Sacrifice of Noah

PART 2: What’s the Big Idea?

[NOTE: This series of posts expresses and expands on one sermon at The Meeting House – part 4 of our Origins series, called East of Eden. To hear that sermon, please go here.]

Now I’ve done it. I’ve become so excited about researching and writing on this topic that I have to repent of my previous commitment to keep this series to only four parts. For now, here’s the plan: I’m just going to keep posting on this topic until I stop posting on this topic. (Genius.) So, better get to it…

So what’s the big idea?

Here is the thesis of this series, the “big idea” that makes a world of difference if it is true: Religious sacrifice was never needed nor invented by God. Rather, ritual sacrifice is our human invention that God accommodates and uses for a season, and then eventually enters and ends through Jesus.

As we saw in the last post, in Matthew 19 Jesus sends us back into the Hebrew Scriptures to examine what God meant when he said:

For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.
(Hosea 6:6)

We also looked at other passages where King David says God never wanted sacrifices (e.g., Psalm 40:6; 51:15-17). And yet, in the Bible God himself commands lots of sacrifices, especially in the book of Leviticus. So which is it? Or is it possible that God could actively command something that he doesn’t really want?

The answer is, yes. And we have plenty of examples of this, so much so that the phenomenon has its own name: the principle of accommodation. I’m going to use this post to help us nail this idea down. Unless we clearly see and savour in Scripture how God uses the principle of accommodation, the rest of what we have to say in this series won’t make much sense. So, let’s dig in…

The principle of accommodation

To begin with, the principle of accommodation is often applied to language itself. All verbal and written revelation from God is an example of God accommodating human language and ideas and concepts in order to communicate clearly with us. God meets us where we’re at, using language and metaphors and imagery that is drawn from our own experience in order to communicate truth to us in a way that makes sense in our time and space.

We have no reason to believe that the original biblical languages of Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic are the languages of Heaven. The Bible is an example of God’s accommodation to human ways of communicating.

When Jesus says the kingdom of God is like “a mustard seed, which is the smallest of all seeds on earth” (Mark 4:31), Jesus was not speaking from the standpoint of divine omniscience (since this statement on the surface is patently false) but he was accommodating the knowledge of his day.

What I find most fascinating is that the Bible goes on to record instances of God adopting and using human desires and ideas that he himself finds repulsive, in order to meet us where we are at in communicating important truth.

Examples of God’s accommodation to human desires

1. Kings

The Bible tells us that God originally designed Israel to function as a nation with God alone as their king, speaking through prophets. But at some point, the people of Israel decided they wanted a human king to rule over them, so they could be like the other nations around them. The prophet at that time, Samuel, took this as a kind of personal rejection of his role representing God to the people. But God responded to Samuel:

Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king.
~ God to Samuel (1 Samuel 8:7)

God says that this is not a matter of people rejecting Samuel as their prophet as much as it is a matter of people rejecting God as their king! God takes this demand of the people as personal rejection of his rulership. This is serious corporate sin. And yet, God says that Samuel should listen to the people, and later makes it explicit – Samuel should represent God by appointing Israel’s first king.

Now here’s the thing: if you were to parachute into a later part of the biblical narrative without context, you would think that God is really into Israel having kings. God appoints and anoints generations of kings through the prophets. That’s because – and this is key – once God accommodates a human desire or practice, God doesn’t pout about it. God makes full use of this new direction in his relationship with his people. He adopts the new practice as though it were his own, even though it has sinful origins.

In fact, mind-blowing as it is, God always knew this would happen! And God already had plans in place to partner with Israel through their (sinful) desire to have earthly kings! Way back in Deuteronomy, hundreds of years before Israel would (against God’s better judgement) demand their first king, God says through Moses:

When you enter the land the Lord your God is giving you and have taken possession of it and settled in it, and you say, “Let us set a king over us like all the nations around us,” be sure to appoint over you a king the Lord your God chooses.
(Deuteronomy 7:14-15)

