John answered them, “I baptize with water, but among you stands one you do not know, even he who comes after me, the strap of whose sandal I am not worthy to untie.” These things took place in Bethany across the Jordan, where John was baptizing.

The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!”

(John 1.29-31)

Over the past two weeks’ articles, we’ve put considerable thought into sacrifices. We first considered the five major offerings of the Mosaic covenant, and then shifted to a New Testament perspective, to populate a similar list of offerings in the Christian covenant. But we left one out. It’s the greatest and most important sacrifice ever made—the “once for all” sacrifice of Jesus Christ (He 10.10).

This sacrifice is well known; for believers, it’s one of the few central tenets of our faith. But how well do we understand it? We don’t engage in ritual, substitutionary sacrifice on a daily basis, so we have no experience to guide us. There are no physical laws that bind God to a particular response to any sacrifice, let alone the unjust crucifixion of his own Son! The event itself is unrepeatable, so we have no way to replicate the results or further examine the mechanism by which it purifies. The only way to comprehend this sacrifice is to read it in the terms of the covenant under which it took place.

So what type of offering was Jesus’ sacrifice? Now we know there were several different kinds, and the Israelites were not supposed to make up their own rules and rituals willy-nilly. It must correspond to one of those Old Testament offerings. Due to John’s label for Christ, “the Lamb of God,” Christians often take note of his relationship to the Passover feast. In both cases the victim’s blood is prominent, God’s righteous wrath is averted, his chosen people are saved from slavery and death, and a new life begins. To top it all off, Jesus was crucified during this very feast (Jn 19.14-16), and the Apostle Paul describes Jesus as “our Passover lamb,” who “has been sacrificed” (1Co 5.7). Case closed, right?

Well, not quite. This is all valid, of course; but remember John’s description of the Lamb—that he “takes away the sin of the world” (Jn 1.29). Was that the purpose of the Passover lamb? No. Jesus is “the propitiation for our sins” (1Jn 2.2), but the Passover lamb is never described in such terms. There, the focus is remembrance of God’s favor to his chosen people. In fairness, propitiation occurs in very few English Old Testaments at all, but that doesn’t mean the concept was unknown. The author of Hebrews says the duty of a Mosaic high priest was “to make propitiation for the sins of the people” (2.17), using the word ἱλάσκομαι-hilaskŏmai-“make propitiation.” The Old Testament equivalent is atonement, which translates several Hebrew words that were later rendered in the Greek Septuagint version using several Greek words, all sharing that ἱλασ- (hilas-) root. In the first few books, these words generally refer to the mercy seat—the elaborately decorated lid for the ark of the covenant, which served as an earthly analog for God’s throne. In fact, the Greek word translated propitiation in the New Testament also appears in Hebrews 9.5, “Above [the ark] were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat.” But in the Old Testament, over time it was associated with the mercy more than the seat, and thence gained the sense, “forgiveness,” “reconciliation,” or “atonement.” This is propitiation—the means of reconciling.

One of Israel’s most important holidays was the Day of Atonement. The high priest’s chief responsibility that day was to perform two s n offerings—one for his own sins, the other for the sins of the people. The sin offering, as we learned recently, was the only one of the five major offerings partly conducted within the tabernacle rather than its courtyard; and those offered on the Day of Atonement were the only ones performed in the most holy place, where the blood was sprinkled before—appropriately—the mercy seat.

But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.

(Hebrews 9.11-12)

Jesus functioned—in terms of the Mosaic covenant—as the perfect sin offering, as if on the annual Day of Atonement, but needing no repetition. That covers the blood; but

the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the holy places by the high priest as a sacrifice for sin are burned outside the camp. So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood.

(Hebrews 13.11-12)

This is about the sin offering specifically, and highlights Jesus’ perfect fulfillment of the Mosaic covenant. But it doesn’t end there!

Therefore let us go to him outside the camp and bear the reproach he endured.

(Hebrews 13.13)

The final exhortation is to join Jesus—not in literally becoming the same type of offering, which is unnecessary and imposdsible. Rather because of his sin offering, “we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus” (10.19), and can set about the priestly work for which he ordained us.

Through him then let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that acknowledge his name. Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God.

