Knowable Word

Helping ordinary people learn to study the Bible

Copyright © 2012–2025 DiscipleMakers, except guest articles (copyright author). Used by permission.

You are here: Home / Archives for Context

Recognize Both Divine and Human Authors of the Bible

By

Daniel Rowlands suggests that one context we ought to keep in mind when reading the Bible is the context of the whole Bible. We can do this because, though the books of the Bible were written by various human authors, they were also written by the singular divine author.

Here is a taste:

The word of God in the Bible comes to us through human writers. We find the humanity of the writers in variations of vocabulary, idioms, structure, and style. For example, there is the difference between the exquisite Hebrew poetry and varied vocabulary of Isaiah and the straight-forward narrative of Joshua. Similarly, in the New Testament there is the difference between the complex and elegant Greek of Hebrews and John’s more elementary Greek. We can detect the presence of the human authors throughout all of Scripture.

On the other hand, and at the risk of sounding obvious, we ought not neglect the divine author, God himself. Here, the incarnation of the Son of God in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Word become flesh (John 1:14), is a helpful analogy for understanding the human and divine together as one.

Check it out!

Whose Body is a Temple of the Holy Spirit?

By

I’ve argued before, from the context, that 1 Cor 6:19 is not a catch-all prohibition against anything and everything a person can do to their body (tattoos, alcohol, smoking, etc.). Nicholas Piotrowski and Ryan Johnson take it another step further to clarify what exactly Paul means by “your body.”

They carefully observe the grammar, context, and flow of thought through the entire letter of 1 Corinthians to conclude that “your body” is not, after all, your own body but the larger community (the body of Christ).

The trouble is that the Bible consistently speaks of one temple for the one God. So if each Christian’s individual body were a temple in and of itself, then that would mean God has millions of isolated temples all over the world. There is a bit of a theological problem with this.

I need to consider this further myself, especially since the “body” appears to refer to an individual’s physical in 1 Cor 6:18, the immediately preceding sentence. But perhaps my familiarity is clouding my observation of that verse as well!

Piotrowski and Johnson give four very good reasons for reading the verse in a corporate way, and I encourage you to give their reasons your own consideration.

Check it out!

Watch Out for Silly Putty Bible Study

By

Consider the following scenario. What do you think could be the problem with it?

…a Christian woman who has been praying for her family’s conversion stumbles upon Acts 16 during her quiet time. Her eyes settle on Paul’s response to the Philippian jailer, who asked, “What must I do to be saved?” “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved,” Paul answered, then added, “you and your household” (vv. 29–31).

Encouraged by these words, the woman begins to claim the “promise” that her own household will be saved, with the justification that “the Holy Spirit gave me this verse.”

This situation comes from a wonderful article from Greg Koukl about how easy it is to treat the Bible like Silly Putty®—a squishy, doughy substance you make into any shape you want. Koukl’s analysis and counsel is very good.

Check it out!

Rescuing the One Anothers from our Presumptive Familiarity

By

The greatest enemy of observation is familiarity. When you think you know something, you stop trying to learn from or about it. Perhaps you understand that in theory, but what does it look like in the practice of our Bible study?

I recently published a piece on the Logos blog with “4 Tips for Reading the One Anothers in the Bible.” In this post, I evaluate the practice of mushing together the many “one-another” commands of the New Testament into an overarching framework for Christian ethics. Along the way, I attempt to show how our broad familiarity with these one-anothers as a whole has prevented us from properly understanding some of them.

What are the four tips?

  1. Remember that you are reading someone else’s mail
  2. Consider the historical context
  3. Consider the train of thought
  4. Focus on the main point

The article will explain these tips further, with examples along the way.

Check it out!

Beware The Leech’s Daughters

By

I’ve always been puzzled—but fascinated—by Proverbs 30:15a:

The leech has two daughters: Give and Give.

Prov 30:15a, ESV

The NIV puts the “gives” in their mouths rather than in their names:

The leech has two daughters. ‘Give! Give!’ they cry.