Wow. This is important because sometimes Christians will argue that animal sacrifices cannot be an example of divine accommodation because God had, before the foundations of the world, always planned for the sacrifice of Christ (see Acts 2:23; 1 Peter 1:20; Revelation 13:8), and animal sacrifices prefigured the sacrifice of Christ. This means that God always knew and planned for the death of Jesus, and therefore always knew and planned for animal sacrifice to point to Jesus. This is true, but as Deuteronomy 7 shows us, just because God knows something is going to happen in the future and has an advance plan for it doesn’t mean it was his initial and ideal will. Yes, God planned for the sacrifice of Jesus because God knew we would sin, but we do not say that God’s will is or ever was that humans should sin. Likewise, God always knew Israel would reject his kingship in favour of an earthly king, and God had a plan for that, but this doesn’t mean that it was always God’s will for Israel to reject him. God always had a plan to use sacrifice for our salvation, just as he had a plan to use kings for Israel’s blessing – but neither was God’s ideal.

Just because God plans for something doesn’t mean it isn’t an example of divine accommodation, because God can plan for accommodation! Whether it is Israel clamoring for a king, or the Romans crucifying Jesus, God is in the business of redeeming rather than rejecting some of the worst ideas people come up with.

2. Temple

At the time of Jesus, the Jerusalem temple was at the centre of the religion of Israel. When it was built by Solomon, God blessed it with his holy presence (2 Chronicles 5:13-14). Later God called the temple “my house of prayer” (Isaiah 56:7) and when Jesus was a child he called it “my father’s house” (Luke 2:49). When he grew up, Jesus was passionate for the purity of the temple, and said it should be “a house of prayer for all nations” (Mark 11:17).

So, you would think that the temple was God’s idea right? Not a chance. In fact, when King David first proposed the idea to God, God reminded David that this was something he had never asked for (see 2 Samuel 7). God had already given instructions to Moses to build a tabernacle, or a special holy tent. It seems that God preferred the symbolism of a tent over a temple – God was mobile, on the move, ready to meet with us wherever we went, and not locked down to a single location, like a fixed temple might suggest. But God acquiesced and incorporated David’s desire to built him a temple into God’s own plans. Once again we see that God redeems rather than rejects our faulty human ideas.

3. Divorce

In the Torah (Deuteronomy 24), God gives instructions about divorce. When religious leaders ask Jesus about this in Matthew 19, Jesus responds saying that God allowed for divorce because of human hard-heartedness. In other words, divorce law in Deuteronomy is an example of God accommodating human stubbornness. As an aside, if Jesus is calling his followers away from the hard-hearted approach to life revealed in the Law, he must be offering us a heart-softening, morally empowering alternative. And that’s the Holy Spirit, made available to everyone in the New Covenant.

Besides these examples, we could add things like polygamy, patriarchy, war, and even eating meat. Maybe you can think of more. In all of these cases, God accommodates and uses things for our good and his glory that were never part of his ideal will.

The principle of accommodation is rooted in the fact that God made humankind in his image and likeness. We were designed to be people not pets, genuine partners not manipulated props. And God always honours his own image in us, taking our desires into account in how the future unfolds. This is real synergistic friendship.

Now one last example…

4. Slavery

We may wish it were otherwise, but in both the Old and New Testaments of the Bible, God accommodates slavery. God makes room for the cultural practice and even offers governing rules to minimize the damage and degradation of slavery.

Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
(Leviticus 25:44-46)

Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven.
(Colossians 4:1)

And yet, even with slavery-affirming passages like the above, we know enough from Scripture to conclude that slavery is not part of God’s ideal for human flourishing.

The Bible begins by telling us that every human being is made in the image and likeness of God. There are no levels of value within humankind, not according to gender, to race, or social status. Jesus affirms this in how he relates to “sinners” and social outcasts, treating them with high honour. And the New Covenant community lived out their faith in churches, relational family-styled communities, where slaves and slave owners would worship side by side as brothers and sisters. Over time, this alternative-culture of the Church would plant the seeds for the end of slavery (even if, we must admit, it took the Church far too long to get the memo).

So here we have a practice that is woven into the Torah itself, the very commands of God (e.g., Leviticus 25), and yet all Christians today would agree that slavery was never and is not now God’s ideal will for humankind. Instead, God’s way of relating to slavery in the Bible is what we could call a “harm reduction model”.

