ADULTERY Video 5 MIN Click on the 7th Commandment

https://10commandments.bibleproject.com/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=videoseries%20resources%202026&utm_content=10CCloser%20email%20062526&utm_term=intext%20cta&lid=kv2ga42x96fa 

Click on  the link above and follow the paths provided.

10th Commandment Video 4 min

https://10commandments.bibleproject.com/commandments/tenth?utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=videoseries%2010Cword10%202026&utm_content=10Cword10%20email%200601526&utm_term=image%20video&lid=ph9dgd4vhm6r 

Click on the link above and follow the paths provided.

 

Bowing Before Assyria: Jehu’s Picture on the Black Obelisk

Dewayne Bryant, Ph.D.

Inspiration of the BibleArchaeology

Critics frequently consign the Bible to the realm of fable, myth, and fantasy, populated with characters better suited for fiction than fact. These beliefs can be found in various formats, ranging from books and magazine articles to videos on YouTube and TikTok. Archaeology often provides an important corrective to this misunderstanding, reminding us that the people, places, and events of Scripture are grounded in real history. Among the most striking examples is the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III, which provides a unique contemporary image of an Israelite king and confirms the existence of one of the Bible’s most ruthless figures: Jehu, son of Nimshi (r. 842-813 B.C.). The infamous monarch appears not only in the biblical text but also in the annals of one of the ancient world’s greatest empires.

Jehu ruled the northern kingdom of Israel during the ninth century B.C. He served as a commander in the Israelite army (2 Kings 9:5) and was anointed by an unnamed prophet to avenge God’s servants who had died at the hand of the wicked queen Jezebel (vs. 7). In the bloodbath that followed, Jehu killed king Jehoram of Israel, king Ahaziah of Judah, Jezebel, and a large number of priests, prophets, and worshipers who had aligned themselves with Ahab (2 Kings 9:14-10:27).1 Following his grisly victory, Jehu established himself in the capital city of Samaria and ruled for nearly three decades.

Jehu was well known to the Assyrians, who mention him in at least four inscriptions. His name appears on a monumental bull discovered at the city of Nimrud (ancient Kalhu, or biblical Calah)2 and in the Marble Slab Inscription from the city of Aššur,3 both of which mention Jehu making a tribute payment to the Assyrian king Shalmaneser III. The Kurba’il Statue, discovered in the ruins of Fort Shalmaneser at Nimrud in 1961, refers to tribute payments from Jehu as well as from the Phoenician cities of Tyre and Sidon.4 The best-known, and perhaps most interesting, reference to the Israelite king appears on the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III.

The beautifully preserved Black Obelisk dates to c. 828-827 B.C. and was discovered by Sir Austen Henry Layard at the ancient city of Calah in 1846. Each of its four sides contains five panels depicting foreign rulers bringing tribute payments to their Assyrian suzerain. One of these panels shows a bowing figure amid various officials, whom the accompanying inscription identifies as King Jehu. The text says, “I received the tribute of Jehu (Ia-ú-a) (the man) of Bīt-Ḫumrî: silver, gold, a golden bowl, a golden goblet, golden cups, golden buckets, tin, a staff of the king’s hand, (and) javelins.”5 Scholars debate whether the bowing figure is an envoy from Israel or a picture of Jehu himself (only a representation, as the king would not have personally travelled to Assyria). Nevertheless, many scholars believe this is indeed a depiction of the Israelite king, which is the only known contemporary portrait of any biblical monarch.

Wikimedia Commons photo by Osama Shukir Muhammed Amin FRCP(Glasg), CC BY-SA 4.0.

Wikimedia Commons photo by Osama Shukir Muhammed Amin FRCP(Glasg), CC BY-SA 4.0.

The Bible gives little information concerning Jehu’s reign and the specific conditions under which he became an Assyrian vassal. Scripture mentions that the rulers of both Israel and Judah often sought help and protection from human rulers rather than God (2 Kings 15:19-20; 17:3-4; Hosea 7:11; 8:9-10). It would appear Jehu followed the same path of political expediency as his peers.6 Like many other biblical kings, his existence is firmly supported by his appearance in the historical and archaeological records. The same could be said for roughly half of the rulers of Israel and Judah.

One potential problem raised by critics is that Assyrian sources refer to the king as belonging to the “house of Omri” (Assyrian Bīt-Ḫumrî), whereas the Bible seems to depict the two as having no familial connection—Jehu is a military commander who takes the throne in a coup. The Assyrians ordinarily referred to such usurpers as a “son of nobody”—in other words, a king who had no legitimate royal lineage. Such is the case for Hazael of Aram-Damascus, who is described as a usurper in both Assyrian records and the Bible (2 Kings 8:7-15).7 The natural—and unfortunately predictable—response from some critics regarding this potential discrepancy is that the Bible simply made an error. However, Assyriologist Lawson Younger notes, “The Assyrians often denoted countries by the name of the founder of the ruling dynasty at the time of their first acquaintance with it…regardless of which dynasty was currently in power.”8 Thus, this possible contradiction is easily resolved: the Assyrians referred to the Northern Kingdom as the “House of Omri” because they first contacted the kingdom during the reign of the Omride dynasty, despite Jehu having no connection to those rulers.

Not only does the Black Obelisk confirm Jehu’s existence, but numerous Assyrian inscriptions indicate his status as a vassal of the mighty Assyrian Empire. It also places him firmly within a historical framework consistent with both biblical and Assyrian chronology. Together with other Assyrian inscriptions, it confirms the political realities described in Scripture and reminds us that biblical figures were real people living in a real world. Jehu’s story is yet another reminder that Scripture’s claims stand up to scrutiny and that the Bible is rooted, not in myth, but in reality.

Endnotes

1 The Tel Dan Inscription indicates that Hazael of Damascus killed Jehoram and Ahaziah, while the biblical text credits Jehu with the deed. It appears that Hazael simply claimed responsibility for the deaths of the other two kings. It is a well-known fact that ancient rulers often exaggerated their accomplishments and took credit for the deeds of others. On this point, see Kenneth A. Kitchen (2003), On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), p. 37.

2 K. Lawson Younger, Jr. (2000), “Annals: Calah Bulls (2.113C),” The Context of Scripture, ed. William W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger (Leiden: Brill), 2:266-267.

3 K. Lawson Younger, Jr. (2000), “Annals: Marble Slab (2.113D),” The Context of Scripture, ed. William W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger (Leiden: Brill), 2:267-268.

4 K. Lawson Younger, Jr. (2000), “Kurba’il Statue (2.113E),” The Context of Scripture, ed.  William W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger (Leiden: Brill), 2:268-269. See also A. Kirk Grayson (1996), Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC II (858-745 BC) (Toronto: University of Toronto), pp. 58-61.

5 K. Lawson Younger, Jr. (2000), “Black Obelisk (2.113F),” The Context of Scripture, ed. William W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger (Leiden: Brill), 2:270. The reference here is to the “house of Omri.” 

6 Other famous incidents include Ahab’s treaty with the Arameans (1 Kings 20:31-34), Ahaz’s appeal to the Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser III (2 Kings 16:7-9), and Hezekiah’s attempts to secure military aid from Egypt (Isaiah 30:1-7; 31:1).

7 K. Lawson Younger, Jr. (2000), “Aššur Basalt Statue,” The Context of Scripture, ed. William W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger (Leiden: Brill), 2:270.

8 Younger, “Annals: Calah Bulls,” 2:267 n.5.

Image Credit (Title Image): Wikimedia Commons photo by Osama Shukir Muhammed Amin FRCP(Glasg), CC BY-SA 4.0.

Wikimedia Commons photo by Osama Shukir Muhammed Amin FRCP(Glasg), CC BY-SA 4.0.

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed

 

"Not Under Bondage"

Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Culture WarDoctrinal MattersDivorceDivorceMarriage and FamilyMarriage and Family

“But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases. But God has called us to peace” (1 Corinthians 7:15).

A current misconception with regard to divorce and remarriage is the notion that 1 Corinthians 7:15 is a “later revelation” that “modifies” or “clarifies” Matthew 19:9. It is argued that 1 Corinthians 7:15 permits the Christian, who is deserted by a non-Christian mate, to remarry on the sole ground of that desertion. On the other hand, it is suggested, Matthew 19:9 (which permits remarriage only on the ground of fornication) applies strictly to a Christian married to a Christian, and therefore is not to be considered applicable to the Christian who is married to a non-Christian. Several factors make this position untenable.

First, the context of Matthew 19 is divorce (Matthew 19:3), while the context of 1 Corinthians 7 is not divorce but the propriety of marriage (1 Corinthians 7:1ff.). Jesus applied God’s original marriage law (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:4-6) to the question of divorce and remarriage (Matthew 19:9). But Paul applied God’s marriage law to several different questions that related to celibacy and the legitimacy of marriage for widows/widowers, Christians/non-Christians, and singles.

Second, it is incorrect to hold that if 1 Corinthians 7:15 pertains to a Christian married to a non-Christian, then Matthew 19:9 must refer exclusively to a Christian married to a Christian. Matthew 19:9 was uttered in context to a group of Jews seeking an answer to their question concerning Jewish divorce (Matthew 19:3). Jesus gave them an answer that was intended for them, as well as for those who would live during the Christian age. He appealed to Genesis 2, which resides in a pre-Jewish context and clearly applies to all people—i.e., the totality of humanity. Genesis 2 is a human race context. It reveals God’s ideal will for human marriage for all of human history—pre-Mosaic, Mosaic, and Christian.

Though divorce and remarriage for reasons other than fornication was “permitted” (epetrepsen—Matthew 19:8, though not endorsed) during the Mosaic period, Jesus made clear that the Jews had strayed from the original ideal because of their hard hearts. He further emphasized (notice the use of de—“but” in Matthew 19:9) that the original marriage law, which permitted divorce and remarriage for fornication alone, would be reinstated and would be applicable to all persons during the Christian age. Prior to the cross, ignorance may have been “unattended to” (huperidon—Acts 17:30), that is, God did not have a universal law, like the Gospel (Mark 16:15-16), but with the ratification of the New Testament, all men everywhere are responsible and liable for conforming themselves to God’s universal laws of marriage, divorce, and remarriage. God’s original marriage law was, and is, addressed to all people (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:4-6). Christ’s application to the question of divorce was implied in the original law, and is addressed to all people (Matthew 19:9). Paul’s application to questions of sex, celibacy, and non-Christian mates is addressed to all people (1 Corinthians 7). Scripture harmonizes beautifully, and God treats all impartially. Thus the phrase “to the rest” (1 Corinthians 7:12) cannot be referring uniquely or solely to non-Christian marriage relationships, since Jesus already referred to all marriages (whether Jew or non-Jew, Christian or non-Christian).

Third, 1 Corinthians 7 does not address different “classes” of marriages. The Corinthian letter was written in response to correspondence previously sent to Paul by the Corinthians (cf. 1:11; 5:1; 7:1; 8:1; 12:1; 16:1). Thus, 1 Corinthians amounts to a point-by-point response to matters previously raised by the Corinthians themselves. When Paul referred to the general question of sexual activity/celibacy (7:1), he was alluding to the method by which he organized his remarks in direct response to questions asked by the Corinthians. Thus, “to the rest” (7:12) refers to the rest of the matters or questions about which the Corinthians specifically inquired (and to which Jesus did not make specific application while on Earth). These matters (not marriages) are easily discernible from what follows. The “rest” of the questions would have included the following:

• Should a Christian male who has a non-Christian wife sever the relationship (vs. 12)?
• Should a Christian female who has a non-Christian husband sever the relationship (vs. 13)?
• Are Christians somehow ceremonially defiled or rendered unclean by such relationships (vs. 14)?
• Are children born to such relationships ceremonially unclean (vs. 14)?
• Is a Christian guilty of sin if their non-Christian mate severs the relationship (vs. 15-16)?
• Does becoming a Christian mean that one should dissolve all conditions and relationships that were entered into before becoming a Christian (vss. 17-24)?
• What should be the sexual and/or marital status of virgins and widows in light of the current period of distress (vss. 25-40)?

All of these questions may be answered in light of, and in harmony with, Jesus’ own remarks in Matthew 19. Jesus did not specifically make application to these unique instances (vs. 12—“to the rest speak I, not the Lord”). He did not address Himself to the application of God’s general marriage law to every specific situation (specifically to the spiritual status of a Christian married to a non-Christian). Yet, His teaching applies to every case of marriage on the question of divorce.

Fourth, the specific context of 1 Corinthians 7:15 relates to the person who becomes a Christian, but whose mate does not. The unbeliever now finds himself married to a different person (in the sense that his mate underwent a total change and began to live a completely different lifestyle). The unbeliever demands that his mate make a choice: “either give up Christ or I’m leaving!” Yet to live in marriage with an unbeliever, who threatens departure if the believer does not capitulate to the unbeliever (i.e., compromise Christian responsibility or neglect divinely ordained duty), is to be involved in slavery (i.e., “bondage”). But neither at the time the marriage was contracted, nor at the present time (the force of the perfect indicative passive in Greek), has the Christian been under that kind of bondage. God never intended nor approved a view that regards marriage as slavery. Christians are slaves only to God—never to men or mates (Matthew 23:10; Romans 6:22; Ephesians 6:6; Colossians 3:24; Philemon 16; 1 Corinthians 7:15). So Paul was saying that although a believer is married to an unbeliever (and continues to be so), the believer is not to compromise his or her discipleship. To do so, at the insistence of the unbelieving mate, would constitute slavery that was never God’s intention for marriage.

To suggest that dedoulotai (“bondage”) refers to the marriage bond is to maintain that in some sense (or in some cases) the marriage bond is to be viewed as a state of slavery. But God does not want us to view our marital unions as slave relationships in which we are “under bondage.” We may be “bound” (1 Corinthians 7:27,39; Romans 7:2), but we are not “enslaved” (1 Corinthians 7:15). So Paul was not commenting on the status of a believer’s marital relationship (i.e., whether bound or loosed). Rather, he was commenting on the status of a believer’s spiritual relationship as a Christian in the context of marital discord that is initiated by the non-Christian mate. Paul was answering the question: “How does being married to a non-Christian affect my status as a Christian if he or she threatens to leave?” He was not answering the question: “How does being married to a non-Christian affect my status as a husband/wife (and the potential for remarriage) when the non-Christian departs?” Jesus already answered that question in Matthew 19:9—divorce and remarriage is permitted only upon the basis of sexual unfaithfulness. Paul, too, spoke more directly to this question earlier in the chapter when he ruled out remarriage: “Let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband” (vss. 10-11).

To summarize: although God’s marriage law is stringent (for everybody), and although God hates divorce (Malachi 2:16), nevertheless, there are times when an unbelieving mate actually will force the believer to make a choice between Christ and the unbelieving mate. To choose the mate over Christ would be slavery (i.e., “bondage”). Yet, the believer is not now, and never has been, in such enslavement. Thus, the believer must let the unbeliever exit the relationship in peace. The believer must “let him depart”—in the sense that the believer must not seek to prevent his departure by compromising his loyalty to Christ. Of course, the Christian would continue to hold out hope that the marriage could be saved. If, however, the non-Christian forms a sexual union outside of marriage with another, the Christian is permitted the right to exercise the injunction of Matthew 19:9 by putting away the non-Christian on the sole grounds of fornication and may then marry another eligible person.

One final factor needs to be addressed. Verses 17-24 cannot be requiring an individual to remain in whatever marital state that person is in at the time of conversion. Paul used the examples of slavery and circumcision to show that merely because a person becomes a Christian, he or she is not absolved of pre-Christian circumstances. If a person is a slave prior to baptism, that person will continue to be a slave after baptism, and should not think that becoming a Christian gives one the right to shirk legal status as a slave. This is why Paul instructed Onesimus to return to his position of servitude (Philemon 12). Thus Paul was encouraging the person who becomes a Christian, but whose mate does not become a Christian, to remain in that marriage rather than think that becoming a Christian somehow gives him or her the right to sever the relationship with the non-Christian mate. Being married to a non-Christian mate is not sinful in and of itself (see Miller, 2002).

Paul was not placing his stamp of approval upon relationships, practices, and conditions that were sinful prior to baptism; nor was he encouraging Christians to remain in those relationships. Such would contradict what he later told the Corinthians concerning unequal yokes (2 Corinthians 6:17) and repentance (2 Corinthians 7:8-10). Rather, he was referring to relationships and conditions that were not sinful prior to baptism, and was telling Christians that they still had the same obligation to conduct themselves appropriately (i.e., according to God’s laws) within those situations, now that they were Christians. Such instructions apply to any relationship, practice, or condition that was not sinful (i.e., in violation of Christ’s laws) prior to baptism. But it does not apply to any practice or relationship that was sinful prior to baptism (i.e., adultery, homosexuality, evil business practices, etc.; cf. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11).

May God grant us the humility and determination to conform our lives to His will concerning marriage—no matter how narrow it may seem (Matthew 7:14). May the church of our day be spared any further harm that comes from the promotion of false theories and doctrines that are calculated to re-define God’s will as “wide” and “broad” (Matthew 7:13). May we truly seek to please, not men, but God (Galatians 1:10).

REFERENCES

Miller, Dave (2002), “Be Not Unequally Yoked,” Apologetics Press, https://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1802

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.

 

The Gospel in Genesis (Part 2)

Eric Lyons

Deity of ChristInspiration of the BibleProphecyUnity

In Genesis, as throughout the Old Testament, the Messiah is revealed not only in promises and prophecies, but also through real people, places, and events that serve as living illustrations of Someone much greater. These divinely arranged “pictures”—which we often call types, figures, and foreshadowings—subtly anticipate and illuminate the coming of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the world.

A Beloved Son Offered

Genesis 22 includes one of the most puzzling accounts in all of Scripture. God instructed his faithful servant Abraham, saying, “Take now your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering” (22:2). How could an all-good, all-loving God Who despises human sacrifice (Jeremiah 7:31; Leviticus 20:2-5; Deuteronomy 18:10) command Abraham to sacrifice his son? 

Though this serious ethical question is answered more thoroughly in articles and videos on the Apologetics Press website (apologeticspress.org), let me briefly offer the following response here: (1) God never intended for Isaac to actually die at Abraham’s hand: God’s command was a “test,” as stated in verse one of the chapter (cf. Hebrews 11:17)—and God’s tests are meant to strengthen us, not cause us to sin (Exodus 20:20; cf. John 6:5-6; James 1:13). (2) As an omniscient God, He knew that He was going to step in and stop Abraham from ever actually killing Isaac. (3) Had Abraham literally sacrificed Isaac, he would have disobeyed God, since (a) this was a test, and (b) at the moment when Abraham was about to slay his son, “[T]he Angel of the Lord called to him from heaven and said, ‘Abraham, Abraham!… Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him’” (Genesis 22:11-12).

But why? Why did God test Abraham with the strangest and severest of commands? What could be more difficult to hear God say? What could be more difficult to do? Why is this baffling story in the Bible?

As with most of our “why” questions, the sovereign God of the Universe does not directly answer these for us (nor does He have to). Undoubtedly, His command to Abraham and the preservation of this account in Scripture serve multiple purposes (cf. Hebrews 11:17-19), whether we know of them or not. However, based upon the theme of Genesis, of the Bible as a whole, and the placement of this story directly between two specific Messianic promises (Genesis 21:12 and 22:18), surely this account serves primarily to foreshadow the coming of the Messiah—the sacrificed, beloved Son of God on Calvary.

When we step back and consider the details of Genesis 22, the parallels between Isaac and Jesus are too numerous—and too specific—to ignore. 

• Isaac was a promised son (Genesis 17:19; 21:12), just as Jesus was the promised Son announced to Mary (Luke 1:30-33). 
• Isaac’s birth required divine intervention, since Sarah was barren and beyond childbearing age (Genesis 11:30; 18:11-14), while Jesus was conceived miraculously in the virgin Mary (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:21-23; Luke 1:34-35). 
• Isaac is called Abraham’s “only” son (Genesis 22:2)—his unique, beloved son (cf. Hebrews 11:17; Greek monogenes)—just as Jesus is the uniquely begotten (monogenes) Son of God (John 3:16; Matthew 3:17). 
• Abraham took wood for the burnt offering and “laid it on Isaac his son,” which Isaac carried for his own sacrifice up Mount Moriah (Genesis 22:6). Jesus carried His wooden cross toward Golgotha for His own sacrifice (John 19:17).
• As there is no hint of struggling on Isaac’s part in Genesis 22, it seems that he willingly submitted to his father’s will to be sacrificed. Jesus likewise declared that He laid down His life of His own accord (John 10:17-18). 
• Abraham was willing to offer up his son (Genesis 22:9-12; Hebrews 11:17), and two thousand years later God “did not spare His own Son” (Romans 8:32). 
• A ram “just happened” to be provided as a substitute in Isaac’s place (Genesis 22:13), surely pointing forward to Jesus—the true Lamb of God (John 1:29)—Who gave His life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45; 1 Peter 3:18).
• Abraham was willing to offer up Isaac—through whom God had promised to bless all nations—because he knew that God could raise him from the dead, “from which he also received him back as a type” (Hebrews 11:19, NASB)—as a symbolic representation. And what was this figurative event foreshadowing? Surely the triumphant resurrection of Jesus from the dead (1 Corinthians 15:20; Romans 4:24-25).

Individually, all of these similarities are striking. Together, they form a powerful picture: long before Calvary, God was quietly preaching the Gospel on Mount Moriah. There, a father learned what it meant to trust God with his son—so that one day the world might better understand what it meant for God to give His.

A Substitute Provided

The Bible’s picture of the penalty for sin and the cost of redemption goes back even earlier than Genesis 22. In fact, when sin entered the world in Genesis 3, we immediately—however so subtly—begin to see what salvation from sin will cost.

Some 2,000 years before Abraham named the place where God provided a substitute for Isaac, “The-LORD-Will-Provide (YHWH Yireh),” God provided in the Garden for Adam and Eve. Genesis 3:21 says, “[T]he LORD God made tunics of skin, and clothed them.” Implied in this short statement is the fact that God shed the blood of an animal for Adam and Eve.

The Creator of the Universe did not become perfectly holy (unable to fellowship sinners) and perfectly just (demanding punishment for sin) after making a covenant with Abraham or after giving Abraham’s descendants the Law of Moses. The spiritual truth that “blood…makes atonement for the soul” was not some new idea in Leviticus 17:11 (some 2,500 years after sin entered the world). The fundamental, divine truth that “without shedding of blood there is no remission” (Hebrews 9:22) has always been true. 

• Blood as Purification: In the Old Testament, blood was seen as the means of atonement. Leviticus 17:11 states, “For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls” ESV.org.

• Necessity of Bloodshedding: The verse affirms that forgiveness of sins could not occur without the shedding of blood. This principle underlies both the animal sacrifices of the Law and, ultimately, the sacrifice of Jesus Christ Bible Study Tools.

• Christ’s Superior Sacrifice: The surrounding verses (Hebrews 9:23–28) explain that Christ entered heaven itself, not just the earthly sanctuary, and offered Himself once for all to put away sin. This one-time sacrifice fulfills and surpasses the repeated animal sacrifices of the Law

Before Abraham sacrificed the substitutionary ram (Genesis 22); before Noah offered animal “burnt offerings on the altar” following the Flood that destroyed a wicked world (8:20-21); before Abel “brought of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat” as an offering to the LORD (4:4); God shed the blood of an animal in the Garden of Eden after Adam and Eve’s sin (3:21). Even before they fully understood the depth of their need, God graciously acted to provide for Adam and Eve. Indeed, such a substitutionary sacrifice seems implied in the animal covering of Genesis 3:21.

One cannot help but wonder what Adam and Eve were thinking as they watched an animal being killed because of their sin. On that day, the innocent life of an animal was taken because of their sin. God covered sinners with a substitute. From the first sin onward, forgiveness would not come cheaply—it would come covered in blood.

Today, God calls upon sinners to no longer walk in the lusts of the world, but to “put on the Lord Jesus Christ” (Romans 13:14). “For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ” (Galatians 3:27, NASB). Indeed, “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world” (Revelation 13:8) graciously and mercifully makes sinners fit for God’s holy presence, having “washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb” (Revelation 7:14).

A Mediator Granting Access to Heaven

Genesis not only foreshadows the ultimate substitute for our sins, but it also provides a brief symbol of “the way” to God. In Genesis 28, the LORD reminded Jacob in a dream of the promise He made to his father Isaac and grandfather Abraham—“in you and in your seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed” (28:14). In this dream, “a ladder was set up on the earth, and its top reached to heaven; and there the angels of God were ascending and descending on it. And behold, the LORD stood above it” (28:12-13). When Jacob awoke astonished, saying, “How awesome is this place! This is none other than the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven! … And he called the name of the place Bethel” (28:16-17,19), meaning “house of God.” 

Jacob had this dream as he was fleeing from his brother Esau, who was threatening to kill him for stealing Esau’s firstborn-blessing from their father (see 27:1-41). This theft followed Jacob’s exploitation of Esau, craftily leveraging Esau’s weariness and hunger to secure his birthright. Indeed, Jacob practiced deceit (27:35), and Esau responded after these two instances, saying, “Is he not rightly named Jacob? For he has supplanted me these two times. He took away my birthright, and now look, he has taken away my blessing!” (27:36). 

Recalling these events, as well as the meaning of “Jacob” (“supplanter” or “deceiver”), is important as readers ponder a particular New Testament passage—John 1:43-51. Upon learning of the identity of Jesus, Philip the apostle finds his friend Nathanael to tell him: “We have found Him of whom Moses in the law, and also the prophets, wrote—Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.” When the initially skeptical Nathanael sees Jesus for the first time, Jesus says to him, “Behold, an Israelite in whom is no deceit!” 

Unlike Jacob the “supplanter,” Nathanael was a thoroughly honest man. And when he received only a small piece of evidence for the Messiahship of Jesus, he immediately responded, “You are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!” (John 1:49). To which Jesus responded: “You will see greater things than these…. Truly, truly, I say to you, you will see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man” (1:50-51, ESV).

In Genesis 28, Jacob dreamed of a ladder bridging Earth and heaven, with angels of God ascending and descending, and the LORD standing above it. In John 1:51, the only explicit reference to Jacob’s dream outside Genesis 28, Jesus refers to the angels ascending and descending upon Him. He is the reality of Jacob’s dream! He is the bridge from Earth to heaven. He is the “one Mediator between God and men” (1 Timothy 2:5). He is “the way ” to the Father in heaven (John 14:6), and no one enters the Father’s presence except through Him (John 14:6). He is the “gate” into heaven (John 10:9, NIV). The Son of Man is the one and only access point for all peoples (Ephesians 2:18)! This truth was faintly foreshadowed in Jacob’s dream all the way back in Genesis 28.

Conclusion: The Gospel Foreshadowed in Genesis

As far back as Genesis, God was illustrating the way for sinful humans to somehow be found acceptable in God’s sight and have access into His perfectly pure presence. Atonement for sins and restored fellowship with our holy God cannot be “achieved” through mere confession or regret of sin. Access to God could never be “earned” by some meritorious—even herculean—effort on our part. We can’t force our way back to the Father.

Adam and Eve were deserving of death. We are deserving of death! (Romans 1:32). “[T]he wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23). “But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses” (Ephesians 2:4-5) began to show us all the way back in Genesis—in the Garden of Eden, on Mount Moriah, and at Bethel—that He had a plan. A substitutionary Lamb would shed His blood and give His life in order to grant sinners access to God’s presence.
“[B]y the blood of Jesus” we can “draw near” to the Father (Hebrews 10:19-22)—the greatest truth the world has ever heard, foreshadowed all the way back in Genesis.

[Part three of this article will appear in next month’s issue of R&R.]

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.