Prov 30:15a, NIV

Regardless of whether “give” is their label or their lingo, what is going on in this proverbial saying?

Image by István Asztalos from Pixabay

Notice what follows

The next stanza, about four things that are never satisfied, certainly relates.

There are three things that are never satisfied, 
four that never say, ‘Enough!’: 
the grave, the barren womb, 
land, which is never satisfied with water, 
and fire, which never says, ‘Enough!’

Prov 30:15b-16, NIV

The demands (or names) of the leech’s daughters are parallel to these four things that never say “enough.” Just as the grave is never satisfied with the size of its membership, and fire never decides it’s time to pack up and go home—so also there are leech fathers and daughters who will always demand more and more and more.

Okay, that makes sense, but what is the point? What wisdom is the sage trying to teach here?

Notice what sandwiches

These sayings about perpetually dissatisfied things come right between two stanzas about a generation that rejects the wisdom of ages past. A generation that believes itself to be on the right side of history, having developed beyond the antiquated wisdom of its ancestors.

There are those who curse their father
and do not bless their mothers.
There are those who are clean in their own eyes
but are not washed of their filth.
There are those—how lofty are their eyes,
how high their eyelids lift!
There are those whose teeth are swords,
whose fangs are knives,
to devour the poor from off the earth,
the needy from among mankind.

Prov 30:11-14

The eye that mocks a father
and scorns to obey a mother
will be picked out by the ravens of the valley
and eaten by the vultures.

Prov 30:17

Can’t help but ask

So what is it that drives such a generation to reject the wisdom of previous generations? To curse and mock fathers and forefathers?

Could it be an insatiable drive for more? A perpetual lack of satisfaction?

Or is it the other way around? Is it the rejection of ancient wisdom that causes the perpetual dissatisfaction of a generation of leeches? Such that, when you lose your grounding in the reality of God’s world, you have nothing left but to make increasing demands of the people and the world around you?

The leech has two daughters. Not only in ancient Israel, but quite alive and well today.

A List from Ezra Repeated in Nehemiah

By

Ralph Mayhew (2019), public domain

A Bible reader making their way through the historical books of the Old Testament could be forgiven for feeling a sense of déjà vu after finishing Nehemiah, chapter 7.

If this describes you, the good news is, you’re not wrong! With a couple of exceptions[1], Nehemiah 7:6–73 is an exact copy of Ezra 2:1–70. While these passages are not the sort of fast-paced narrative that might captivate a modern reader, they are an accountant’s dream. These passages give a thorough list of the people who moved back to Jerusalem from Babylon during the reign of Cyrus. (See Ezra 1:1–11.)

Many Christians struggle to read a passage like this once. So why would it be in our Bibles twice?

The answer cannot be merely that Nehemiah found the scroll and wrote down what he read (Neh 7:5). Just a chapter later some Torah scrolls were read in public but were not copied into Nehemiah’s narrative. Something else is going on.

The current article is a case study of what Peter wrote about recently. When the Bible quotes or alludes to other parts of the Bible, we should take extra care to understand.

Ezra 2

The historical context of both passages is important. In Ezra 2, we have a list of the people “whose spirit God had stirred to go up to rebuild the house of the Lord that is in Jerusalem” (Ezra 1:5). God had put it in the heart of Cyrus, king of Persia, to send some of the captured Jewish people back to Jerusalem. The temple had been destroyed when Nebuchadnezzar’s army had leveled the city, and the people of God were now being charged (by a pagan king!) to rebuild what had been knocked down.

In the long list of chapter 2, the author took great care to list the people who returned by clans and families (Ezra 2:2–35). However, we also read of people specifically gifted and trained to help with the temple rebuilding efforts: the caravan back to Jerusalem included priests (Ezra 2:36–39), Levites (Ezra 2:40), singers (Ezra 2:41), sons of gatekeepers (Ezra 2:42), temple servants (Ezra 2:43–54), and sons of Solomon’s servants (Ezra 2:55–57).