A Harm Reduction Model

If you were to walk into a safe-injection site funded by the Canadian government, without context you might think that the government of Canada desires that more and more people become drug addicted. But you would be wrong. The safe-injection sites are designed to help manage the damage and reduce the harm of drug use. This, I believe, is why we have the Law of Moses filled with its many instructions about everything from slavery to sacrifice.

If this is true, then we should see a paper trail in Scripture, and that’s exactly what we find. We have already seen that the later prophets, King David himself, and the author of Hebrews declare that God never wanted sacrifice. And we should also expect to find in the Bible the idea of sacrifice initiated first by humans rather than God – something we’ll examine in future posts in this series.

Sacrifice as Accommodation

Before we wrap up this post, let’s review what we know so far.

We have established that God has a pattern of embracing and using human inventions with complete investment, as though they were his own. That is, some direct commands of God in the Bible are not God’s ideal but God’s temporary accommodation of human ideals. And there is good reason to believe that this is the explanation behind the idea of sacrifice in the Bible. Like with Israel’s kings, God redeemed rather than rejected this very human idea.

To paraphrase Jesus in Matthew 19, God permitted us to make sacrifices because our hearts were hard. But it was not intended to be that way from the beginning.

In our last post we looked at how the author of the book of Hebrews quotes Psalm 40:6 from the Septuagint and comments:

“Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them”—though they were offered in accordance with the law.
(Hebrews 10:8)

This is significant. God was not pleased with the very sacrifices God himself was commanding in the Law of Moses. I don’t think it could be stated any more clearly.

This principle of accommodation answers so many questions, and raises so many more! And we will get to some of those questions in future posts. For now, let me thank you for tracking along with this blog series. I’m looking forward to your questions and feedback. Comment away!


Tags : AccommodationEnd of ReligionHarm ReductionSacrifice


  1. Bruxy do you think the verse in Acts 17 applies to the principle of accommodation? “at one time God winked at their sin but now commands all men to repent ” I suppose this is refering to idolatry …. so freeing for us animal lovers to know animal sacrifice was not Gods idea!! nanse

  2. God’s ways and thoughts are not like ours (Isaiah 55:8-9). I think we push as far as we can in our very limited capacity of thought but in the end, we stand amazed in his presence and worship. God certainly is governing all things and that includes even sinful acts. We see that delineated pretty clearly in Genesis with the selling of Joseph into slavery. His brothers meant it for evil but God meant it for good. Meant means planned. It is not simply that God used the evil act for good but so governs and is absolutely sovereign over all things that he planned Joseph be sold into slavery. When you think about it, God is providentially working in and through and with ONLY sinful ways and thoughts because humanity is cursed by the Fall.

    The teleological approach to the sacrifice of Jesus holds the most water and seems to me to be the best option. History is not God simply responding and accommodating to humanity but an unfolding of his grand plan. As Peter states in Acts 4:28, “to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.” This is obviously a great mystery how God can ordain whatsoever comes to pass (see Eph 1). I would argue that God’s ultimate goal/plan was to bring “praise to his glorious grace” (Eph 1:6). And if that is true then if there is no Fall then there is no need for the cross which is the greatest of all acts from the Son to enact praise to the Father’s glorious grace.

    Everything revolves around the perfect and finished work of Christ. All of God’s plans lead to that ultimate of sacrifices and display of other worldly love. When one looks at the totality of the Bible you cannot walk away with any other conclusion but that our God so loved the world that he sent his only Son. And that supreme act of the Trinity brings great praise and glory from his people and the angels.

  3. If sacrifice was mans idea and not Gods, it’s logical to conclude Jesus was ending a man made sacrificial man made system by dying on the cross as the last sacrifice that ‘man’ felt was needed to be in relationship with God.

    As a musician, I feel like we need better ‘worship’ songs to reflect this truth.
    If I was a Jew, living under the law, then our songs make sense (needing the blood to atone for sin etc), but being I’m not Jewish and have never been under that law….I struggle with how we sing about the cross in many of our songs.

    Is it time we put an end to singing songs about the sacrifice Jesus made in the context that Jesus was ending a man made sacrificial system? Do we need better songs to reflect this and reframe it differently?

    I believe Jesus death and resurrection is VERY important but perhaps a view in a different light than we’ve traditionally believed it to be would be more helpful?

