Hebrews 11:17 says,

¹⁷ By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was offering up his only begotten son.

Isaac was a type of Christ and also a type of the body of Christ. Just as Isaac was offered up as an offering to God, so also the body of Christ shares in His sufferings. In Phil. 3:10 Paul calls this “the fellowship of His sufferings.”

In John 15:20 Jesus said,

²⁰ Remember the word that I said to you, “A slave is not greater than his master.” If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you; if they kept My word, they will keep yours also.

When Saul was persecuting the Church, Jesus stopped him on the road to Damascus and told him in Acts 9:4, 5,

⁴ … “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?” ⁵ And he said, “Who are You, Lord?” And He said, “I am Jesus whom you are persecuting.”

We see here that persecuting the body of Christ was the same as persecuting Jesus Himself. This was a life-changing experience and revelation to Saul, and he became a new creation, changing his name to Paul. Later, he wrote this in 1 Thess. 2:14, 15,

¹⁴ For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea, for you also endured the same sufferings at the hands of your own countrymen, even as they did from the Jews, ¹⁵ who both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out. They are not pleasing to God, but hostile to all men.

The Law of Sacrifice

The law commanded the Aaronic priests to offer up all sacrifices as well as to burn incense on the golden altar.

Lev. 1:5 says,

⁵ … Aaron’s sons the priests shall offer up the blood and sprinkle the blood around on the altar that is at the doorway of the tent of meeting.

Num. 3:10 adds,

¹⁰ So you shall appoint Aaron and his sons that they may keep their priesthood, but the layman who comes near shall be put to death.

This is repeated in Num. 18:7,

⁷ But you [Aaron] and your sons with you shall attend to your priesthood for everything concern-ing the altar and inside the veil, and you are to perform service. I am giving you the priesthood as a bestowed service, but the outsider who comes near shall be put to death.

Saul and Uzziah

We see two precedents in later years that confirm this law. King Saul sinned by offering up the sacrifice when Samuel was delayed. 1 Sam. 13:9 says,

⁹ So Saul said, “Bring to me the burnt offering and the peace offerings.” And he offered the burnt offering.

When Samuel arrived and discovered what Saul had done, we read in 1 Sam. 13:13, 14,

¹³ Samuel said to Saul, “You have acted foolishly; you have not kept the commandment of the Lord your God, which He commanded you, for now the Lord would have established your kingdom over Israel forever. ¹⁴ But now your kingdom shall not endure. The Lord has sought out for Himself a man after His own heart, and the Lord has appointed him as ruler over His people, because you have not kept what the Lord commanded you.”

Saul was a king, but not a king-priest (as David was). Therefore, Saul was not called to offer up sacrifices. He was, by law, a “layman” and an “outsider,” worthy of death. God did not prescribe the death penalty for Saul, but Saul’s kingdom became mortal (or temporary). This was similar to the death penalty imposed upon Adam for his sin.

The other biblical example is in the story of King Uzziah of Judah. 2 Chron. 26:4, 5 gives him a good report:

⁴ He did right in the sight of the Lord according to all that his father Amaziah had done. ⁵ He continued to seek God in the days of Zechariah, who had understanding through the vision of God; and as long as he sought the Lord, God prospered him.

Nonetheless, later he failed. 2 Chron. 26:16 says,

¹⁶ But when he became strong, his heart was so proud that he acted corruptly, and he was unfaithful to the Lord his God, for he entered the temple of the Lord to burn incense on the altar of incense.

Uzziah’s name means “Yahweh is my strength.” The root word is azaz, “to be strong.” Unfortunately, in his pride he began to rely upon his own strength, and “leprosy broke out on his forehead before the priests in the house of the Lord” (2 Chron. 26:19). Leprosy is a type of slow death, or mortality. Though God did not strike him dead on the spot, he received the death penalty in another manner.

These two precedents confirm the meaning of the law of priesthood in regard to those qualified to offer sacrifices.