What is the point of the list in Ezra 2? This thorough accounting shows that Cyrus really did let people leave for Jerusalem and that they were prepared for the work of rebuilding the house of the Lord and resuming temple worship. Much of the rest of Ezra recounts the success of those rebuilding efforts.

Nehemiah 7

By the time we get to Nehemiah 7, somewhere between 70-80 years have passed since that multitude hiked back to Jerusalem. Nehemiah is handing over the governorship of Jerusalem (Neh 7:2) after having successfully managed the rebuilding of the city wall (Neh 7:1).

But the work of reconstruction was not complete. The temple had been reopened and the wall was repaired and functioning, but the city itself was still a wreck. “The city was wide and large, but the people within it were few, and no houses had been rebuilt” (Neh 7:4). There was a third phase to the rebuilding efforts yet to come.

Then Nehemiah discovered the Ezra 2 scroll:

Then my God put it into my heart to assemble the nobles and the officials and the people to be enrolled by genealogy. And I found the book of the genealogy of those who came up at the first, and I found written in it: (Neh 7:5)

If we wonder why the long passage was included twice, we can start here. Nehemiah calls this “the book of the genealogy.” The leaders would rebuild the city by tribe and clan, so the genealogical records of those who repopulated the city were vital.

This played out later in Nehemiah. As the leaders made efforts to repopulate the city of Jerusalem, they cast lots to relocate people from the surrounding area (Neh 11:1). But when the list of people who settled in Jerusalem is given in Nehemiah 11:3–24, it is organized in part by tribe.

One List, Two Purposes

Although Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7 are almost identical passages, the contexts show that the lists and enumerations were used for two different purposes. In Ezra, the list confirmed that Cyrus made good on his promise and that the returnees were ready to rebuild the temple. In Nehemiah, the list was recalled for genealogical purposes in an effort to rebuild and repopulate the city of Jerusalem.

There are several places in the Bible—like the tabernacle instructions and construction in Exodus—that seem repetitive, and we may wonder why God would preserve such passages for our benefit. Instead of viewing these passages with frustration or impatience, we can humbly ask God to teach us.

Often, these repetitions are instances of God’s people using his word in a faithful way. In addition to learning about each of the passages involved, we have examples for our instruction.

[1] These two passages are not exactly identical, and the small discrepancies have caused large stumbling blocks for some people. All of God’s word is important, including these differences, but that is not the focus of the present article.

What to Do When One Passage Refers to Another

By

Though the Bible was written by dozens of human authors across centuries, it also claims to have been written by a single divine author (2 Tim 3:16) who was and is and is come. For that reason, these 66 books are all parts of that one great book, the Good Book, that the Lord caused to be written and preserved for his people through the ages.

You may have heard about New Testament quotes of the Old Testament. But that is not the only sort of intertextuality present in the Bible. Because the Bible is one unfolding revelation of God’s rule through his chosen Messiah, later portions of the Bible make constant reference to earlier portions.

Examples

In Ephesians 4:8, Paul quotes Psalm 68:18. And Psalm 68 itself (in Ps 68:1) quotes Numbers 10:35.

Hebrews 3:7-11 quotes Psalm 95. And Psalm 95:8 refers to the events of Exodus 17 and Numbers 20.

Mark 4:12 quotes Isaiah 6, but Isaiah 6 is difficult to understand apart from its allusions to texts such as Psalms 115 and 135.

Many places in the Old Testament reference “steadfast love and faithfulness” (2 Sam 2:6, Ps 25:10, Ps 40:11, Prov 3:3, Is 16:5, etc.), a pair of treats heavy with allusion to the character of the God in covenant with Israel (Ex 34:6).

What to Do

So quotations and allusions are not only what happens from the New Testament to the Old Testament. They also occur from later OT texts back to earlier ones. Identfying an OT quote in a NT passage may be only the first step in a linear chain of references that go farther and farther back.