    Hope I’ve made some sense….

  4. I wonder if you feel that the “anti-religious” statements in the prophets are key to this argument… I am ok with the idea of accommodation, as a broad idea, but I am struggling with the idea that the entire sacrificial system falls under that. One reason for that struggle is that I don’t see it in the prophets. For instance, Hosea – this book has God saying that he rejects Israel in all sorts of ways, as a result of Israel’s behaviour – to me the more obvious meaning of the “anti-religious” statements in the prophets is that God is communicating his utter displeasure with his covenant people, not that he’s making some generalized systematic statement about religious rituals.

  5. I actually see the first instance of accommodation in Genesis 3. It was Adam and Eve’s idea to sew fig leaves together to cover their shame/nakedness. (Never occurred to me before that clothing was man’s idea). So Yahweh accommodated them by providing something more durable before exiling them to the harsh environment their disobedience brought into being.

    Don’t we as parents do this with our children? Think of the child who sneaks a cookie from the cookie jar knocking it to the floor, breaking it. Their “work” of repairing the jar only makes a bigger mess and they end up cutting themselves in the process. What compassionate parent doesn’t tend to the child’s wound first before exiling them to their room for time out?

    I equate my “religious works” with their fig leaves. In an effort to cover my shame, I sometimes find myself dressing up in rituals such as going to church, giving tithes and serving the community. But then God nudges me by His Spirit and reminds me to clothe myself in Jesus whose blood was shed to cleanse my guilty conscience. Then I am freed up to sing “Give thanks to the Lord our God, His love endures forever!”

    Thanks Bruxy for addressing the topic and others for commenting. I love learning this way.

  6. In Ezekiel 46, 47, during the Messianic reign, animal sacrifices are restored once more – even though the risen Christ is ruling. Why?

    Personally, I have felt this Origins series to be “Bruxy at his best.” I’ve loved how you’ve re-framed the Genesis story and although I still struggle with your views on atonement, I deeply appreciate the grace with which you carry your convictions, despite attack. I’ve also noticed a deeper gentleness in your spirit this ‘semester’, perhaps less underlying anger at all the misunderstanding, accusation, and flack. I’m not sure. Whatever, it is a reflection of Christ. Thank you for modelling how ‘to be’ when others are so strongly dictating to you how ‘not to be’. Your gentle, loving presence is ‘answering the question.’

    Every blessing,

  7. Hello: I am part of the Newmarket Meeting house.

    May I add some – what to me- is really really exciting information to your Q and Eh last Sunday. As a science aficionado I am more “into this” than others but science knowledge can actually deepen our faith and trust in God and scripture. You mentioned Mitochondrial Adam and Eve as placing Eve in history couple hundred thousand years. That fact alone is radical in that we assume millions and billions of years of evolution. 200,000 years in geological time is like yesterday. But it gets even more exciting when you delve into the Mitochondrial Eve knowledge base and discover that some of the scientists looking at the data say the clock is ticking far faster and that the actual date of Mitochondrial Eve could be 6500 years ago, consistent with what Bible commentaries used to say about the date of creation. But perhaps most profound is this- the whole study of mitochondrial eve is measuring the rate of DECLINE of our DNA – our DEVOLUTION not EVOLUTION. So it is really a knockout blow for the entire concept of evolution.

    May I take another moment while I have the floor to add some other new science: When Mount St. Helens exploded in 1980 it re-wrote geology because it demonstrated that what scientists had been saying took millions of years, can occur in mere days- i..e carving deep canyons and laying down strata layers like we see at the Grand Canyon.

    But I think the most profound thing we need to know as people who want to believe and trust the Bible is that scientists of the present era are not allowed to accommodate God in their explanation of whatever it is they are researching- whatever it is they reveal to the public and their peers. They must find a naturalistic non God explanation or be laughed off campus. This started in the era we call the “Enlightenment””. Imagine a court case where the prosecution was prevented from looking at all the options. Imagine the defense attorneys being too lazy to drill down and cross examine the witnesses for the prosecution. That to me is what churches today as they accept what science says without challenge.

    Thanks for presenting doing the Creation series and opening up these topics.

Leave a Reply