even more clear. The slave who loves the family and wants to become a permanent slave, not set free at the appointed time in the Law, does this ritual. He becomes a permanent slave, that is, for the rest of his life. It does not literally mean that he will be a slave for all time beyond death.
Another perfect example of a “forever” that is shorter than eternity is the command concerning the moving of the camp during the wilderness wandering.
And the sons of Aaron, the priests, shall blow the trumpets. The trumpets shall be to you for a perpetual statute throughout your generations.
Numbers 10:8
Here, it is the same word, olam translated as “perpetual”. And note it is a “statute throughout your generations”. But of course, this only applied to Israel in the wilderness. Once they entered the promised land and took their cities and homes and inheritance, there was no longer any need for blowing of trumpets to move the camp. There wasn’t a camp to move.
And of course, not all translations render this term “forever”. One favorite verse of Tim Hegg to bring up to make this same argument is Exodus 31:16.
Therefore the people of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, observing the Sabbath throughout their generations, as a covenant forever.
Exodus 31:16 ESV
Wow. Kinda sounds like the Sinai Covenant could never end. But of course, that isn’t the only way the verse is rendered.
The Israelites are to observe the Sabbath, celebrating it for the generations to come as a lasting covenant.
NIV
Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.
KJV
The Israelites will pay attention to the Sabbath in order to fulfill the Sabbath throughout their generations as a lasting covenant
Lexham English Bible
and the sons of Israel have observed the sabbath; to keep the sabbath to their generations [is] a covenant age-during,
Young’s Literal Translation
When I’m studying a term, I like to consult the LEB, because it does seek to get to the literal meaning regardless of traditional renderings. If the traditional translation doesn’t capture the meaning as well, they usually go with something closer. Here, we see the LEB, and NIV, both go with the term “lasting”, which does capture a more broadly accurate meaning for olam.
I also like to check with Young’s, because it tries to do the same thing, even to a fault. It’s not a great translation to just read, for this reason, but notice it says “age-during”. I’ve seen in some lexical sources “age-lasting” as one meaning.
Even “perpetual” as we find in many translations, can carry more of a meaning of “uninterrupted” than “without any end ever”.
I would also point out that these times where we know for sure that olam doesn’t carry the same meaning as the English “forever, it’s always about commandments. These are about things God commanded people to do and keep, and they don’t last “forever” in our modern sense. Appealing to other places, where God’s attributes are described, for instance, is changing the subject.
Matthew 5 Doesn’t Mean What You Think
Just as he did when citing “forever” texts, Caleb doesn’t actually spend any time explaining Matthew 5:17-19 in context. So allow me to show you what no Torah movement teacher ever acknowledges about the passage, despite it being their favorite.
In verse 17, there are three issues ignored by every Torah movement teacher.
- Greek for “abolish”
- Greek for “fulfill”
- Presence of “Law” and “Prophets”
In modern English usage, “abolish” carries an almost exclusive legal connotation. We just don’t talk about abolishing anything except laws or practices we want to make illegal. But the Greek term, kataluo, means to destroy or overthrow, hence the fact that many modern translations will use the term “destroy” in this verse, instead of “abolish”. Most in the Torah movements, of course, stick with “abolish”, but it actually misses the point of the term. Jesus is not talking about nullifying or rescinding commandments. he is talking about overthrowing the Scriptures. We will see that as we continue.
The term for “fulfill” here is pleroo, and it means a lot of things, but up to this point in the book of Matthew, it always refers to the fulfilling of prophecy. “this was done that it might fulfill…”. This becomes very important when we understand what Jesus is actually talking about, the Scriptures.
In the New Testament, to combine the terms “Law” and “Prophets” is to speak of the entire Old Testament. This is universal. It is a shortened form of “the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings”. This threefold way of speaking of the Old Testament is found in the New Testament, and many times it is shortened to just the first two terms, just as it is here in Matthew 5:17. In fact, it was also common to shorten it even more to just “Law”, as Jesus does in John 10:34, where He refers to a quote from Psalm 82 as something written in “your Law”.