That means that, in order to understand the passage with the quote, we must go back and understand the passage being quoted. Ancient authors didn’t quote older texts the way we today turn things into soundbites.

I’ve written before about what to do with such quotes. I’ll restate the principles here, but I encourage you to check out that blog post for further explanation.

  1. NT quotes of the OT are referencing passages, not verses.
  2. Don’t read past the OT quotes.
  3. Look up the OT quotes and study them in context.
  4. Consider how the NT author employs the OT context and repurposes it for his audience.
  5. What seems obvious may not be all that obvious.

These principles apply just as much to quotations or allusions from an OT text to a prior OT text, as to quotations or allusions from a NT text to an OT text. Such connections are like divine road maps showing us how the Good Book fits together. Let’s take advantage of these opportunities to deepen our understanding of the entire body of God’s revelation.

Why it Matters that the Bible was Written to Specific People at a Specific Time

By

While the Bible was written for us (1 Cor 10:11), it was not written to us. When we read the Bible, we are reading someone else’s mail.

This is why context matters. It is not appropriate to isolate sentences and sentiments and use them to our own ends. We must grasp the author’s main point to his original audience. We must consider how that main point either looks forward to Christ or reflects back upon him. And only when we have done those things are we in a position to consider how the text ought to produce change in anyone’s life today.

Photo by Mr Cup / Fabien Barral on Unsplash

Historical Context Defined

We’ve spent much space on this blog giving examples of how the literary context matters. But that is not the only kind of context.

One other such context is the historical context. How does the historical situation of this text affect the way we read it? And by “historical situation,” I’m not referring to cultural practices or artifacts within the text. I’m talking about the real-life situation of the author and audience of the text. What was going on in the lives of the author and audience that caused this person to write this text to these people at this time?

We cannot answer that question with certainty—or even high probability—for every book of the Bible. But whenever we can answer it, we ought to make sure that answer guides us whenever we seek to understand a text.

An Example

Have you ever noticed the difference between how the books of Kings and Chronicles describe the moral character of King Abijah (Abijam) of Judah?

In the eighteenth year of King Jeroboam… Abijam began to reign over Judah… He walked in all the sins that his father did before him, and his heart was not wholly true to Yahweh his God, as the heart of David his father. Nevertheless, for David’s sake Yahweh his God gave him a lamp in Jerusalem. (1 Kings 15:1-4)

Then Abijah stood up…and said… “But as for us, Yahweh is our God, and we have not forsaken him… Behold, God is with us at our head, and his priests with their battle trumpets to sound the call to battle against you. O sons of Israel, do not fight against Yahweh, the God of your fathers, for you cannot succeed.” (2 Chron 13:4-12)

Both Kings and Chronicles go out of their way to label each king of Judah as doing either what is right or what is evil in God’s eyes. There are clear good guys and bad guys, good kings and bad kings. But when it comes to Solomon’s grandson Abijah, the authors of these two books just couldn’t get their assessments aligned.

The author of Kings definitely knew about the warfare between Abijah and the northern kingdom (1 Kings 15:6; see 2 Chron 13:2). But he chose to leave Abijah’s faith in God, as demonstrated in that warfare, out of his narrative. Why would he do that?

The historical context of these two books can help.

Different Audiences, Different Times

The book of Kings (1 Kings and 2 Kings make up one long book that happened to be divided into two scrolls) was written for the people of God languishing in Babylonian exile. The book tells the story of the kingdom, ending with Nebuchadnezzar’s conquest of Jerusalem and the deportation of the population to a foreign land. The book is not without hope, as the final paragraph describes the reversal of fortune for one of their last kings (2 Kings 25:27-30).

But when all is taken into account, the book of Kings answers the chief question of those stuck in Babylon without temple, priest, or sacrifice: How did we get here?

