Genesis 22:12 esv

“He said, ‘Do not lay your hand on the boy or do anything to him, for now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me.’”

When he heard those words, Abraham was about to slit his son’s throat and burn his body. Three days prior, he had been told by God to do just that. God told Abraham to take his son, his only son, the son he loves and offer him as a burnt offering.¹ He was to go specifically to this mountain and kill his son as a sacrifice to Yahweh.

It wasn’t simply the fact that he loves his son, Isaac, that made this a difficult thing to do. This son was special. His name was literally “laughter.” He’d been given that name by God directly because Abraham had laughed at the impossibility that this child would ever be born. Abraham was old, as good as dead. His wife had been barren and was well past the age for bearing kids. Yet God made it happen, just like he’d promised.

Abraham was supposed to be the father of a great multitude! This child was the child through whom all the nations were to be blessed! Hope for humanity seemed to rest on this boy. God had explicitly promised that he would make his covenant with Isaac.² What was God thinking? Was he capricious? Was this a mood-swing? That happens with the other gods.

Hebrews tells us that Abraham even considered that God was able to raise Isaac from the dead.³ His faith was so strong that he was ready to slaughter and burn his son with the expectation that God would somehow keep his promise of raising up offspring, creating a nation, and blessing the nations through that same son.

God stops Abraham. This makes sense. Slaughtering Isaac wouldn’t really accomplish anything except making a mess. Abraham can’t offer Isaac to pay for his sins.⁴ Isaac couldn’t really pay for his own sins since he’d be dead. God provides a ram to sacrifice instead, but even that really wasn’t the true substitute. Another beloved Son would have to be sacrificed. Jesus would have to die. Maybe that’s why Abraham named the mountain “Yahweh will provide” and not Yahweh did provide.”⁵

But God makes a big deal about this faith. It’s as if you can’t test a man any more than asking him to kill his own son. God knew what was in Abraham; he’d already justified Abraham by faith.⁶ But this was the external and undeniable proof that the faith was there. “Now I know” could almost be translated “Now I’ve experienced.”⁷ Abraham’s faith was made visible by his willingness to sacrifice Isaac; there was nothing God could ask that Abraham would not be willing to do.

Paul echoes the language of Genesis 22:12, I believe intentionally, when he makes the case that God’s sending Jesus means that there is nothing God will fail to give us. If he could ask nothing more of Abraham than his son, than God can give nothing more to us than his Son.

In Christ we have everything. We need not fear anything. It is the loudest way that anyone can say “I love you.” The divine and innocent Son of God slaughtered on the Cross for our sins⁸ is God’s way of shouting His love and grace more clearly than anything else he could have done.⁹ Salvation is accomplished and we need not doubt that God will do everything necessary to save his elect;¹⁰ really, he already did. God, our provider, provided.

Paul said it better than I can, though. Read his words:

Romans 8:31–39 esv

What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? As it is written,

“For your sake we are being killed all the day long
we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered.”

No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Surface and Root Idols

The preferred method for killing idols in the reformed community today (mine as well) is to distinguish between surface and source/root idols. I heard this first from Tim Keller in his book Counterfeit Gods but evidently the idea was really established by a man named Dick Keyes². This method is not exactly based in exegesis but it isn’t contra-Biblical and seems very helpful.

In short, the idea is that you have surface idols (like watching too much television, viewing pornography, spending too much time with your boyfriend/girlfriend, eating too much, etc.) that you only really worship because you are worshiping a deeper idol. The deeper idols tend to be as follows:

• Comfort: you just want to be happy and feel safe.
• Affirmation: you want people to confirm that your existence is meaningful; you want to be loved and respected.
• Control: You want control over your own life, to feel like you have a grasp of things, to know your life isn’t spiraling out of control.
• Power: You want control of other people’s lives. You want to be able to say “jump!” and have people ask “how high?” as they’re on their way up.