Why is this important? Jesus was offered as a Sacrifice to God for the sin of the world (Eph. 5:2; 1 Cor. 5:7; Heb. 9:26; 10:10). If the Romans had actually crucified Jesus, then not only would the prophecies in the law be broken, but the sacrifice itself would have been invalid. Hence, if the Romans crucified Jesus, then we are yet in our sins.

In recent years great effort has been made to change the Scriptures and blame the Romans for crucifying Jesus. I cannot concede this point without helping to destroy the law and the prophets—as well as the validity of His sacrifice.

On the other hand, one must also look deeper into the issue, realizing that God Himself sent His Son into the world for this very purpose. Though the rejection and crucifixion was a gross violation of God’s will (thelema), it was most certainly part of the divine plan (boulema).

The Law of Sacrifice Fulfilled

When Abraham proved his willingness to offer up his only-begotten son, Isaac, Abraham was playing his role as a type of Father-God. Isaac was the son, a type of Christ. The details of the scene were envisioned in Isaiah 53 and expressed in Psalm 22. John 19:15-17 gives details:

¹⁵ … Pilate said to them, “Shall I crucify your King?” The chief priests answered, “We have no king but Caesar.” ¹⁶ So he [Pilate] handed Him over to them [the chief priests] to be crucified. ¹⁷ They took Jesus, therefore, and He went out, bearing His own cross, to the place called the Place of a Skull, which is called in Hebrew, Golgotha.

Pilate knew that Jesus was innocent and did all that he could to set Him free. But the chief priests knew that Pilate had a friend of Sejanus, who, amidst suspicions of conspiracy against the emperor Tiberius, was arrested and executed, along with his followers in October of 31 A.D.

Pilate escaped notice, because in 26 A.D. he had been appointed Procurator of Judea, where he served until 36 A.D. When Pilate refused to condemn an innocent man, which would have reflected badly on the Roman judicial system, the chief priests told him in John 19:12, “If you release this Man, you are no friend of Caesar.”

At this point, Pilate knew that he had been trapped. So we read in Matt. 27:24,

²⁴ When Pilate saw that he was accomplishing nothing, but rather that a riot was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd, saying, “I am innocent of this Man’s blood; see to that yourselves.”

Why did he wash his hands? What significance did this act have in view of the crowd? This was not a known Roman custom. It was, however, familiar to the people who demanded Jesus’ crucifixion. Very few Christians seem to know anything about this, because they have not studied the divine law. Pilate himself, however, had learned a few things about biblical law, including the law regarding expiation of a crime (Deut. 21:1-9).

This law appears in the context of an unsolved murder, where justice was not possible. The elders were to go to the scene and kill a heifer, publicly declaring,

⁷ … “Our hands did not shed this blood, nor did our eyes see it. ⁸ Forgive Your people Israel whom You have redeemed, O Lord, and do not place the guilt of innocent blood in the midst of Your people Israel.” And the bloodguiltiness shall be forgiven them. ⁹ So you shall remove the guilt of innocent blood from your midst….

Pilate knew that Jesus was innocent, but the chief priests were calling for His blood. Pilate fulfilled the law, though he alone seems to have benefited from this expiation. As for the people’s response, we read that extremely controversial statement in Matt. 27:25,

²⁵ And all the people said, “His blood shall be on us and on our children!”

This must be viewed in contrast to Pilate’s expiation. The people did not follow Pilate’s example, as required in the law. This is confirmed in the 29^th chapter of Acts, seen in the Sonnini Manuscript. It speaks of Paul’s final missionary journey to Spain and Britain.

Upon his return trip through Switzerland to Macedonia, he stopped at the mount where Pontius Pilate had committed suicide while in exile. Acts 29:22 says,

²² And a voice came out of heaven, saying, “Even Pilate hath escaped the wrath to come, for he washed his hands before the multitude at the blood shedding of the Lord Jesus.”