The book of Chronicles (again, 1 Chronicles and 2 Chronicles are one book kept on two scrolls) was written for the people of God who had returned to Jerusalem to rebuild the city and repair their lives. This book also tells the story of the kingdom, but it ends with a very different hope: Cyrus’s decree to return and rebuild (2 Chr 36:22-23). From the detailed genealogies of 1 Chr 1-9 to the lengthy liturgical sections (1 Chr 15-16, 22-29; 2 Chr 15, 19-20, 24, 29-31, 35), the book of Chronicles provides pertinent instruction and thrilling hope for those reconnecting to their past and reinstating the proper and authoritative worship of their God.

So when all is taken into account, the book of Chronicles answers the chief question of those who have returned from exile: How do we start things back up in the right way, without repeating the mistakes of our ancestors?

Employing Historical Context for Interpretation

How does this historical context help us to answer the thorny interpretive question of King Abijah? Was he good or evil? Faithful or disobedient?

The audience of Kings needed to hear of Abijam’s faults. The thrust of his life and rule was more like his father Rehoboam than his great-grandfather David. He was not undivided in his allegiance to Yahweh, and he carried the pride and insecurity of Rehoboam into a new generation. This was not pleasing to Yahweh, and it was one step along a lengthy slide into Judah’s abandonment of the covenant, leading to her demise and deportation.

But the audience of Chronicles needed a different message. They needed to know that Abijah was not as bad as he could have been. In fact, he had his shining moments. One such moment was when he publicly professed his faith in Yahweh and gave the priesthood its proper place: not as a magical totem but as an opportunity to lead the people toward covenant fidelity. Now that you are back in the land, you need to know that you, like Abijah, have a history of great sin against God. But if you bear fruit in keeping with repentance—demonstrating your faith through establishing a legitimate priesthood that leads the people to serve Yahweh above all gods—you, too, will find great success and security in the land you rebuild.

Conclusion

The historical context is an important piece of the puzzle we call Bible study. By placing yourself in the shoes of the original audience, you are more likely to grasp the intended message for them in their day. And when you have done so, you will unsurprisingly find the Bible becoming even more — not less — relevant to our lives today.

What to Do When the New Testament Quotes the Old

By

“Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel.” (Matt 1:23)

“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Matt 27:46)

“Not one of his bones will be broken.” (John 19:36)

“You are my Son, today I have begotten you.” (Heb 5:5)

Since the Bible had no verse divisions until the 16th century AD, we ought to consider what this implies about how to read and study the Bible. Ancient readers had no map or reference system to pinpoint particular statements. They could not speak with precision about a textual location such as Isaiah chapter 7 verse 14.

Instead, they referenced Scriptures by broad indicators such as:

  • “…in the book of Moses, in the passage about the bush…” (Mark 12:26)
  • “…the scroll of the prophet Isaiah…He found the place where it was written…” (Luke 4:17)
  • “the word spoken by the prophet Isaiah…” (John 12:38)
  • “he has somewhere spoken of the seventh day in this way…” (Heb 4:4)

They did not quote things the way we do. They did not have MLA- or APA-style citations, word-perfect precision, or bibliographical indices.

In fact, most people didn’t read their own copies of the Scripture. Most of what they knew about Scripture came through oral delivery, repetition, and memorization.

So if we read our Bibles only like 21st century students at institutions of higher education, we will not be reading them like 1st century commoners, or even nobility, receiving these remarkable works of literature from the hands of Jesus’ first followers.

What does this mean?

1. NT quotes of the OT are referencing passages, not verses.

Often there’s a verbal connection to the exact verses being quoted. For example, when Peter wants to make a point about being “living stones” (1 Pet 2:5) he grabs a few key statements with the word “stone” in them (1 Pet 2:6-8). But his goal is not to produce sound bytes fitting for a radio interview, or back-cover blurbs promoting a book. He believes the referenced OT passages have something of their own to say, building a theology of God’s stone-construction program, which Peter now interprets and applies for a new audience.