This is very important. Jesus isn’t referring to commandments given to Moses, primarily. He’s referring to all the Scriptures. When we understand this simple, indisputable fact, and we understand the actual meanings of the Greek terms discussed, we understand what Jesus is actually saying: Do not think that I’ve come to destroy the Scriptures. I have not come to destroy them but to fulfill what they say of me.
Now, why would Jesus say this? I think it’s fairly simple. Jesus is introducing His own giving of commandments on a mountain, the Sermon on the Mount. To some there, His words are going to sound like He’s destroying the Scriptures. He’s prepping His hearers for what is to come.
Moving to verse 18, Jesus uses the term “Law”, but since He has already set the context as all the Scriptures, He isn’t now shortening them. Now He is saying that the Scriptures are unbreakable, not able to be destroyed or pass out of existence.
Jesus says that nothing will “pass” from the “Law” or Scriptures, until heaven and earth “pass away”. This term, parelthe, literally is used of things passing out of existence. And indeed, Torah Observance teachers take it this way the first time it is used, of heaven and earth. But then, when they get to the second occurrence, the one related to the Law, they shift their definition. No longer is it about something passing out of existence, but now it’s about commandments being no longer binding. It’s about nullifying prior commandments now.
Problem is, parelthe is never about commandments being nullified. Scripture uses other words for that, when that is the subject. This word is used in parallel to what is said in verse 17 about not “destroying” the Scriptures. Nothing will be destroyed. All the Scriptures will be there. Nothing will be lost to us as long as heaven and earth are still with us. Only if we’re ok with just switching definitions in the same sentence, and changing to a definition found nowhere else, does this interpretation begin to support Caleb’s position.
From this, it is then fairly easy to see that verse 19 is not about the Law given to Moses, but about “these commandments” that Jesus is about to command. Jesus is about to express God’s moral Law in a way that far exceeds anything found in the Torah. He isn’t talking about Moses, but Himself as much greater than Moses.
Appealing to a Future Building
In the next section, Caleb appeals to his own particular interpretation of some Old Testament prophets as evidence of a future temple being built.
While it is true that we cannot base our theology solely on prophetic texts, the Prophets’ references to a future temple and sacrificial system are grounded in the Torah and the broader biblical narrative. As we have already referenced above, the sacrificial system is said to be a statute forever, and Yeshua Himself attests to the fact that the laws of the Torah will not pass away. Thus, when we see the future temple spoken of in Ezekiel 43 or in Zech. 12, this should not surprise us. Once again, this does not encroach on the work of Christ on the cross, since these affect two separate things in two separate realms. It is certainly true that our Lord’s death, resurrection, and ascension
addressed our sin in an eternal sense, justifying us before God. However, sin still has temporal effects. The altar will continue to need atonement because of sin, and the Sanctuary of God will require atonement due to human sin. Priests will also need atonement on a temporal level, as sin remains present in this world. Therefore, it should not surprise us when sin sacrifices are mentioned in relation to a future temple (Ezek. 40:39, 42:13, 43:19, 21, 44:27, 45:17, etc).
Hegg, pp. 11-12
We’ve addressed the “forever” argument, but what of these texts about a “future temple”? Caleb acknowledges that we shouldn’t base our theology “solely” on prophetic texts, but what he’s doing here is leaning on one interpretation of these prophetic texts as evidence for his theology of the Law and sacrifices.
Since the New Testament, our divinely-inspired commentary on the Old Testament, speaks freely of “sacrifice of praise” (Heb. 13:15), and offering our bodies as a “living sacrifice” (Rom. 12:1), but never once hints at God sanctioning a new physical temple with animal sacrifices that can never take away sin, there is precious little confirmation of Caleb’s theory here.