I borrowed this list from Darrin Patrick’s book Church Planter, although he got it from someone else.³ The list probably isn’t exhaustive, but it is fairly general so it does a good job of covering just about everything. The relationship between surface idols and deeper idols may go something like this:

Joe has an absolutely horrible job. Everything is always going wrong at work, nobody likes him at work, and he’s always afraid that—although he does his best—he’s going to get fired. When he gets home, he zones out in front of the television for 3–4 hours before going to bed. His family hates this because they feel like he’s not around even when he is around. His addiction to television is hurting his family.

Joe watches so much television because—if he doesn’t—his mind goes to his job. He worries about whether or not he’ll have a job next week and he wallows in self-pity for being treated so poorly at work. His root idol is comfort and his surface idol is television.

If Joe just up and threw out the television without dealing with the root idol, he’d not have really solved anything. He’d probably just pick up another mindless hobby so that he can continue to not have to think about things at work. He really needs to address the fact that he’s made comfort an idol.

There’s nothing wrong with having a desire for comfort, affirmation, control, or even power (to a degree). The question is how much you want them, what you’ll do to get them, and who you’re worshiping. Joe desires comfort above everything else in his life, it seems. He’ll ignore his family to get it. Joe also doesn’t seem to be able to take comfort in knowing that God will provide for Him and already has provided everything that he really needs in Christ. Joe needs Jesus, but he turns to other things; this is the nature of idolatry.⁴

What We’re Doing

In this series, we’ll look at some of the things in our culture that are geographically and historically odd. That is, we’ll look at the things we do that no other culture presently does. We’ll also look at things that we do now that we haven’t done in the past. We may even look at things every culture has always done and that we’ve simply found new methods of doing. We’re going to look at those things and then ask the question “Why?”

To use the language of surface and root idols: we’ll look at some of the surface idols we have, take a stab at guessing the root idol, then we’ll try to find out how the Gospel might resolve the issue. We’ll ask how Jesus changes things. How can we stop worshiping graven images and start worshiping the true Image of God?⁵

If you’ve got an idea of something that might be a cultural idol, post a comment. Provide your thoughts on it, too. I may cover it or (if you’re interested), invite you to do the work and write a guest post.

There’s a lot to know on the subject of manuscripts (or texts); I really can’t cover it all. Actually, I took a semester long course called Bible Introduction and we spend most of our time learning about manuscripts. This is going to be far more basic.

We Don’t Have the Originals

Don’t let this ruin your day, but we don’t actually have the copy of Torah¹ that Moses wrote or the original letters to Corinth from Paul; those are long gone. All we have are copies. Most of our Hebrew copies are so similar that we really don’t have to talk about them. The Greek copies are comparatively much more diverse; they are the topic on which I’ll focus the preponderance of the post.

Different Kinds of Texts

For our purposes, there are basically three different options that you can choose from when translating the Bible. The first is called the Majority text-type. There are a lot of manuscripts in this family (they compose about 80% of the manuscripts we have), and they differ a lot from text to text. They are also extremely new; that is, they are copies made significantly after the New Testament was written.² Translations that exclusively use the Majority texts would include the kjv, the nkjv, and the mkjv. A lot of translations into various languages that predate the kjv also used the Majority text-type.

The second is actually a sort of subset of the Majority text-type. It’s called the Textus Receptus (Latin: “received text”). Most English translations that use the Majority text-type use the Textus Receptus, including the kjv, the nkjv, and the mkjv. A man named Erasmus compiled (put together) the Textus Receptus from about six manuscripts all originating from the Majority text type, none of which dated any earlier than 1100ad. In places where he didn’t think the Greek was clear, he’d modify it to be clearer. He also translated and added from a Latin translation known as the Vulgate six whole verses that weren’t in his Greek manuscripts.

The third is more a method than a text-type. It’s called a Critical Edition. A critical edition (like Wescott and Hort) takes into account the Textus Receptus, the Byzantine Majority, and a host of other families that I haven’t mentioned but that date back earlier than the Byzantine Majority and are generally considered more accurate.³ A critical edition of the New Testament will weigh all the options and try to figure out which version of the Greek is most likely closest to the original based mostly on the date of the text, the location the text was found, and a few logical assumptions. Virtually every Bible you pick up that I haven’t mentioned here (and is not several hundred years old) is based on a critical edition.