(Hebrews 13.15-16)

Jeremy Nettles

As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For it stands in Scripture:

        “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone,

        a cornerstone chosen and precious,

        and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”

(1 Peter 2.4-6)

In last week’s article, we looked at a brief rundown of the five major offerings catalogued in the opening chapters of Leviticus. The central point was that, although it’s tempting to put all sacrifices in the same basket, there were actually several categories with meaningful differences—not only in the materials that constituted the offering, but in the method and purpose of each offering.

This suggested a New Testament application, that we should use our varied gifts and talents, and recognize that such use mirrors the varied sacrifices of God’s covenant with Israel. But we had no need to pore over the Old Testament to discover this insight—we’re told about this plainly, in our own covenant with Christ!

Through him then let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that acknowledge his name. Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God.

(Hebrews 13.15-16)

Three distinct offerings are mentioned here: our vocal praises to God, our good deeds for others, and—what is similar but not identical—our sharing of material blessings with others.

The Fruit of Lips

The first set may also be subdivided. Even in the Old Testament prayers were associated with sacrifice.

Let my prayer be counted as incense before you,

and the lifting up of my hands as the evening sacrifice!

(Psalm 141.2)

But in addition to the nation’s collective incense and daily burnt offerings, praise is compared to an individual’s freewill offering, even in the Israelite context!

Accept my freewill offerings of praise, O Lord,

and teach me your rules.

(Psalm 119.108)

These can take the form of direct prayers—spoken aloud or silently in the heart—or the singing of “psalms and hymns and spiritual songs” (Ep 5.19, Co 3.16). It even includes publicly confessing Jesus—he used similar language, when he promised to claim before his Father “everyone who acknowledges [him] before men” (Mt 10.32).

Do Good

The next category seems obvious, and yet it receives surprisingly little attention. The American culture so emphasizes economic prowess that we often fail to recognize opportunities to do good by other methods than giving money. We’re coming to that shortly, but first, consider the countless other ways to do a good deed! It always costs something, but it need not be monetary, for it to matter! In fact, very often the “acts of mercy” (Ro 12.8) that are most appreciated are paid in time and discomfort, rather than dollars and cents. Helping a neighbor with yard work, cleaning an elderly brother’s house for him, sharing your expertise, or even just taking deliberate notice of someone who is often ignored or neglected, are not only praiseworthy good deeds and expressions of love for a neighbor; they are also “sacrifices…pleasing to God” (He 13.16)!

Share What You Have

This one isn’t such a challenge for many modern, Western Christians. We live in a prosperous time and place, but both in our own communities and across the world, there are untold numbers of people—including Christians—living in poverty and great need. Like the “rich people” Jesus observed contributing “large sums” to the temple treasury (Mk 12.41), many Christians have ample opportunity to share with others “out of their abundance” (v44)—and that’s wonderful!  This could be direct financial help to a brother, a neighbor, or a stranger. It could be your contribution to the church, too. In the same context where Paul discussed his plans to bring “aid to the saints” in Jerusalem (Ro 15.25), he wrote of his “priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable,” (v16), including these monetary gifts. This offering also includes the narrower sort of help churches and individuals provide to those who preach the gospel for a living. This Paul elsewhere called “a fragrant offering, a sacrifice acceptable and pleasing to God” (Php 4.18). These should not be the Christian’s only sacrifices, but neither should they be ignored.

The Final Sacrifice

This list is hardly exhaustive, but it has given us the opportunity to examine a handful of the spiritual sacrifices God calls his people to make today. One more should be included here—one that, like the incense offering mentioned above, has an Old Testament comparison, but was not covered in our examination of the five major offerings in Leviticus 1-7. A drink offering was required alongside many of the Israelites’ sacrifices, generally consisting of wine and poured atop the other sacrifice already burning on the altar. Considering the strong, visual resemblance between wine and blood, perhaps you can see why Paul described his potential martyrdom thus:

Even if I am to be poured out as a drink offering upon the sacrificial offering of your faith, I am glad and rejoice with you all.

(Philippians 2.17)

Jeremy Nettles

Then Aaron lifted up his hands toward the people and blessed them, and he came down from offering the sin offering and the burnt offering and the peace offerings. And Moses and Aaron went into the tent of meeting, and when they came out they blessed the people, and the glory of the Lord appeared to all the people.