2. Don’t read past the OT quotes.

When a NT author quotes the OT, he believes the OT passage has an argument to make that he now commandeers for his own use. The quotes are not window dressing, with the real argument coming before or after the quote. No, the quotes are a fundamental part of the argument. The quotes contain the premises upon which the conclusion stands. We might misunderstand the conclusion if we haven’t identified the premises (in their original context).

3. Look up the OT quotes and study them in context.

To use the four quotes from the top of this post: “Immanuel” had a fulfillment in Isaiah’s day that illuminates why Jesus’ fulfillment was so much greater, and even unexpected (Isaiah 7-8). Jesus’ feelings of abandonment don’t capture the whole story of what happened on the cross (Psalm 22). Jesus’ death was more about the idea of Passover than it was about checking off a prerequisite prediction about bodily injury (Exodus 12). Christ’s appointment as high priest involved more than a particular pronouncement from on high; it involved lasting victory over the rebellious kings of the earth (Psalm 2).

4. Consider how the NT author employs the OT context and repurposes it for his audience.

Sometimes the NT author applies a timeless principle. Sometimes he makes a theological connection to the person or work of Jesus Christ. Sometimes he sees a shadow that has become reality. Sometimes he identifies a pattern of life meant to be followed.

5. What seems obvious may not be all that obvious.

When Jesus explains the parable of the soils to his disciples, he references Isaiah 6 (Mark 4:11-12). Many quickly conclude that Jesus is laying out a strategy for intentional deception by parable. This seems obvious if we look only at the precise words and statements being quoted. But go back to read Isaiah 6, in the context of Isaiah’s book of prophecy, in the context of all the prophets, and only then does it become apparent that Jesus’ parables are actually meant to remove deception, to make things crystal clear (something which Mark explicitly suggests—Mark 4:21-22). Jesus is not trying to make people blind. He’s trying to expose the fact that they are already blind because they worship blind and deaf idols and refuse to listen to him. They become like what they worship.1 We see in many other places that the parables were far more illuminating than obfuscating (Mark 3:23ff, 7:17-23, 12:12; Luke 12:41, 15:1-3, 18:1, 18:9, 19:11).

Conclusion

Bible study is for everyone, even ordinary people. But that doesn’t make it quick or easy. Let’s do good work so we can understand the meaning these authors intended to communicate to us, especially when the NT uses the OT to make its point.

Additional Resources

Nothing surpasses Beale and Carson’s tome, Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Baker Academic, 2007), which analyzes every NT quotation of and credible allusion to the OT. This reference work shows how important it is to look up OT quotes in their context.

The Hermeneutics of the Biblical Writers (Kregel Academic, 2018). In this book, Abner Chou explains how biblical writers made use of earlier scriptures. Along the way he gives many examples to prove that the quoting authors were concerned with the quotes’ original context, and Chou shows how the quoting authors appropriated that original context for their new purposes.

Thanks for visiting Knowable Word! If you like this article, you might be interested in receiving regular updates from us. You can sign up for our email list (enter your address in the box on the upper right of this page), follow us on Facebook or Twitter, or subscribe to our RSS feed. 

1I am indebted to G.K.Beale, We Become What We Worship (IVP Academic, 2009) for these insights about Jesus’ parables and Isaiah 6.

Amazon links are affiliate links.

Context Matters: God Tests Abraham

By

Alfonso Scarpa (2020), public domain

Perhaps you’ve heard about the way God tested Abraham, that when a long-awaited son was born, God told Abraham to raise his knife. Maybe you’ve been taught from the Scriptures how much Abraham trusted God in that episode and you’ve been inspired to do the same.

Is Abraham’s faith the central theme of this well-known story? Should we come away from it trying hard to be more like this Old Testament patriarch? Are there any aspects of this story that point ahead to the gospel of Jesus?

Context matters. It’s impossible to understand that testing of Abraham without understanding the preceeding chapters in Genesis. When we learn to read the Bible as a whole instead of as a hastily-gathered photo album of Sunday school tales, we’ll see that some of our favorite stories have a deeper meaning than we’ve always assumed.

