Was Christianity Invented to Accord with Jewish Beliefs?

Christianity exists, and that fact calls for an explanation. Christians obviously believe that Christianity exists because it is true – there really was a historical Jesus who rose from the dead and commissioned His Church. Non-Christians have to look elsewhere to explain why Christianity is around. One such explanation received the attention of J.B. Sumner in the 19th Century:

But is it not a possible case, that the followers of Jesus, being disappointed by his death, and required to account for it, or to give up their purpose, and confess themselves deluded; should have struck out the idea of atonement, and affirmed that he died a sacrifice? Then having hit upon this explanation, they supported it as they could out of the institutions of their law, and the facts related in their history. (Sumner’s Evidence of Christianity, 103)

This post will go over Sumner’s argument against the view that the first Christians invented their religion based on the religious beliefs of Judaism. But before we get to that, we should ask ourselves why someone would propose this explanation in the first place.

Evidence for This Explanation

There are lots of parallels between the life and death of Jesus and accounts from Jewish history (Sumner gives an excellent list of them). When we think of God the Son laying down his life, we might be reminded of the story of Abraham and Isaac (Genesis 22). The cross and its promise of salvation might remind us of the serpents in the wilderness (Numbers 21). The death of Christ might bring to mind the passover and the importance of sacrifice in Judaism. Christ’s teaching fulfills the Mosaic law. The claim that Jesus is an intercessor on our behalf reminds us of the role of Jewish priests. The spilling of Christ’s blood reminds us of the significance of blood to the atonement of the soul within Judaism (Leviticus 27).

With so many parallels, it almost sounds reasonable to say that the first Christians would have been all too willing to invent their religion in accord with their prior religion after the death of their leader. They certainly had plenty of emotional motivation to avoid the belief that Jesus had really been defeated and killed, and their pre-existing religion gave them a way to say that their leader was victorious after all. So why not stick with this explanation?

Evidence Against This Explanation

Sumner gives a few reasons why the parallels between Christ and Jewish history should not lead us to think that the first Christians invented Christianity based on their Jewish beliefs.

The first reason has to do with the nature of the Mosaic law and how Jewish people viewed it. Jewish people took this law to be wholly complete. Jews thought the law was perfect, and by Christianity’s own accounts, Jesus’s audience never quite understood what He meant when He said he came to complete the law. If they thought the law was perfect, it is unlikely that a Jewish person would have concluded that Jesus made the law better if they were just trying to be consistent with their own pre-existing beliefs.

Moreover, Hebrews 7-10 gives a terrific example of an early Christian spelling out the parallels between Christ and Jewish history. The author does not write as though they take it for granted that any Jewish person would look at the account of Christ and His teaching and readily conclude that it is all a natural extension and completion of Judaism. Rather, the author writes to persuade the Jewish audience that Christianity has significant parallels with Judaism. This suggests that the first Christians were met with skepticism from Jewish people, and a Jewish group of people would have been very unlikely to just invent the religion based on their pre-existing beliefs.

What About Prophecy?

But what about the portions of the Old Testament which predict a coming Messiah? Couldn’t a group of Jewish people have looked to messianic prophecy and used it to confirm their hopes that Jesus had not been defeated?

It’s possible, but it also assumes that Jesus fit what the prophecies predicted. It could have just so happened to have been the case that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, that His coming should be announced, that He should have the characteristics predicted, and that he should die in a certain fashion. But it is extremely unlikely that Jesus would fit all of these characteristics by chance, and it is even more unlikely that he would fit them by chance and his followers would invent a religion that goes against their former religion after His death on a cross.

Conclusion and Further Reading

When we weigh explanations against one another, we should look for the explanation that most naturally explains the thing we are trying to explain. That Christianity is true explains why Christianity started, why it spread, and why it is still with us today. That Christianity is the result of grieving Jewish people looking to their past accounts and beliefs ignores the fact that Christianity is contrary to much of 1st century Judaism, and it also does not explain why Christianity spread from Judea to the rest of the world.

For more on this particular issue, see:

Saphir, Adolph. The Divine Unity of Scripture.

Spring, Gardiner. The Bible Not of Man.

Sumner, J.B. The Evidence of Christianity. Ch. IV.