(Leviticus 9.22-23)

It’s easy to remember that Moses’ brother Aaron was Israel’s first high priest, in charge of the sacrifices in the tabernacle. What’s harder to recall, or even understand in the first place, is that both the priests and the nation as a whole were responsible for a variety of different types of sacrifice, with distinct purposes. The first seven chapters of Leviticus present five major offerings.

Burnt Offering

When you think of an Old Testament sacrifice, this generic sacrifice is probably what comes to mind. It could be taken from the cattle, sheep, or goats. After selecting “a male without blemish” (Le 1.3) the Israelite was to bring his offering into the courtyard of the tabernacle, “lay his hand on the head” of the animal (v4), and then “kill it” (v11). Priests were to collect the animal’s blood and splash it against the sides of the altar, while the offerer processed the carcass for burning.

There’s a set of alternative rules for birds, but with the same result: “a food offering with a pleasing aroma to the Lord” (v17). In the case of stock animals, the hide was to go to the officiating priest (7.8), but the rest of the animal was to be burned up on the altar. This type of sacrifice was done daily and at feasts on behalf of the nation, but individuals could also bring burnt offerings of their own free will, or to pay vows.

Grain Offering

This is likewise called “a food offering to the Lord” (Le 2.16), but consists of the produce of the ground, rather than an animal. That’s not the only difference, though. This one typically accompanied a burnt offering (cf. Nu 28.31) or a peace offering (cf. Nu 6.17), and served to supplement that animal sacrifice. It could be offered in the form of flour, or as baked, unleavened loaves. Unlike the burnt offering, only a small portion—“a handful” (Le 6.15)—was to be burned on the altar. The rest was given to the priests, to eat (v16).

Peace Offering

This one starts out much like the burnt offering, except that the animal could be “male or female” (Le 3.1). The blood was to be drained and splashed as before (v2), and a few select portions burned on the altar. What to do with the rest of the meat?

And the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings for thanksgiving shall be eaten on the day of his offering. He shall not leave any of it until the morning.

(Leviticus 7.15)

“His” and “he” in this verse both refer to the one who brought the offering. He is to make sure it’s all eaten by the next morning! Now, imagine an Israelite who brings “an animal from the herd” (3.1)—a cow—and you’ll see a problem! Clearly he is not expected to eat all that meat alone. A portion is allotted to the priests (vv31-32), but it’s the offerer’s job to make sure the rest is eaten or destroyed! The rule said the remainder of the meat must “be eaten”; it did not say by whom! This fosters generosity and sharing in a communal meal.

Sin Offering

The section on sin offerings is more than three times the length of any other. As the name suggests, this offering was intended to atone for sin. There are specific regulations for sin offerings made by priests, the whole nation, a leader, and a common person, for the last two of whom affordable alternatives to a bull are permitted. Their offerings were performed entirely in the courtyard, around the altar of burnt offering; but those of the nation and of priests were accomplished partly within the tabernacle itself, using the altar of incense (Le 4.7 & 16). The meat from the common people’s and leaders’ sin offerings could be eaten by “every male among the priests” (6.29), but the meat from the offerings of priests and the nation as a whole was to be taken “outside the camp to a clean place” and “burned up” (4.12).

Guilt Offering

This offering is basically an extension of the sin offering, when tangible damage was done, requiring “restitution” (Le 5.16). Divided into subsections on “the holy things of the Lord” (v15), harm done in ignorance (cf. v17), and loss inflicted on a “neighbor” (6.2), this offering consisted of the actual monetary amount plus one-fifth in damages (5.16), as well as “a ram without blemish out of the flock, or its equivalent” in money (6.6). The meat from the animal was to be treated “just like the sin offering,” given to the “priest who makes atonement with it” (7.7).

§

This is the law of the burnt offering, of the grain offering, of the sin offering, of the guilt offering, of the ordination offering, and of the peace offering, which the Lord commanded Moses on Mount Sinai, on the day that he commanded the people of Israel to bring their offerings to the Lord, in the wilderness of Sinai.

(Leviticus 7.37-38)

We don’t live under the same scheme of ritual sacrifice, so we tend to lump them all together. But the differences show us that there was a great variety of ways to render service to God. This is still true today.

Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, in proportion to our faith; if service, in our serving; the one who teaches, in his teaching; the one who exhorts, in his exhortation; the one who contributes, in generosity; the one who leads, with zeal; the one who does acts of mercy, with cheerfulness.