Abraham’s Only Son

Some Christians say that, aside from the coming of Jesus, the birth of Isaac is the most anticipated event in Scripture. It’s hard to argue!

From the first time that God called Abram he spoke of all the descendants he would eventually have (Genesis 12:2). This certainly required faith instead of sight, because Sarai was barren at the time.

After 25 years, Sarah finally conceived and Isaac was finally born (Genesis 21:1–3). Isaac was the son of the promise, the child through whom God would keep his covenant vows.

Imagine Abraham’s shock, then, when God commands him to “offer [Isaac] … as a burnt offering” (Genesis 22:2). But Abraham rises early and sets off with Isaac.

A quick observation of this passage (Genesis 22:1–19) reveals that the word “son” shows up 13 different times. And three times Isaac is called Abraham’s “only son” (Genesis 22:2, 12, 16). This may strike readers as odd, because Isaac is not Abraham’s only son! Ishmael was Abraham’s first son by Hagar (Genesis 16:1–4). Doesn’t he count?

Well, actually, no. He doesn’t count any more. Not for this purpose.

After God brought Abraham into covenant, Abraham struggled to believe that Sarah would eventually get pregnant. He begged God that Ishmael might be brought in for the purposes of God’s promises (Genesis 17:18). But God insisted that Abraham’s covenant line would be established through Sarah (Genesis 17:19, 21).

As long as Ishmael was around, Abraham might be tempted to think he had a good fall-back option if something happened to Isaac. So, while Abraham loved Ishmael deeply and God promised to bless him, Ishmael was sent away after Isaac was born (Genesis 21:8–14). Now, in terms of those living with Abraham, Isaac was truly Abraham’s “only son.”

So at the beginning of Genesis 22, Isaac is the one and only son in Abraham’s house. He is the promised son. This heightens and focuses the test for Abraham. How exactly can Abraham have millions of descendents through Isaac if he dies?

God’s Provision

On the way to the mountain, Isaac wonders where the animal sacrifice is, but Abraham is confident that God will provide (Genesis 22:7–8). Abraham is sure of much more than this—he knows that Isaac will come back down the mountain with him. He says as much to the young men that came on the trip (Genesis 22:5), and the author of Hebrews tells us that Abraham knew God was able to raise Isaac from the dead (Hebrews 11:17–19).

As Abraham is about to put his son to death, God stops him and provides a ram in his place (Genesis 22:13). God’s intervention and provision are so central to this episode that Abraham calls the place “The Lord will provide” (Genesis 22:14)

Blessings Through the Obedient One

Many Christians have seen a picture of the gospel in Abraham and Isaac. A father was willing to put his cherished, only son to death. Some make the connection between Isaac and Christ because Jesus was also called “beloved” by his father (at both his baptism and transfiguration). Jesus is also referred to as the “only son” of God in the most quoted verse in all the Bible (John 3:16).

But we need to ask a question. Is this gospel connection a coincidence of language? Or does this passage make that case? We can gain a lot of clarity by reading to the end of the passage!

The angel of the Lord called to Abraham a second time and repeated (and enlarged!) the covenant promises because of Abraham’s obedience (Genesis 22:16). And note the specific promises that are highlighted: Abraham will be blessed, his offspring will be multiplied, they will possess the gates of their enemies, and in Abraham’s offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed (Genesis 22:17–18). And, in case we missed it the first time, we are reminded that this came about because of Abraham’s obedience (Genesis 22:18).

In other words, because of one man’s obedience to God, the nations of the earth will be blessed. Now there’s a gospel connection!

I’m not claiming that a passage must have just a single arrow that points ahead to Jesus and his gospel. But when we only look at the angle of a substitute or the death of an only son, we might miss the main thrust of the passage.

God puts this man through a terrible test. By God’s grace, he passes. God provides a substitute. And the man’s obedience means untold riches for the world. This story might be better than we ever thought!

Context matters.

For more examples of why context matters, click here.