I am aware that the current majority of Christians in modern American culture may believe in a future temple, but that doesn’t make it true. And of course, even those who have not gone so far as to say that the same kinds of sacrifices to atone for sin (Lev. 4:26) that were present in ancient Israel will still atone for sin once again, in any respect, since, as we have seen, Jesus’ sacrifice takes away sin (Heb. 10:14) and makes us perfect (Heb. 10:14) at least in our standing before God.
All this is plain, simple teaching, not the dark sayings of predictive prophetic poetry (Psa. 78:2). This is enough to reject this tactic employed by Caleb and other Torah observers to attempt to support their doctrine, but I can, indeed, present more.
Concerning the Ezekiel temple vision, I would point out that there are no statements concerning building any temple. Ezekiel has a vision of a man measuring a temple. Within that vision, there are severe problems for Caleb’s theology. I know that he thinks that the prince mentioned in the prophecy is somehow Jesus, but if we are supposed to take this vision literally, not figuratively, then this presents a huge problem.
“In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month, you shall have the Passover, a feast of seven days; unleavened bread shall be eaten. 22 On that day the prince shall provide for himself and all the people of the land a bull for a sin offering.
Ezekiel 45:21-22
Now, for your regular dispensationalist that believes in a future temple, this is no problem. To him, the prince is probably just the high priest, but all these sacrifices are meant symbolically and in remembrance. For Caleb, though, to admit, either that these sacrifices are not the very same sin sacrifices as the Torah is to admit a change, not in some “heavenly law” we don’t ever read about in the passage, but rather a change in the actual, Levitical, sacrificial law. As he admitted in our conversation on the sacrifices, to admit of any change is to give up the whole foundation of the argument for Torah observance.
Now, if this vision is meant to be highly symbolic and representative, as so much of prophetic vision demonstrably is, then the prince doesn’t need to represent any particular person fully. The whole vision could serve as an idealized picture of the temple services, without requiring that some parts be taken literally, and others not, based solely on what fits our theology. The historic Christian interpretation of these things is far more consistent.
But I’m not done. Caleb mentioned Zechariah 12, but that chapter has nothing to say about priesthood or temple or sacrifice. Now, it could be this is a typo and he meant to say Zechariah 6:12, which does mention the building of a temple. But when you hear it, you’ll know exactly what I’m going to say about it.
Then say to him, ‘Thus says the Lord of hosts, “Behold, a man whose name is Branch, for He will branch out from where He is; and He will build the temple of the Lord. 13 Yes, it is He who will build the temple of the Lord, and He who will bear the honor and sit and rule on His throne. Thus, He will be a priest on His throne, and the counsel of peace will be between the two offices.”’ 14 Now the crown will become a reminder in the temple of the Lord to Helem, Tobijah, Jedaiah and Hen the son of Zephaniah. 15 Those who are far off will come and build the temple of the Lord.” Then you will know that the Lord of hosts has sent me to you. And it will take place if you completely obey the Lord your God.
Zechariah 6:12-15
What a beautiful description of what Jesus did and continues to do! He is called “Branch”, because he will “branch out”. And this is how the building of the temple is described. He will “branch out” to build a temple, like the temple is a tree. Remember what Jesus said. “I am the vine, you are the branches” (John 15:5). And it goes on. Jesus will bear honor and rule on His throne, and He is then called a “priest on His throne, and the counsel of peace will be between the two offices”. Jesus is both priest and king.
Also, those who are “far off” will come and build the temple. This is exactly what we see happen in the New Testament.
But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, 15 by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, 16 and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity.
Ephesians 2:14-16
Do you see something else? Remember what it said about the two offices in Zechariah? The “counsel of peace” will exist between Jesus’ two offices of priest and king. And now, when talking about those “far off”, Paul speaks repeatedly of this bringing peace, removing the dividing wall that existed between those “far off”, the Gentiles, and the Jews.