(Romans 12.6-8)

Jeremy Nettles

I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet saying, “Write what you see in a book and send it to the seven churches, to Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Pergamum and to Thyatira and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to Laodicea.”

(Revelation 1.10-13)

The Apostle John was given this commission by Jesus, and the resulting book has become the most difficult and contentious book in the Bible. But its beginning is straightforward, and contains valuable lessons for us.

Ephesus

Years before, Paul told the Ephesian elders,

“I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things…”

(Acts 20.29-30)

They took the warning to heart! Jesus now tells them, “you cannot bear with those who are evil, but have tested” and found out the false teachers (Re 1.2). This is a great success story! But at what cost? “I have this against you, that you have abandoned the love you had at first” (v4). Don’t ignore one of God’s commandments, to idolize another.

Smyrna

This church stands out as one of two on this list to encounter no rebuke. They’d suffered much earthly tribulation already, between the pagan surroundings and the local Jews, whose hatred of Christ and his followers made them “a synagogue of Satan” (Re 2.9). Jesus was pleased with their faithfulness, but warned them, trials were about to get worse. His instruction is as straightforward as it is timeless: “Be faithful unto death, and I will give you the crown of life” (v10).

Pergamum

The Lord was pleased, overall, with the Christians at Pergamum. He praised them because they “did not deny my faith even in the days of Antipas,” a martyr (Re 2.13). Yet he had complaints. Some in this church subscribed to “the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel” (v14a). It’s not obvious what this teaching was, but in light of its association to idolatry and fornication (v14b), as well as the incident mentioned (cf. Nu 3.16), it seems to have involved a perverse notion that Christ endorsed sexual depravity. While pleased his name is preached, Jesus does not want it tied with this behavior! He tells the church, “Therefore repent” (v16).

Thyatira

The story here is very similar to that in the previous section. This should be no surprise, since Thyatira is only thirty or so miles from Pergamum. While ascribed to another Old Testament figure, “Jezebel” (Re 2.20), rather than Balaam, the heresy at Thyatira is effectively identical. Jesus tells those who haven’t been seduced to “hold fast what you have until I come” (v25) and tells those led astray that temporal punishment is swiftly approaching, “unless they repent” (v21). This should remind us that the same, tired, old heresies can be repackaged to appear fresh, unique, and enticing. Don’t be fooled!

Sardis

“I know your works. You have the reputation of being alive, but you are dead. Wake up, and strengthen what remains and is about to die, for I have not found your works complete in the sight of my God.”

(Revelation 3.1-2)

This city was situated on steep cliffs and considered the best fortified in the ancient world; indeed, it was only occasionally conquered. In two instances, both several centuries before John wrote Revelation, it had fallen due to complacency among the rank and file. Of these, the more compelling story took place in 547 BC, when Cyrus the Great took the city easily. A soldier inside the citadel accidentally dropped his helmet over the wall and then climbed down the wall and cliff to retrieve it, not realizing he was seen by the Persian forces to whom he unwittingly betrayed the surprisingly easy and ill-guarded back way into the city. Jesus’ point is that the city’s Christians are showing a similar lack of awareness and need to keep a better watch on their own souls! Many today need to hear this same admonition.

Philedelphia

“Because you have kept my word about patient endurance, I will keep you from the hour of trial that is coming on the whole world, to try those who dwell on the earth.”

(Revelation 3.10)

Despite what we might have thought, Jesus is not just looking for something to nitpick about each of these churches. Surely he could have come up with some shortcomings of the Christians at Philadelphia; but he’s not out to get us! Although “we all stumble in many ways” (Ja 3.2), it is within our grasp to be faithful to Christ and receive his blessing.

Laodicea

The last church on the list gets the harshest rebuke. Even “dead” Sardis wasn’t told, like Laodicea, “I will spit you out of my mouth” (Re 3.16). The problem in this church wasn’t so much complacency, as arrogance! Despite lacking any true zeal for the Lord, their attitude was, “I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing” (v17). How wrong they were! If we forget how badly we still need Jesus, we make ourselves repulsive to him.

§

These messages vary greatly, depending on each church’s situation and deeds. In broad terms, we all need to hear the same gospel; but its particular application differs, as we’ve seen. If Jesus were to send a letter to your church, what do you think he would say? Therefore, what should you be busy doing?

He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.

(Revelation 2.7, 11, 17, 29; 3.6, 13, 22)

Jeremy Nettles

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith.