The full text of Acts 29 can be read in my Lessons from Church History, Vol. 1, pages 122-124.

We see, then, that the prophecy in the law of sacrifice was fulfilled in the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, whom John called “the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). Although the chief priests violated many laws in the process, they were the ones called to make the sacrifice.

To teach otherwise undermines the very legitimacy of that sacrifice.

God’s Plan of Expiation

Whereas the people calling for His crucifixion “esteemed Him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted” (Isaiah 53:4), we also read that “the Lord was pleased to crush Him, putting Him to grief” (Isaiah 53:10).

We must, therefore, view this plan on two levels. On the surface level, those who rejected Him sinned greatly by violating God’s will. Yet from the heavenly perspective of the divine plan, what men meant for evil, God meant for good. “He Himself bore the sin of many and interceded for the transgressors” (Isaiah 53:12). Those who crucified Him were among “the transgressors,” but yet God used this to pay for the sin of the whole world (1 John 2:2).

Again, we read in 1 John 4:10,

¹⁰ In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

For this reason, we ought not to be myopic in viewing the divine plan. Many Christians in later generations have called Jews “Christ-killers,” considering the act of their forefathers to be a simple murder. Others (especially in more recent years) have gone the other direction, attempting to absolve the Jews by unjustly blaming the Romans.

Neither view is correct; both are unbalanced. Because of the controversial nature of this topic, it may be wise to study it before this view becomes a crime in the West. Even now, we are nearing the point where to quote or even mention Matt. 27:25 is a criminal offense. Learn the laws of God before congress decides to usurp the authority to interpret or censor Scripture, thinking they do God a service.

Isaac as a Type of the Church

In his later years, Isaac was blind. Gen. 27:1 says,

¹ Now it came about, when Isaac was old and his eyes were too dim to see, that he called his older son Esau and said to him, “My son.” And he said to him, “Here I am.”

Isaac thought he would soon die, so he decided to pass the blessing (birthright) to Esau. But first, he instructed Esau to hunt venison for a celebratory meal. His mother, Rebekah, overheard this conversation, and she immediately instructed Esau’s twin brother, Jacob, to pretend to be Esau, thereby tricking Isaac into giving Jacob the blessing.

This was a classic case of stolen identity, made possible by Isaac’s blindness. The plan worked, although Isaac was suspicious. Yet he could not believe that Jacob would lie to him in such an important matter. So he blessed Jacob (Gen. 27:27-29).

Then Esau arrived with his venison and discovered that he had been preempted by his younger brother. He appealed to his father on account of the fraud, but Isaac could only give him a subordinate blessing (Gen. 27:39, 40). At that point, Isaac probably remembered the prophecy given to Rebekah during her pregnancy. Gen. 25:23 says,

²³ The Lord said to her, “Two nations are in your womb; and two peoples will be separated from your body; and one people shall be stronger than the other; and the older shall serve the younger.”

In other words, Jacob was to receive the birthright. Even so, the circumstances violated the rights of the firstborn, which could not be set aside without a lawful cause. Esau had not yet proved himself to be unworthy, and, as Moses later pointed out, the firstborn son could not be disinherited unless he proved to be a stubborn or rebellious son.

Deut. 21:15-17 says,

¹⁵ If a man has two wives, the one loved and the other unloved [or “hated” KJV], and both the loved and the unloved have borne him sons, if the firstborn son belongs to the unloved… ¹⁷ he shall acknowledge the firstborn, the son of the unloved, by giving him a double portion of all that he has, for he is the beginning of his strength; to him belongs the right of the firstborn.

This law is immediately followed by the law regarding “a stubborn and rebellious son” (Deut. 21:18). These two laws are linked purposely. It reminds us of the manner in which Reuben, the firstborn of Jacob, was disqualified (1 Chron. 5:1, 2).