This dividing wall language has direct application to the temple that existed in Jesus’ day. That temple was, in part, erected by the “law of commandments contained in ordinances”. That dividing wall, that temple, is gone, replaced by the true temple of God that is now on the earth, that Jesus is building, as Zechariah foretold. Jesus is building His church (Matt. 16:18).
I could say, and have said plenty, about this term for “ordinances” in verse 15, in direct response to Caleb’s arguments, showing that he is completely inconsistent in how he treats that text. You can see that here. https://youtu.be/0t-pc6Vr7t8?si=OxBXLu4g4ZmsxNPd&t=5237
That isn’t my main point now. My point is to show how beautifully the biblical Christian doctrine of the church as the temple of God fulfills so many of the details in Zechariah 6, much better than some speculative physical temple never mentioned again in the New Testament. I’ve demonstrated that these prophecies are impossible to take literally, as it leads to contradictions and theological dead-ends. Letting the New Testament guide our interpretation of what the Old Testament foretold is a far better practice than depending our own speculation and picking and choosing what parts of the prophecy are literal and what parts figurative.
Inability to Sacrifice and the Conclusion
I don’t have much to say in response to the section on the fact that we “can’t sacrifice”, other than this. Caleb argues that we’re in exile, like Daniel. The glaring difference, though, between us and Daniel, is that God sent prophets who told the people they were going into exile, where they were going, and for how long. That is how Daniel knew late in his life that the time was drawing near to go back.
No such prophecy exists for the church. Jesus said the temple would be destroyed. Everything else He said about His second coming had nothing to do with a new building in which more animals would be sacrificed.
That isn’t to say nothing at all was predicted about a temple, though. Other than the clear teaching that God’s people are the temple, there is a prediction of a future temple in the New Testament.
I saw no temple in it, for the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb are its temple.
Rev. 21:22
In the New Jerusalem, there is no temple, because God is the temple. We are truly united to God.
Much of Caleb’s concluding paragraphs do not add anything more, but repeat what I’ve already shown to be faulty up to this point. There is one statement, however, that I think should be addressed.
To assume the sacrificial system has been done away with assumes that it had to do with our sin on a spiritual level. It contends that it had something to do with our justification, but this is not the case. The sin sacrifices only dealt with the temporal elements that relate to our space and time here.
Hegg, pp. 13-14
I can unequivocally say that his first statement here is completely false. As I’ve shown, Scripture does not present the sacrifices of the temple as “physical” and the sacrifice of Christ as “spiritual”. It just doesn’t. Caleb has presented no text to show that this is the proper framework to see the sacrifices in. Rather, the sacrifices of the temple were earthly shadows and copies. The sacrifice of Christ is the real thing, encompassing all that came before, and extending it to eternity. It was truly once for all.
I showed, from Hebrews, that what the Levitical priests did, Jesus also did, but so much more (Heb. 7:27). I showed how the book of Hebrews repeatedly speaks of the replacement of the Levitical sacrifices with the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ. This is why the priesthood commandment was “set aside” (Heb. 7:18), those sacrifices were a “mere copy” (Heb. 9:23), they “would have ceased” (Heb. 10:2) if they could make anyone perfect, which now we are (Heb. 10:14). Because Jesus’ sacrifice can actually “take away” our sins, which the animal sacrifices couldn’t (Heb. 10:4), there is now forgiveness. And since there is forgiveness, there is “no longer any offering for sin (Heb. 10:18). This forgiveness is why, when Jesus comes a second time, it will be “without reference to sin” (Heb. 9:28). Until then, we now offer what we can, which is a “sacrifice of praise” (Heb. 13:15).
It would have been nice if the most clear, deep, concentrated biblical case for the relationship of the sacrifice of Christ to the Levitical sacrifices, Hebrews 7-10, would have been addressed. Caleb chose to ignore that bit, and really just write something that showed he wasn’t really listening in our conversation. Nothing he wrote here shows any self-reflection on his part from that conversation.
I do hope that he reads this one day, and that he really wrestles with what he finds here. I carry the same hope for all those caught in the false theology of the Torah movements.