Then Noah built an altar to the Lord and, taking some of all the clean animals and clean birds, he sacrificed burnt offerings on it. The Lord smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart, “Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood ...” (Genesis 8:20-21)
It is easy to read the many verses of the Old Testament that describe animal sacrifice and skim over them. After all, we aren't required to slaughter animals and burn them. Such practices seem foreign to us, and we relegate them to the domain of Indiana Jones movies and Eastern cults. Why should we focus on such barbaric parts of the Bible if we live in a post-resurrection age, anyway?
And yet, it is my view that sacrifical atonement is the centrepiece of any gathering of God's people—in both the Old and New Testaments. The purpose of the temple and the purpose of church is identical in this sense: it is a congregation of people, be they Israelites or modern-day Christians, to worship God and offer repentance for their sins against Him. Though the nature of these gatherings changed with the coming of the Messiah, Jesus Christ, some similarities still remain.
In the Old Testament, the Israelites were rarely without a meeting place with God. Adam and Eve were able to walk and talk with their Creator within the bounds of Eden before the Fall. Later, the patriarchs built altars for the Lord to sacrifice offerings and give thanks, particularly when a crisis had been averted or had passed (see Genesis 28:22 and Exodus 27:1-9). The Tower of Babel has been thought of as a temple, albeit one created out of pride and misguided self-confidence (McKelvey, 1980:1522). In comparison to Israel, other ancient cultures built single shrines to pay homage to pagan deities, perhaps because their gods did not reveal themselves wherever and whenever they chose, as the Lord of the Israelites did.
Achieving nationhood made the construction of altars redundant. During Israel's time in the wilderness, the tabernacle served as a symbol of God's presence amongst His chosen people, and so became a locus that unified the Israelites in their worship of the Lord. But once the promised land of Canaan had been secured, David believed that a temporary dwelling was no longer an appropriate place for the heavenly king of Israel (“Here I am, living in a palace of cedar, while the ark of God remains in a tent.” [2 Samuel 7:2]). King Solomon, David's son, eventually carried out David's desire to build God a house and constructed the most famous temple in the Bible.
The physical structure of Solomon's temple is described in detail in 1 Kings 6-7. It was built next to the king's palace to emphasise its cosmological and royal significance; Solomon may have been appointed king over Israel, but he was placed next to the absolute sovereign over all creation, who had a special headship over His chosen people. The building itself was divided into three parts: the 'ulam (portico), the hekal (main hall), and the debir (inner sanctum). The majority of the rituals described in Leviticus would have been performed in the 'ulam and the hekal. A large bronze Sea stood outside for ritual purification and cleansing, alongside an altar to burn offerings. Bread of the Presence, which signified consecration of labour to God, was laid out in the hekal. Israelites could burn offerings and be made clean again through these ceremonies.
However, no-one but the high priest could enter into the debir, the Most Holy Place. This was where the presence of the Lord dwelt. Therefore, this section of the temple was partitioned, probably by a large curtain. God is pure and sinless; the Israelites were not. Anyone who was not the high priest would most likely be struck down if they entered the debir. The high priest was even made to wear a robe lined with bells to give the other priests an audible indicator of whether or not he was alive. This may seem amusing to us, but the architectural feature of the curtain represented the division between man and God. The Israelites gathered at the temple so they might be cleansed from sin and give thanks to their Redeemer for His mercy, however this did not change the fact that a mediator was required for direct transactions with God. An individual Israelite, for example, could not cleanse himself, but required a priest to do it for him.
The construction of the temple marked a high point in the history of Israel. 1 Kings 8:66 describes how the people were joyful for all the good things the Lord had done for them. However, rebellion maintained its grip on the hearts of God's favoured people. One hundred years after its construction, King Ahaz desecrated the temple with images of pagan gods (2 Kings 16:10-17). Four hundred years after its construction, the temple was looted and demolished by King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon and many of the inhabitants of Jerusalem were carried away into exile.
Though it had been destroyed, the temple continued to live on as a symbol of God dwelling with men. In Ezekiel 40-43, Ezekiel describes a new temple—larger and grander than the old one. No Biblical or archaeological evidence suggests that this temple was ever built, so it seems that this passage is a reference to God's promise that the Israelites will be, one day, cleansed once and for all (Ezekiel 43:7).
Jesus' coming marked a fundamental reformation in the method by which interaction took place between humanity and God. Though much of Jesus' teaching took place in synagogues and temples, and he respected them as places where people and objects were consecrated to God, as one who is “greater than the temple” (Matthew 12:6), Jesus recognised that the temple in Jerusalem had become representative of Israel's repeated ignorance of God. This is illustrated in the famous incident where he clears out the “robbers” from his Father's house (Luke 19:41-46):
And when he drew near and saw the city, he wept over it, saying, “Would that you, even you, had known on this day the things that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. For the days will come upon you, when your enemies will set up a barricade around you and surround you and hem you in on every side and tear you down to the ground, you and your children within you. And they will not leave one stone upon another in you, because you did not know the time of your visitation.”
And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who sold, saying to them, “It is written, ‘My house shall be a house of prayer,’ but you have made it a den of robbers.”
Later, when he was before the Sanhedrin, Jesus confirmed that he would rebuild the destroyed temple in three days. John (2:21) tells us that he was referring to his body, signifying the abolition of the old ways and the heralding of the new.