What Should You Use?

Well, if you didn’t catch my tone when I talked about the Textus Receptus, I don’t have a high degree of respect for the Textus Receptus. There are massive differences that we know for a fact didn’t exist until quite a while after the Bible was written.⁴ While I’ll read translations like the kjv and nkjv, I tend to respect translations based on a critical text more than I do those based on the Textus Receptus. That’s mostly because of the questionable history and method behind its compilation.

If you have a kjv or an nkjv, like a lot of people I know do, that’s alright. You’re still saved and your Bible is still more right than you are. Just know that the reason your Bible is so different from everyone else’s isn’t always just a difference in translation. Sometimes the Greek your Bible was translated from and the Greek other people’s Bibles were translated from is actually different. In my opinion, theirs has a better probability of theirs being the original than yours does.

Next up, we’ll deal with the Septuagint.

Song of Solomon is about marriage. It’s the only way that any of it really makes any sense if you read it. It’s a series of exchanges between Song of Solomon and his wife. The precise event details and chronology in each section are often debatable, but the general topic is pretty obvious. It’s about the relationship between a husband and a wife.

That being said, marriage itself is a giant picture of Christ and the church. Paul says this explicitly in Ephesians 5:32. That means we can’t say that Song of Solomon is about Christ and the church. That which it describes, however, is a picture of Christ and the church. This is how I think we’re to read Song of Solomon. It’s about marriage, and marriage is about Jesus and His bride, the church.

There’s this odd little exchange in Song of Solomon 1 that, if you read it as just being between a couple, is rather endearing. In verse 5, the Shulamite woman (Solomon’s wife) goes on about how Solomon ought not pursue her because she’s not very pretty.² Apparently, body-image wasn’t just an issue for women in the 21^st century. Anyway, she goes on for three verses and basically asks why on earth Solomon would want anything to do with her.³

Solomon responds by going on for three verses—in very strong, clear words—about how beautiful she is to him. He doesn’t just say things like “You’re pretty enough for me,” or “None of that matters,” or “but you’ve got a great personality.” He goes on in detail about how, despite her description of herself, he thought she was the “most beautiful among women.”

And right now, if you have any soul at all, you’ve been emotionally stirred by this exchange enough to at least think “Awww, that’s so sweet.” Actually, there’s a good chance you’ve shed a tear. It’s a delightful story. But there’s something bigger going on when we remember all of redemptive history and the relationship to which marriage points.

Jesus is the husband. We’re the bride. When He comes looking for us, we tell Him that we’re not good enough. We tell Him about all the bad things that we’ve done and why we don’t deserve His love. For Jesus, it wasn’t a simple matter of ignoring our faults. He loved us more than that. He died to burry and kill everything that is wrong with us,⁴ then He rose again, and now He’s cleaning us. He’s actually making us beautiful, even holy.⁵

Now, lest we should ever say to Him “I’m not worthy. Why would you ever want me?” He responds by pointing to His own blood that He shed to purchase,⁶ justify,⁷ and cleanse us.⁸ Jesus is the true and better husband.

I say all of that so you don’t think I’m writing this post to hate on the Gospel of John. I know a lot of people these days make fun of how often beginner Bible studies go through the Gospel of John, or how many evangelicals would say it’s their favorite book. I’m not doing that here. I might even be willing to say that John is my favorite New Testament book; at the very least, it’s in the top three.

A few decades ago—I’d guess the 60’s—everyone started handing out the Gospel of John to their non-believing friends.¹ It was extremely helpful. Most people in America back then had a religious background. Most young people had been to church back when they were children, regardless of whether or not their parents were saved. The Gospel of John worked extremely well because—besides the fact that the Holy Spirit was moving—the way it presented the message of Jesus was appealing and clear to the demographic to whom it was being presented.

It’s Been Forty Years

The 60’s came and went. The eighteen year-olds who received those Gospel of John booklets have had kids; many of their kids had kids. The religious and cultural landscape in the West has shifted dramatically. Most people, even Barrack Obama (to a degree), would agree that America is no longer a Christian nation.² Additionally, the internet age has caused everyone to expect everything to happen immediately.

Perhaps we should reconsider which book of the Bible we give people as an evangelism tool. I’m not saying it’s bad to give people a Gospel of John. I’m just asking if we could hand them something that might better meet them where they are.

The Problem

The Gospel of John is extremely intricate. It’s filled with beautiful details and nuances. The arguments are complicated and brilliant. It is extremely Jewish in style, but it was clearly written to be readable to a fairly sophisticated, philosophy-loving, Greek audience. The trouble is that the thinkers of the 60’s have all but vanished. Sure, we still have some deep thinkers. For the most part, though, people don’t think deeply enough to get the most out of John without working really hard… and hardly anyone in America these days likes working hard.

Enter Mark

Mark was written to a primarily Roman audience. I mentioned how people today expect everything to happen immediately. It’s worth noting that the Gospel of Mark uses the word “immediately” (in the esv) thirty-five times. That’s an awful lot. Mark is a short Gospel (sixteen chapters) written to a fairly impatient audience. He comes right out and states that Jesus is the Son of God in the first verse, and then he jumps straight into Jesus’ ministry.

Just an Idea

This is really just me thinking out loud. It’s possible for someone to get saved if you hand them a copy of Leviticus. Still, though, we want to be as clear and culturally relevant as we can when we present the message of Jesus to people. I’m thinking that giving people the Gospel of Mark instead of John as an evangelism tool might be a little more effective. What do you guys think? What book do you think we should (generally) suggest to new believers and unbelievers? Post a comment.

Despite the brevity of this book, it will likely have a profound impact on how you read much of the Old Testament and even the Gospels. It will have an especially big impact if you are not used to a Christocentric reading of the Bible. The book runs along similar lines as “Messianic Exegesis,” but covers fewer topics. Dodd specifically addresses the suffering aspect of Jesus as Messiah.

The New Testament makes it clear that the Old Testament is about Jesus¹. When, however, New Testament authors imply that Jesus had to suffer, die, and be raised in accordance with the Scriptures…² things get a little confusing. Are there prophecies of a Messiah-king figure who would suffer, die, and be raised in the Old Testament?

Dodd addresses several passages; the most note-worthy is probably Daniel 7, from which Jesus most likely drew His “Son of Man” imagery. His interpretation goes far beyond that of individual passages, though. The history of Israel as a nation has been that of repeated sufferings, being brought near to death, and then being raised or vindicated. Examples of these that stick out include the Exodus and the Exile.

God seems to be in the habit of allowing His children to suffer and then vindicating them. Jesus is the only true righteous sufferer, though; therefore He was really vindicated. Any proclamation of our righteousness, vindication after death, comes as a result of being in Christ, in His death and resurrection.

Anyway, Dodd does a much better job than I can of explaining this. I’d suggest reading this book. It will only take a half an hour or so if you are a quick reader. Even better: it’s free.

By the way, this post is from my old blog. It was originally written around a year ago. I uploaded it here so I could keep it with my other posts.

Every once and a while I like to read a book that’s way over my head. Most of the books I read are over my head, but sometimes I read ones that are so far over my head that I have a lot of trouble reading them. Messianic Exegesis was one of them.

It basically tried to trace through what Jewish people believed the Messiah would be versus what the New Testament said He was. It’s a bit more complicated than that, though. It was specifically written to address the issue of how the New Testament authors read the Old Testament. They clearly believed that the Old Testament was about Jesus, but their precise methods of interpreting Scripture as being about Jesus are a bit hard to understand.

