The blood of animals never covered any sinner’s sins. Instead, they pointed forward to the once for all sacrifice that Christ would make for us. Although they did not know His name, all the Israelites who sacrificed and believed by faith that Yahweh had forgiven their sins were truly placing their faith in Christ. In this way, the animal sacrifices of the old covenant were more similar to our present taking of the Lord’s Supper than we might think. Both have no efficacy in and of themselves; rather, both point beyond themselves to Christ. Indeed, both were/are reminders.

Presently, in our study of the book of Exodus, we are considering the instructions for the building of the tabernacle that Yahweh gave to Moses in the span of forty days upon Sinai. As we have noted, the instructions began with the ark of the testimony, the most holy item that would reside in the Most Holy Place. It then moved outward to the table for the bread of the Presence and the golden lampstand, which would furnish the Holy Place. In the previous chapter, we moved outward yet again by considering the instructions for the tabernacle itself. That outward movement continues in our present chapter as we study the design of the bronze altar and the courtyard around the tabernacle in which it stood. As has been our pattern, we will consider the design and function of altar and the courtyard, and then we will conclude with how they are point us toward Christ.
The Bronze Altar // Verses 1-8
You shall make the altar of acacia wood, five cubits long and five cubits broad. The altar shall be square, and its height shall be three cubits. And you shall make horns for it on its four corners; its horns shall be of one piece with it, and you shall overlay it with bronze. You shall make pots for it to receive its ashes, and shovels and basins and forks and fire pans. You shall make all its utensils of bronze. You shall also make for it a grating, a network of bronze, and on the net you shall make four bronze rings at its four corners. And you shall set it under the ledge of the altar so that the net extends halfway down the altar. And you shall make poles for the altar, poles of acacia wood, and overlay them with bronze. And the poles shall be put through the rings, so that the poles are on the two sides of the altar when it is carried. You shall make it hollow, with boards. As it has been shown you on the mountain, so shall it be made.
These verses give us the description for how the bronze altar was to be built. Stuart notes:
Its top surface was thus four and a half feet high (“three cubits high”) off the ground and was a square seven and a half feet on each side (“five cubits long and five cubits wide”), providing a total of fifty-six and one-quarter feet of grilling area (minus whatever was taken up by the corner “horns” and any rim that may have surrounded the top, if either of these imposed upon the total surface of the top). (595)
Like the rest of the tabernacle, the altar needed to be portable, so it had loops and poles for carrying. It was also a hollow box, which, besides being necessary for building a fire, would also have made it much more maneuverable than if it were a solid cube.
As with the other pieces of furniture, it was to be built out of acacia wood, but unlike the items that actually belonged to the tabernacle itself, the altar would not be overlaid with gold but with bronze. This was for both a practical and theological purpose. Practically, gold is melted earlier than bronze, and the since the purpose of the altar was to burn sacrifices, bronze was a better metal to use than gold. Theologically, bronze being a less valuable metal represented being further away from the ark within the Most Holy Place.
The horns upon the corners of the altar likely served the practical function being place where the sacrificial animal could be bound while other preparations were made, for we read in Psalm 118:27: “The LORD is God, and he has made his light to shine upon us. Bind the festal sacrifice with cords, up to the horns of the altar!” However, they apparently took on the meaning of being a place of refuge, since both Adonijah and Joab fled from Solomon’s wrath by laying ahold of the horns of the altar.
Of course, the most important aspect of the altar was its use for burning the sacrifices that the Israelites would bring. As we discussed a few weeks ago, some of those sacrifices would be burned entirely, and some would only be roasted, have the fat burnt away, and then eaten. Yet regardless of the particular kind of sacrifice, Stuart notes that through these slaughtered animals:
God taught his people the basic principle of salvation from sin: something that God considers a substitute must die in my place so that I may live. Altar sacrifice was the primary way for this substitution to happen… By killing an animal, then cooking it on that grill in God’s presence (i.e., in front of the entrance to the tabernacle), and then eating it in God’s presence (symbolically sharing the meal with him), the Israelite worshiper learned over and over again the concept of substitutionary atonement and of covenant renewal. (594-595)
At least, it was supposed to reinforce that principle over and over again. Indeed, here is how Vern Poythress describes how a sacrifice was to be made:
In a typical case the process begins with the worshiper who brings an animal without defect to the priest. The worshiper has raised the animal himself or paid for it with his earnings, so that the animal represents a “sacrifice” in the modern sense of the word. It costs something to the worshiper, and a portion of the worshiper’s own life is identified with it. The worshiper lays his hand on the head of the animal, signifying his identification with it. He then kills the animal at the entranceway into the courtyard, signifying that the animals dies as a substitute for the worshiper.
From that point onward the priest takes over in performing the sacrificial actions. The intervention of the priest indicates that a specially holy person must perform the actions necessary to present the worshiper before God, even after the death of the animal. The priest takes some of the blood and sprinkles it on the side of the altar or on the horns of the altar…depending on the particular type of sacrifice… All of these actions constitute the permanent marking of the altar as testimony to the fact that the animal has died. (Cited in Ryken, Exodus, 817-818)
Each animal that an Israelite took from their field to slice its throat open before the bronze altar, screamed that “the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23). And as they placed their hand upon the animal’s head, they were to reflect that something innocent was taking their place. Because animals are not created in the image of God, they are not morally culpable as we are.
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by T. M. Suffield |
Friday, May 12, 2023
Putting aside that it’s easier to understand a text when you read it all, it is how they were written. Paul expected his letters to be read as a whole and for the church to hear them like this. There’s nothing wrong with reading shorter passages and expounding them—the Bible itself does this frequently—but if we do so without ever catching the whole then we are missing something we’re supposed to have.