In Mal. 1:2, 3 we see how God viewed Jacob and Esau:

² “I have loved you,” says the Lord. But you say, “How have You loved us?” Was not Esau Jacob’s brother?” declares the Lord, “yet I have loved Jacob; ³ but I have hated Esau…”

This does not justify Jacob’s lie to his blind father. In fact, by the law of the hated son, it provides Esau with legal protection of his rights. Isaac, in his blindness, passed on the birthright too soon; Jacob lied to get it; and Esau’s rights were violated. Isaac appears to have realized this when he blessed Esau, telling him in Gen. 27:40 KJV,

⁴⁰ … when thou shalt have the dominion, that thou shalt break his yoke from off thy neck.

The dominion mandate was the authority over the estate (ultimately, God’s Kingdom), which was to be used to bring forth fruit—the sons of God. It is clear that Isaac knew that Jacob would have to give “the dominion” back to Esau for a season in order to allow Esau to prove himself unworthy.

Jacob eventually gave the dominion (“scepter”) to his fourth son, Judah (Gen. 49:10). But Judah was disqualified for ten generations because his sons were born illegitimately (Gen. 38 with Deut. 23:2). David was the tenth generation, and his descendants ruled Jerusalem until the Babylonian captivity. When Judah returned, they often had trouble with Esau’s descendants (Edom, or Idumea).

Finally, however, Judah conquered Idumea and forced them to become Jews (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, XIII, ix, 1). At this point, Jacob’s descendants through Judah seemed to destroy Isaac’s promise to Esau. But God does not forget.

Isaac as a Type of the Blind Church

The spirit of Edom arose in the late 1800’s in the Zionist movement, and in 1948 “Jacob” gave the birthright back to Esau. Once again, this occurred through stolen identity. Just as Jacob had pretended to be Esau to steal the birthright, so also did Esau pretend to be Jacob in order to steal it back.

This was made possible because of Isaac’s blindness. In 1948, it was the blindness of the church that allowed this to happen. The church thought that the Zionist Jews were the biblical Israelites, not knowing the Scriptures or history. The prophecies of the restored house of Israel were directed toward the northern ten tribes who had been cast out and exiled to Assyria. Men attempted to explain the lost birthright by transferring it to Judah—as if the exile of Israel marked a permanent condition that could not be rectified.

The tribe of Judah was forbidden in the law to return to the old land while yet in a state of hostility toward Jesus Christ (Lev. 26:40-42). Hence, the Jews got around this prohibition by returning under the banner of Esau-Edom, to whom Isaac had promised “the dominion” (temporarily).

The name Israel had been given to Jacob by the angel, and Jacob passed this name down to Joseph’s sons (Gen. 48:16). Israel is the name given to the birthright holders. Hence, the Zionist Edomites took the name Israel. This was the judgment of God upon Jacob for his sin of deception.

It is noteworthy that this legal ruling in favor of Esau had to occur prior to the return of Christ, because in His second coming, Christ comes as Joseph to claim His birthright. For this reason, Rev. 19:13 says that He will come “clothed with a robe dipped in blood.” Joseph is the only man in Scripture whose robe was dipped in blood (Gen. 37:31).

The purpose of Christ’s first coming was to claim the scepter that was given to Judah in Gen. 48:10. The purpose of His second coming is to claim the birthright, the right to bring forth the sons of God in the fruitfulness mandate. For this reason, the birthright controversy had to be resolved prior to His second coming.

This is called “the controversy of Zion” (Isaiah 34:8 KJV), which, by context, is God’s legal case against Edom (Isaiah 34:5). This appears to be the final legal case in the divine court before the return of Christ.

At some point, the blind church will be healed and will then see its error in supporting Christian Zionism. However, this healing is unlikely prior to the destruction of modern Edom—the Zionist state and its capital, Jerusalem. That prophecy is found most clearly in Jer. 19:10, 11 and in the casting away of Hagar-Jerusalem (Gal. 4:25, 30).

When the dust settles, Christ will rule from the heavenly Jerusalem with His overcomer saints (Rev. 20:6).