Most of us can identify Jesus' sacrifice as being infinitely greater than the animal sacrifices offered throughout the Old Testament. It is significant that, unlike the various offerings that were to be performed repeatedly, Christ restores all humanity into relationship with God through his death and resurrection, symbolised in the powerful image of the temple curtain tearing upon his last breath. The hope of Israel, previously expressed in a longing, is now an emphatic reality in Jesus. No longer do we have to rely on the slaying of beasts to draw near to God as Jesus, our Passover Lamb, sacrificed himself once for all to atone for our sins (Hebrews 9:11-10:4). No longer do we require a mortal priest to intercede on our behalf as Jesus himself is our great High Priest who always stands before God to make intercession for us (Hebrews 7:23-25). And therefore, temples no longer have an intrinsic value to Christianity.
It is at this point that the post-resurrection church may be examined. The Greek word, ekklesia is often translated as “church” or “assembly” (consider Acts 19 where ekklesia is used in reference to civic gatherings). In this case, we may take “church” to be the gathering of God's people—the eschatological congregations such as those Paul wrote to in his epistles. Significantly, these congregations are comprised of both Jew and non-Jew; the dividing walls that were previously placed between Jew and Gentile, both in the temple and in social life, have now been abolished (Ephesians 2:11-22; see also 1 Thessalonians 1:9 where the pagan Thessalonians are commended from turning to God from idols upon hearing the gospel).
The gospel should underpin any church. The Kingdom of God is no longer something we have yet to experience; it is at hand in Christ (Mark 1:15) and it is present in us. Note that God's new kingdom is corporate, not individual, and is not depicted as being a passive force overruled by God's autocratic power. Church is comprised of fellow workers who are joined together by common faith and obedience to Christ, and the radical urgency of the gospel message. We are also the true Israel (Galatians 6:16), the “chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation” (1 Peter 2:9).
Note that the New Testament church is now focused both on the church community and on the external community, as opposed to the Old Testament temple practices that rarely involved Gentile outsiders. The great commission in Matthew commands us to make disciples of all nations. Bright describes this inclusiveness as the widening of the hourglass of the Biblical narrative: we begin with creation, and then gradually narrow down to Israel, then to the remnant, and finally, to Jesus. From Christ, the focus widens out—to the new Israel in the church, and through us, the entire world (Bright, 1953:232-3).
The Old Testament temple served as the focal point for the Israelite community in their worship. A church may also perform this function, but in a different way. The New Testament church had humble beginnings. The early Christians met mostly in people's homes and endured persuection from groups like the Romans and the Sadducees. Usually there was no grandiose building where all Christians gathered together. Indeed, there was no need for one. As the Kingdom of God was (and is!) present in the physical bodies of the people of the church, with God dwelling in them by the Spirit, it didn't matter where they met, so long as they were together. Teaching, prayer, worship through music and song, and encouragement doesn't require a particular physical structure, only community. The physical temple has now been replaced by the living stones of Christians, who are being built into God's spiritual house (1 Peter 2:4-5). To this end, we are urged to not give up meeting together, but encourage one another as the day of judgement approaches (Hebrews 10:25).
Human transaction with the divine is represented in the Old Testament temple and the New Testament church. The Israelites met in the temple to sacrifice and give thanks to God through the mediation of a high priest. Deviating from these restrictions brought swift punishment from God. However, in the New Testament, God's chosen people are no longer just Israelites, but Jews and Gentiles—people who accept Christ's offer of permanent redemption. There is no longer any need for repeated sacrifices or other ceremonies; to do so is to doubt the efficacy of Christ's atoning crucifixion and resurrection. I have not sought to map out what a typical temple gathering or church service should contain, but the principles behind both.
As we look forward to Christ's return, it is useful to examine the temple and how God's people interacted with their Redeemer. If nothing else, it should make us all the more thankful for the grace given to us. It is also helpful to look forward to what lies in store; in Revelation 21 where the New Jerusalem is described, it is significant that there is no temple in this city because God and the Lamb are its temple (verse 22). There, on that last day, we will be directly in contact with our Father, not separated from Him by a curtain or by our human sinfulness.
Bright, J. (1953) The Kingdom of God: The Biblical Concept and its Meaning for the Church. New York: Abingdon Press.
Bruce, F.F. (1958) The Spreading Flame: The Rise & Progress of Christianity from its First Beginnings to the Conversion of the English. Sydney: The Paternoster Press.
Bruce, F.F. (1963) Israel and the Nations: from the Exodus to the Fall of the Second Temple. Exeter: The Paternoster Press.
McKelvey, R.J. (1980) “Temple” entry in The Illustrated Bible Dictionary. Eds. J.D. Douglas et. al. Sydney: Hodder & Stoughton. Pp. 1522-32
Ben Atwood is a psychology student, currently enslaved to Macquarie University, Sydney. He has been self-diagnosed with an obsessive writing behaviour, which he believes can be channelled as both an interest and a way of encouraging other Christians. He is also a full-time Christian in Toongabbie. Go tell him how much you love him at tu quoque.
Comments
Considering the number of OT texts where God says that He takes no delight in burnt offerings it seems perverse to regard Jesus as the ultimate blood sacrifice. Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to regard the death of Jesus as marking once for all the end of futile blood sacrifices and the fulfilment of God’s wish to have no more of them?
Ken Goodwin on 08 November, 2004 11:27 AM
If you examine the context of the passages where God indicates that the burnt offerings don’t please Him, I think you’ll find that they don’t please Him because they are made irreverently - that is, Israel is merely sacrificing because it’s a ‘done thing’. In the OT, the sacrifice system was the way of atonement. In this sense, Jesus is the ultimate blood sacrifice, because it was His blood that removed our sin.
At the same time, His sacrifice does mark the end of the need to sacrifice to rid ourselves of sin.
Ben Atwood on 15 January, 2005 11:32 AM