(1 Timothy 5.20-21, KJV)

Even in childhood I loved science, so it was alarming to find God condemning it. It didn’t help that I only read from the King James Version, and foolishly thought other versions like the New American Standard, New International, or even the New King James, were dumbed down Bibles for people too stupid to understand the real word of God. I grew up and realized how ridiculous that was, and was relieved to reconcile science with faith through better translations such as, “contradictions of what is falsely called ‘knowledge’” (v20). That’s it, the problem isn’t science! The problem is when people think they know something, but really don’t.

This was further explained by the etymology of science, which comes from the Latin scio, meaning “I know.” But later still, I realized that—although for woefully wrong reasons—my childish interpretation of this passage hadn’t been all that far off the mark.

Take, for example, the recent history of teaching kids how to read. The traditional method was to sound out words, one letter at a time; but in the 80s and 90s it was widely replaced with a new style, “cueing.” We can decipher all sorts of nonsense, as long as we have sufficient contextual cues.

Do yuo uednratnsd tihs snetecne?

You probably didn’t have much trouble with it. As long as the first letter is in the right place (and ideally the last one), you can guess what jumbled words are supposed to say pretty well. I’d heard of kids reading this way, and thought it was just laziness—a failure to apply the lessons given by teachers. But no, cueing was the accepted institutional method to teach reading, for the last several decades! I don’t remember being subjected to this drivel myself, but my mother had taught me to read before I entered kindergarten, so I daydreamed (or read) through those lessons.

Yet I’ve also heard of several peers who reached 3^rd or 4^th grade, at which point their parents had to re-teach them how to read, one letter at a time, because this newfangled curriculum was so terrible. How did this happen? Well, a language scientist named Ken Goodman formulated a theory based on his research, and other scientists like Marie Clay and Lucy Calkins developed curricula based on that theory and their own related research. These scientists had concluded that cueing was a better way to teach reading. Despite every tradition reaching back to the invention of writing around 3,000 BC, modern science had found a better way!

Of course, literacy plummeted. I could bore you with statistics, but for a more visceral demonstration, read a children’s book from the mid-20th century or before—say, C.S. Lewis’ Chronicles of Narnia, Orwell’s Animal Farm, R.L. Stevenson’s Treasure Island, or Kipling’s Jungle Book. All of these were aimed at upper grade school aged children, and you’ll probably find them more difficult than most adult-oriented literature produced in the past twenty years. It’s not just outdated diction. The vocabulary was larger, the sentences longer and more complex.

Eventually people started noticing this. Other scientists tried to raise the alarm, but nothing happened, until covid lockdowns put parents in the same room as their kids during Zoom school. Parents were shocked, and raised a fuss, finally creating enough momentum to legislate this trash out of most classrooms. A more scientific approach is becoming more common. What is that more scientific approach? It’s the same one people used ever since the invention of writing, until science messed everything up in the first place.

What’s the point of this little story? Simply that a generation of scientists rejected the wisdom of their forebears, and made a rotten mess of the very thing they promised to fix. Parents—representatives of tradition—saw what was going on, and exercised common sense to diagnose the problem and fix it; and then it was proclaimed that science had won out over ignorance! How absurd! Real science and knowledge are wonderful! But many people have rejected God, and pledged their devotion to science instead. By its very nature, science is a process of trial and error, slowly uncovering the truth; yet whatever new ideas scientists proclaim are immediately accepted by those who have set up science as an idol to replace God. Scientists blunder, and in time are corrected; in the meantime,  great mobs are led into folly. Often these idolaters will mock those who disagree, calling them stupid. When the science comes back around to proclaim what the holdouts always knew, the idolaters still  mock them for not having previously believed what they themselves now acknowledge to be false—if science itself was wrong, why should I be embarrassed to have been likewise mistaken?

These idolaters worship a god that can contradict itself with impunity and fail repeatedly without losing its worshipers’ trust. It deserves the same contempt Elijah had for Ba’al and his worshipers.

“Cry aloud, for he is a god. Either he is musing, or he is relieving himself, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and must be awakened.”

(1 Kings 18.27)

Knowledge is wonderful, and science has its place; but they are tools to be wielded, not gods to be worshipped. Worship the Lord,

who made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, who keeps faith forever…

(Psalm 146.6)

Jeremy Nettles