One of the really helpful points the book made was that we have a misconception about the New Testament. Most of us figure that the references in the Gospels (and the rest of the New Testament) to the Old Testament as being about Jesus are there to prove that Jesus was the Messiah. Messianic Exegesis makes the point that they weren’t so much concerned with proving Jesus to be anything. They started with the assumption that Jesus was the Messiah (based primarily on His resurrection from the dead) and were using the Old Testament primarily to figure out and explain what exactly it meant that Jesus was the Messiah.

All in all, while I can’t honestly say I got everything out of it that someone more learned or smart would have, I found it well worth the read. I’ll be reading some similar books on the same topic, though. If they’re any easier to follow, I may recommend them over this one since it was so technical.

By the way, this post is from my old blog. It was originally written around a year ago. I uploaded it here so I could keep it with my other posts.

Of course, the timeline isn’t very helpful for things like the Psalms, since the times during which they were written were so scattered. Someone suggested I link to a chronological Bible reading program. Crosswire put that one out in pdf format and it’s pretty good. Keep in mind for both of the above downloads that dates for a lot of passages are debated. What I’m giving you is a good starting point, but you will probably want to consult more scholarly resources.

Next up, I promised to give you guys the overview of redemptive history that I wrote for my class on Understanding Scripture. That Bible overview, all eight pages of it, is now available in pdf format. It should really only take about fifteen minutes to read and you can use it as a reference.

Note that if your browser is having problems viewing the files I’ve linked to (as many browsers are wont to do), you can right click on it and click “save link as.”

The man who had pointed out the existence of bad books, though, showed wisdom because new believers don’t normally have the same ability to sniff out bad theology. You usually learn to detect bad theology by studying lots of good theology. I had suggested that I might write a post on authors that new believers ought to avoid, mentioning Rob Bell and Joel Osteen. Rob Bell denies the literal nature of the atonement in his book Love Wins, thus making him a wolf and probably not saved. Joel Osteen spends far more time talking about health, wealth, and prosperity than he does about Jesus; he might not be a wolf, but he is not very helpful.

Rather than listing off a bunch of authors to avoid, I thought it might be better to write two posts. The first (this one) will deal with what makes a wolf a wolf; it will explain what sorts of things should cause red flags for newer believer. The second will address the question of what books a new believer ought to be reading.

The Marks of Wolfdom

The Bible uses the wolf a few times. Jesus made false prophets out to be synonymous with wolves in Matthew 7:15. Paul stated in Acts 20:28–29 that it is the job of the elders (or overseers) to protect the flock from wolves. Perhaps the best thing you can do is clear the books you’re reading (and sermons or lectures to which you’re listening) with your pastor. If your pastor isn’t well read—many today sadly aren’t—clear it with someone you trust who is well read.

The people who were causing harm in the church fairly consistently looked quite godly and even clever to onlookers.¹ They are marked, though, by denying fundamental doctrines like the resurrection.² In my (admittedly limited) study of wolves and false prophets in the New Testament, the consistent string I’ve found is a desire to take people’s focus off of Jesus Christ and put it elsewhere. In Galatians the wolves are trying to get people to focus on their own faithfulness to the Mosaic covenant. In 1 Corinthians (15) they are trying to get people to doubt Christ’s work in the resurrection. In Colossians they are trying to get people to rely on things learned from the elemental spirits (demons) like asceticism (worship of humility), having visions, and worshiping angels.³ In all these cases, focus is taken off of Jesus and put on someone else (usually us or the message-bringer).

New believers, then, should be wary of any books that focus more on what we do or get than on what God did in Christ (the Gospel). You ought to be able to see the author talking clearly about how Jesus died for our sins and rose for our justification. If he denies it or manages to go several chapters without at least alluding to it, you could probably be reading something better. Colossians 2:16–23 would say that the author is puffed up, not holding fast to Jesus, and focusing on helpful tips, tricks, and how-to’s that in the end—apart from Christ—aren’t that helpful after all.

Anyway, the answer to the above inquisition is usually far more complicated than the inquirer realized when making his inquiry. A simple answer can be given, and in this series has been given.¹ But a basic understanding of Bible translations is important if you’re going to be studying the Bible. This post is intended as an overview. I’ll get into things like manuscripts later.

Dynamic Equivalence Translations

Most people these days use a dynamic equivalence translation; this isn’t the case for the church I attend in Pennsylvania or Washington (there nasb and esv respectively are used). You’re using a dynamic equivalence translation if you’re using the niv, nlt, or the newer hcsb. They don’t so much translate words as they do thoughts. The goal of a dynamic equivalence translation is to focus “on translating the message of the original-language text. [ensuring] that the meaning of the text is readily apparent to the contemporary reader. This allows the message to come through with immediacy, without requiring the reader to struggle with foreign idioms and awkward syntax.”² It is intended for reading for devotions or out in public.

These translations can be extremely helpful to a new reader, or even an experienced reader. They should not, however, be used as your primary Bible for studying. This is because they do a lot of the work of interpretation for you. While they might do a good job, the text will inevitably reflect the translators’ theology. If you study a dynamic equivalence translation, you will find that—in at least some places—you are studying the thoughts of the translators and not the Word of God itself.

Again, though, these translations are good for reading and can be helpful when studying. My two favorite are probably the 2011 niv and the hcsb. I just would not recommend that make them your primary Bible for studying.

Formal Equivalence

Formal equivalence translations (often referred to as “word-for-word” translations) are an attempt to do as little thought-for-thought translation as possible and simply translate each individual word. No translation does this entirely because it would be virtually impossible to read; ancient people often talked in sentences harder to understand than those of Yoda. The asv might just come the closest, but it is based on rather outdated manuscripts (a subject that we will address in a later post). Probably the most literal, modern translation is the nasb. The esv, in my opinion, strikes a balance between still being among the most literal modern translations and still being readable to inexperienced readers.

I have issues with both the esv and the nasb; there are places in each where I think they could have translated things better. On the whole, though, I tend to prefer the esv for reading (at some point in the future, I plan to write a post explaining why). You will want to have a good formal equivalence translation for studying; I recommend having two or three. The nasb and the esv are my primary formal equivalence Bible’s, but I will often refer to the asv as well.

Paraphrases

These are translations where the translator(s) have literally gone out of their way to warn you: “The words you are reading here are not God’s; they are mine.” A paraphase is an attempt by a translator to take something the Bible says and put it in their own words. There is nothing wrong with paraphrasing. Preachers do this all the time when they preface statements with “it’s as if God is saying…”

You can read these, but do understand that what you are reading is quite removed from the original words of Scripture. Some paraphrase examples include The Message and The Living Bible.

The King Jimmy Bible

The King James Version is a big topic to cover. I have two problems with it that explain why I rarely use it. The first is simply that the language is so archaic that it is difficult to understand. Genesis 24:64 probably gives most modern readers the impression that Rebekah lit a cigarette when it says that she “lighted off her camel.” If your Bible is so old that you have to translate its words so people can understand it, it’s probably time for a new translation.

The other problem I have with the King James Version is that it is based off of very poor manuscripts. Since the kjv was translated, we have found a lot of manuscripts that are a lot closer to the time the Bible was actually written. It makes sense to use the older, more recently discovered manuscripts because the chances are pretty good that error crept in over a period of 800+ years (the kjv was translated from manuscripts dating around 1000ad). I will explain more about the manuscripts issue in a forthcoming post.

So which translation is best?

There really is no answer to that question. My personal favorite is the esv, but I have even found things I don’t like about that one. Translations really can’t be perfect. Your best bet is to use several translations and do word studies when meaning is unclear.

Where do I find these translations?

That’s a question I can answer. The esv translation has its own website which is really good. For other translations you can try biblegateway.com. You can also download software like e-Sword or Xiphos.

Another site I have been trying out lately is Great Treasures. I haven’t used it much, but if it is as good as I hear it is, I may post a review sometime soon.