A couple of weeks ago I ran an event in Birmingham called ‘Reading 2 Timothy‘, where we did exactly that: read the book of 2 Timothy over the course of a Saturday morning.
It’s a Bible study, which probably doesn’t seem that revolutionary. It probably isn’t that revolutionary, to be honest, but I’ve not seen it done like this elsewhere.
The aim is to read all of the book, within the timeframe we’ve given ourselves so that we can read it in context.
There are six reasons why that’s a good idea:
Context
When we read a particular passage in the context of the surrounding sentences, we understand get insight into what that particular passage does or doesn’t mean.
We can widen the same principle out to the book as a whole: when we read a passage in the context of the whole book we get insight into what it means.
Thread
But, more importantly, when we read books of the Bible as a whole we start to understand the thread of the argument they’re making. Most people I know struggle to grasp a sense of a book as a book, there are multiple reasons here, but one of them is that we read in an atomistic way. When we read as a whole, we can follow the story that’s laid out for us.
Structure
We also then get to ask questions like, “why did the author put this paragraph here” assuming that the structure of the book itself will teach us.
It’s also difficult to notice the literary artistry of a book without being able to read it through in a sitting (or in four gulps across a morning in this specific case).
Read More
Related Posts:

God heals relational wounds relationally. It is essential that pastors and ministry leaders be able to connect with others with whom they can experience this relational healing in trusted relationships. 

The betrayal of Jesus Christ is one of the most poignant and painful sufferings he endured. One of the very people he had invested in ended up being an agent of Satan. Jesus promised if he suffered and was hated, then we should expect the same. For pastors, this often shows up in the experience of ministry abandonment or betrayal by those in whom we’ve deeply invested. While our mission in church planting is not the same as that on the cross, the pain all people experience in betrayal and abandonment is no less real. Ministers are not exempted from this pain.
This pain is compounded when people leave over matters which seem insignificant in light of eternity. The relational experience of being left alone, betrayed, or abandoned can be some of the most painful a minister and church planter experiences. They can unearth profound relational problems from the church planters family of origin and can cause the ministry to want to throw in the towel. There are generally three types of abandonment or betrayal that people experience in ministry.[1]
Three Types of Abandonment or Betrayal in Ministry
There are those who think you’re crazy (Mark 3:21). The vision of planting a church can be hard to believe. This includes yourself sometimes as you want to believe what God can do but can struggle seeing how it can happen. Any time you lead others towards a new initiative, to start a new thing for God, there will be those who say you are crazy. If they said it of Christ, they will surely say it of you. Jesus’s own family believed he was crazy. It is easy to think that Jesus took this in stride but there is no doubt that being doubted by one’s own family is relationally painful.
When we planted The Well Church, there were pastors in our city who said we shouldn’t plant. There were Christians who said it would never work. Even some in our own families couldn’t understand why we would move to a place hostile to the gospel. The experience of our own families doubting the mission can cause church planters to wonder if it is really worth it.
While some will think you are crazy, there are others who say nice words but abandon you (Mark 14:72). Some people will speak kindly towards you and may even express their commitment to you. They will heap praises on the doctrinal clarity of your church. They will speak encouragingly of the direction of the ministry. But when push comes to shove, they will leave the church as soon as a better option comes up. This can make pastors become cynical quickly.
Read More
Related Posts: