“Rightly Dividing the Word — Law & Gospel”
In his second letter to Timothy, Paul instructs his young protege to “rightly divide the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15). What does that mean? It’s a call to all ministers of the word to present the word of God correctly — i.e., as it is meant to be understood and faithful to the overall message of Scripture.
Sadly, many modern day preachers are doing anything but rightly dividing the word of truth. They bend and twist Scripture to fit their particular ‘pet theology,’ or they use Scripture to make a point to 21st century hearers that is completely foreign to the way it would have been understood to the original audience.
James warns his readers that they should be very careful in striving to be a teacher of God’s word because those “who teach will be judged with greater strictness” (James 3:1). We’re all going to be judged for our sins, but those who lead people stray with false teaching will be held to a greater judgment.
So how do we rightly divide the word of truth? We need to understand the ‘meta-narrative’ of Scripture — i.e., the overarching story of the Bible. Sermons not only need to be exegetically sound, but they also need to tie into the meta-narrative. Every passage in Scripture has its immediate context, but it also fits into God’s story of redemption from Genesis to Revelation. Jesus told the disciples on the road to Emmaus that he was the central focus of Scripture (Luke 24:27). The cross is the central point in all the Bible — it is the point where God’s law meets with God’s grace.
The following audio file is taken from a recent White Horse Inn radio broadcast and it shows how Scripture should be understood in terms of Law and Gospel. Give it a listen.
White Horse Inn program #946: Rightly Dividing the Word: Law & Gospel (original air date: May 24, 2009)
if we disagree with you, you say we have not rightly divide the word of god. likewise, those whom you disagree will probably write what you had written and this circular argument goes no where except lead to more contention and division.
time to ditch superstitious beliefs and separates truths from stories.
Helpful,
your comment isn’t very helpful. Are you trying to imply that two people who disagree can’t come to some sort of agreement? If two people come to two completely different interpretations of the same passage of Scripture, then either one or the other is right or they’re both wrong. That in no way invalidates the truth of Scripture.
“If two people come to two completely different interpretations of the same passage of Scripture, then either one or the other is right or they’re both wrong. That in no way invalidates the truth of Scripture.”
true
let’s be more specific. how about if i tell you that jesus did not die a vicarious death and that when you punish someone, who is innocent, over the guilty, that’s perversion of justice and god will not concede to such a salvation for mankind?
you of course, will maintain your evangelical stance. now, how should we settle this difference and yet…. be spared from your accusation:
They bend and twist Scripture to fit their particular ‘pet theology,’ or they use Scripture to make a point to 21st century hearers that is completely foreign to the way it would have been understood to the original audience????
Read Paul. Of he doesn’t convince you of the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, not sure what will. The epistles give the proper interpretation of the gospels.
Carl Gobelman carlgobelman@me.com (847) 989-4676
Another thing. It appears that you find the concept of substitutionary atonement abhorent. Two things can be said in response. First, not liking a doctrine doesn’t mean it’s false. Second, I too find it abhorent. Why should an innocent man die for my sins?!?!? My only question to you is how does one pay for ones sins? Any sane reading of the Bible comes to the conclusion that we can’t. Hence, Jesus. It’s called grace, and we don’t deserve it.
see what i mean? your respond is typical of someone whose religious status quo has been challenged. as usual, out come your religious defensive mechanism; go read paul; rightly dividing the word etc etc
well, at least, you followed by asking…how then?
so you said…go read paul.
ok then, i pulled this up from the book of romans:
Romans 7
1Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?
2For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
3So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
4Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.
that’s how SIN has been “paid for” and mind you, that is not a vicarious death that jesus died – which the church has trumpeted for centuries – which basically violates the laws of god and therefore, makes no sense!
Explain to me the context of Romans 7:1-4 and how that applies to the payment of sin. It’s fairly easy to quote Scripture and say “see”. Anyone can take Scripture out of context to prove their point.
Carl Gobelman carlgobelman@me.com (847) 989-4676
“It is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.” Rom.2:13
Which law?
The question you need to ask yourself is “Have I obeyed the law perfectly?” Because is you’re going to bring this verse up the point is that it is requiring of you perfect obedience. Have you done that? I think not because if you read just a little bit further you will see this:
Don’t pull verses out of context to prove your aberrant theology.
you are, like many who were born into christianity, a staunch adherence of the doctrine of atonement. the doctrine of atonement theory claims that jesus satisfied divine justice for your(personal) sins. most don’t question an inherent moral controversy with this theory and assumed it’s gospel truth because some intellectual theologian,centuries ago, conceived it.
well, read that chapter again. does it in anyway suggest to you that jesus was punished for your…crime,lawlessness or bad habits?
not at all. it accused the bride( representative of subjects/people/followers/sheep) of conjugal defiant to an abusive husband who is a ….BEAST!
our salvation( as a people, not an individual or personal salvation) is now pivoted on a change of relationship, terminating an old contract….. no, killing the old hubby so you can be remarried, come under….a NEW HUSBAND( what does that mean?) to be precise.
having a “new husband” is far from atonement through “substitutionary punishment to satisfy divine judgment”.
the bible warned of a great deception that will precede the ultimate revolution.
that deception has resulted in much bloodshed throughout the history of man and even today. that deception has alienated and divided the people. that deception has brought JUDGMENT. not grace.
you are part of that deception!
Dude,
You’re the one who is deceived. First, you’re going against centuries of established Christian orthodoxy. Second, you need a serious lesson in how to read. There is such a thing as context. It’s where the meaning of a word or sentence is derived from the surrounding words or sentences. Romans 7 doesn’t teach atonement because that is not the point of the passage. You and your whacko teachers are tearing that passage out of its context and twisting it to serve your own perverse needs. Paul is presenting an argument for sanctification in Romans 6-8, and you’re twisting a portion of it for some other reason; you need some basic lessons in reading comprehension.
However, if you’re interested in seeing a passage in which the atonement is mentioned, try Romans 3:21-30. Paul mentions that Jesus was offered up as a propitiation for our sins. A propitiation means a sacrifice of appeasement to God to avert his wrath.
I could cite a dozen more NT passages that talk about substitutionary atonement, but I’ve wasted enough time with you that I can’t get back. Don’t bother replying back as all further comments of your will be deleted. You are not interested in dialogue, but in peddling false doctrine; and I will no longer provide you a platform for that.
I know I’m chiming in a bit late, but read St. Anselm on the Substitution Theory of Atonement and the Reformers on the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement (an expansion on Anselm’s Substitution Theory).
It amazes me how much context and interpretation is thrown to the wind. Interpretation history is usually tossed aside with context in exchange for our own personal interpretation.
The theory of substitutionary atonement might have had a chance to fly but, God nipped off the proposal long before it got off the ground. In Gen.9:5 NIV God rules that whenever any human male’s life is lost by bloodshed it results in having to give an account directly to him. But the theory of substitutionary atonement’s core is the false assumption that crucifying a man in your place which causes him to loose his life by bloodshed will not result in causing any residual issue that demands an account be given to God. God made a second counter against substitutionary atonement’s theoretical core in Jn. 16:8. The issue of guilt relative to sin remains outstanding AFTER Jesus’ crucifixion so there is at least one sin at this time remaining to be resolved that was not resolved by Jesus’ crucifixion. Therefore the theory of substitutionary atonement cannot be true.
Theodore,
Thanks for visiting and taking the time to comment. You argument doesn’t fly in my humble opinion, and here’s why. First off Genesis 9:6 doesn’t say “whoever loses his life by bloodshed,” it says, “whoever sheds the blood of man.” The “shedding of blood” is a euphemism for death, it is not a type of death. Another way of saying it is “whoever takes a man’s life, his life shall be taken in payment.” Essentially, this is establishing the death penalty for murder. The reason given is that the life of man, being created in God’s image, carries an inherent value because of his being created in God’s image. To destroy that image in another is to forfeit your own life.
Secondly, this verse isn’t speaking about atonement. Atonement is a means to avert God’s wrath on sin. God established at the very beginning that sin was punishable by death (Genesis 2:16). The question can be asked, “Why didn’t Adam and Eve die when they sinned?” One answer is that they did die in a spiritual sense. The fall affected a corruption in the Imago Dei that destroyed the communion man shared with God prior to the fall. It also imputed the guilt of their sin to their progeny so that man is born in sin and shares the guilt of Adam. I believe all of that is true, but we also see the concept of substitutionary atonement begun right here in the garden after the fall. Look at Genesis 3:21, “And the LORD God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins and clothed them.” Many people skim over that verse, but what is happening here? I don’t believe that God created ex nihilo some animal skins with which to clothe them. Animals were slain and their skins were used to clothe Adam and Eve.
There are so many things in this narrative that point to what Christ does for us. First, animals were slain in the place of Adam and Eve. God should have killed Adam and Eve right on the spot for their sin, but in grace and mercy, he slays two animals in their place; just like Christ was slain in our place for our sin. Second, the animals atoned for the sin of Adam, just as the death of Christ atones for our sin. Third, God clothes Adam and Eve, so that he sees them through the covering of that atonement. Similarly, the perfect righteousness of Christ clothes us (how many NT exhortations are there to ‘put on Christ’), so that God sees us through his atonement. Finally, the provision of God (animal skins) is far superior to man’s attempt to cover his own sin (fig leaves). This is played out by the fact that God accepts the atonement and righteousness of Christ over our feeble attempts at self-righteousness (which Isaiah calls ‘filthy rags’).
Thirdly, your reference to John 16:8 is woefully taken out of context. This passage is part of Jesus’ upper room discourse in which he gives his disciples some final words before the crucifixion. In part of that discourse, Jesus promises the sending of another Helper, the Holy Spirit. Part of the Spirit’s mission after Jesus’ death is to “convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment.” Now we’ve already established that from the beginning the “wages of sin is death.” Physical death is a penalty we all will pay for the imputation of Adam’s sin (“As in Adam, all die.” 1 Corinthians 15:22). The writer of Hebrews says that it is appointed for man to die once and face the judgment (Hebrews 9:27). At that point, we will all stand before God and be judged for what we’ve done in this life. If we stand before God in our ‘fig leaves’ of self-righteousness, we will be eternally punished. However, if we stand before God clothed in the righteousness of Christ (our substitutionary atonement), we will pass on to eternal life. The Spirit’s mission is to bring this conviction of sin, righteousness and judgment into the world. Some will have their eyes opened and respond in repentance and faith in Jesus and be saved, and some will reject and be judged for their sin in the here after. This verse doesn’t refute substitutionary atonement.
Finally, I want to present the positive case for substitutionary atonement. God set up the sacrificial system in Israel to be a foreshadowing of what he would do completely in Christ. One of their sacrifices was the annual Day of Atonement. Each year, the high priest would be presented with two goats. One goat would be slain and its blood placed on the mercy seat in the Holy of Holies. This was the propitiation of the sin of the people. The blood of the slain goat averted God’s wrath on his people. The high priest would then place his hands on the head of the second goat, the scapegoat, and confess the sins of the people. This second goat was then sent into the wilderness away from the people. This was the expiation of sin as God removes the guilt of their sin from them. The writer of Hebrews parallels that OT system with the perfection of Christ’s once for all sacrifice which provided both propitiation (the appeasement of God’s wrath) and expiation (the removal of the sin of the people). As Hebrews 9:22 so aptly puts it, “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin.” The bottom line is that our sin has to be paid for one way or another. We can either accept Christ’s atoning sacrifice for our sin, or we will face eternal death (i.e., separation from God) for our sin.
So then it is very wise to put the new wine of salvation into an old wine skin?
“It is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.” Rom.2:13
Which law?
Yes it is certainly true that there cannot be any forgiveness of sin without the shedding of blood. However God does rule that AFTER some man’s blood is shed:
“And from EACH man, too, I will (a future event) demand an accounting for the life of your fellow man.” in regard to the fact that this particular man’s life was lost by bloodshed. What shall you say of yourself? “I don’t fit into the classification of EACH man too” or can you present some sort of writ from God that exempts you from complying with what God demands from all other men? In case you have forgotten it has been said that “God does not respect persons.” but perhaps you are an exception to that also.
What point are you trying to make? You seem to be taking verses out of context to make a point, but it escapes me because you can’t seem to present your point cogently. Maybe if you try to state in simple terms what your disagreement with me is and your supporting arguments in favor of your position, then I might be able to respond. All you seem to be doing it quoting Genesis 9 to somehow prove that it refutes substitutionary atonement; which is ludicrous.
Gen. 9:5 a.b.c NIV is the unchangeable oath of God in which he cannot lie that is referenced in Heb.6:18 and is one of two things relative to understand the Way Jesus has perfected by his crucifixion to save yourself from death. If it were possible to interpret the scriptures correctly by following the rules of hermeneutics Jesus’ oath by which he cannot lie, “few find it”, could not be true. Now you give me an answer to my question. Are you in the classification of each man too by God’s unchangeable oath or not? Regarding the fact that “Give to the one who asks you” is a command of the Lord not obeying him classifies you as not one of his. Do you understand?
On what basis do you assert that Hebrews 6:18 is a reference to Genesis 9:5?
I thought the question was clear enough having been already asked twice. Are you within the classification of EACH man too who MUST give an account directly to God regarding the fact in place of at least one man’s life having been taken by bloodshed? Yes or No regarding that you are commanded to limit your answer to yes or no. As to your invisible comment about the law. There has been a change of the law. Heb.7:12, which James refers to as “the perfect law of liberty” and Peter refers to as the “Lord’s command which you” (meaning the people he was writing to but not you) “have obeyed”. And again Paul refers to this law by writing “The law was added so that the trespass might increase”. What law?
As to you question regarding Heb. 6:18 and Gen. 9:5c. see Heb. 6:17 ‘oath’ regarding God’s set purpose “for EACH man too”.
(OK, I’ll indulge this line of questioning a little longer).
Is your contention that because God institutes capital punishment in this passage we are somehow guilty of bloodshed when someone is murdered? For example, if person A murders person B, then we are ALL guilty? Are you also using this passage to essentially annul the atonement? In other words, because Jesus was murdered, that that act somehow leaves a sin blemish that still needs to be addressed?
To answer your (confusing and irrelevant) question, “yes” I would be included in “EACH man” since I am, in fact, a human being. But your whole understanding of this passage in relation to the law and to the atonement is tortured at best and completely off-base at worst. Maybe if you just plainly say what it is you’re trying to get across in the form of “I, Theodore, am stating ________.” Your questions are obviously trying to lead somewhere, so that if I answer “yes or no” I somehow trap myself in some logical (by your reasoning) contradiction. Stop hiding and plainly state your position! Otherwise, stop leaving cryptic comments that in no way further any edifying conversation.