How to rightly divide the word of truth

2Ti 2:15 NRSV "Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved by him, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly explaining the word of truth."

Rightly dividing the word of truth is a phrase that is found in the KJV and the NKJV of the bible. It is also referred to as correctly teaching, correctly handling, and in the NRSV version posted above it is rightly explaining the word of truth. I have written a couple of blog articles on rightly defining the word of truth. They show beyond doubt that when Paul and James used the phrase word of truth, they meant the gospel and not the scripture per se. However, that is not that important to the discussion in this post because Jesus said that the entire scripture's purpose was to point to him so that the reader could find him and then by finding him find life.

So then, whether you want to think of it as rightly dividing the bible or rightly dividing the gospel I am quite happy with either conclusion. However, I think it is important that we use the above definition which is rightly explaining or rightly handling the word of truth.

First we'll discuss what I believe is the incorrect way of handling and explaining the word of truth. Many, and I would actually say most evangelicals first think of the word of truth as a legal constitutional document, handbook, or manual for Christian living. Similar in nature to the standard operations procedures manual (SOP) that you find most business have for their employees and managers. This is most definitely NOT the way to correctly handle or explain the word of truth.

So let's examine the various kinds of messages that are in the scripture. I will list them in importance as I see them. First you have what I call God's redemptive decrees. They are passages of scripture such as Ephesians 1:3-14, Romans 5:1, Romans 8:1-4, and John 3:16-18. This is by no means an exhaustive list but merely an example as there are myriads of these redemptive decrees throughout the entire scripture. Secondly, there are prophecies that point to redemption such as those by Isaiah, Jeremiah and many other prophets.  Third, there are promises of God's faithful care such as can be found in the Psalms. Fourth, there are historical stories that act as metaphors for spiritual realities, such as the forty-year desert wanderings etc. Fifth, there are occasional messages that are essentially cultural in nature and to a specific audience for a specific occasion.

Common sense should let one know that not all of the messages of scripture are of equal importance. Here is Jesus priority: John 5:39-40  "You search the scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that testify on my behalf.  (40)  Yet you refuse to come to me to have life." and..... Luke 24:27  "Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them the things about himself in all the scriptures." and... Luke 24:45-47  "Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures,  (46)  and he said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Messiah is to suffer and to rise from the dead on the third day,  (47)  and that repentance and forgiveness of sins is to be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem." It should be crystal clear from this that the important message in scripture in Jesus eyes and mind was redemption, and his redeeming mission.

When you look at the bulk of Paul's epistles you find that they all begin with the redemptive decrees. These redemptive decrees have pre-eminence in the scripture. I came up with a slogan about twenty years ago give or take a few years: it is simply this: "the only way to rightly divide the word of truth is with the cross." What that means practically is there are many passages in the Old Testament that prophesy of the time after the cross and the New Covenant, and get this, most of the gospels are written about a time before the cross about messages to Jews who were still under the Mosaic Covenant. A whole lot of doctrinal error is wound up in missing this most important point.

Old Covenant, New Covenant, or just one Covenant?

I was asked this question the other day by someone. "What should we pay attention too....  the Old Testament, or the New Testament, or both? What she was asking is essentially how much of the Old Covenant is brought over into the New Covenant? In a way that is a great question but, it also demonstrates some of the error in teaching that is out there among evangelicals. Essentially you have three main views. The dispensationalists believe that in some ways both, with the New Covenant having priority. Those who are New Covenant theologians see the New Covenant as the only one in force, and then there are the Covenant theologians that see but one covenant, which they call the "covenant of grace." It is a covenant between the Father and the Son for the redemption of humanity. All of them are somewhat right but all of them are equally wrong. I personally believe that the New Covenant theologians are the closest to right. The reason is that the ONLY covenant that is in force today is the New Covenant aspect of the Abrahamic Covenant.

In all of the above mentioned covenant views there is a presupposition or assumption. It is that the bible/scripture is a legal constitutional document between God and humanity; a prescriptive document that is a manual for right living. This is where all of the views fall short. While I admit that what we call the Old Testament was in a way a legal constitutional document between God and Israel it is no longer that. The reason is that Jesus and the first century apostles/disciples that wrote the New Testament documents began to see it as the redemptive narrative that was all about the Messiah.

Of course the terms new covenant and old covenant come from a passage in the writings of the prophet Jeremiah. Jeremiah's mention of a NEW covenant of necessity suggests that there is an Old Covenant. When most people think in terms of the old covenant what they really mean is the Mosaic Covenant given on Mt. Sinai. It is important to note that there are other covenants mentioned in the portion of scripture that we call the Old Testament. God made a covenant with Noah and Abraham prior to the Mosaic Covenant. There is also a covenant with King David that Isaiah referred to as "the sure mercies of David" Isaiah 55. In fact, it is the Abrahamic Covenant that made way for the Old Covenant but, as we shall see moving forward, the Abrahamic Covenant also made way for the New Covenant and the sure mercies of David. The Mosaic Covenant was parenthetical with the purpose of developing a people who would bring forth the Savior. It was also designed to be a tutor or a pedagogue to drive humanity to Jesus Christ for reconciliation and justification.

To try to define some terms here, Jesus referred to what we now call the Old Testament as the Law and the Prophets or sometimes he simply said the law when he was referring to the Old Testament scripture. At least that is what is recorded of Him in the Gospels. He was referring to the Pentateuch, the Prophets, and the writings which make up the Jewish TaNaKh which is what they call the Old Testament. The word comes from the three sections of the Jewish sacred text or the Masoretic Text. They are the Torah (Pentateuch,) Nevi'ium, and Ketuvim or in other words the TNK and the Jewish acronym is TaNaKh.

So then Jesus clearly stated that the Law and Prophets were in effect through John the Baptist. Luke 16:16 NRSV "The law and the prophets were in effect until John came; since then the good news of the kingdom of God is proclaimed, and everyone tries to enter it by force. So then, by Jesus own words the force of the Law and Prophets would come to an end with the prophet John the Baptist." Now I know, what about Matthew 5:17-20? Well, the fact is that ALL must have been fulfilled because jots and tittles were taken away from the law. How you ask? Well, Genesis 17:10-14 was eliminated based on Galatians chapter three and Acts chapter 15. The Gentiles could be part of the Abrahamic Covenant without being circumcised, and Genesis 17:10-14 clearly and completely prohibits it. 

So the question remains, how do I see the covenants? My answer is somewhat nuanced. I think that Jesus has stated in the above Luke Text that the force of the Old Testament, the TaNaKh was coming to a closure. More than that however, as I have proven over and over in this blog with a preponderance of evidence, Jesus and his first century disciples were eliminating the legal constitutional reading of scripture in favor of a redemptive reading. Jesus stated in John 5:39-40 that the purpose of the scripture was to point to Him. More than that, In Luke chapter 24 it is recorded that Jesus actually opened their minds to understand the scripture and see that it was all about him (Luke 24:27; 43-45.)  Even further, it is recorded in Revelation chapter five that the Lamb of God, Jesus, opened the scroll to those who could not read and understand it.

Paul states quite clearly in Galatians chapter three that the Gentiles are brought into the Abrahamic Covenant through Christ Jesus. Paul's point is that Jesus is the promised seed of Abraham. Further, that since Abraham received the promise before circumcision, that the Gentiles could and would be included in the family of God as the children of Abraham based upon the faith of the promised seed, Jesus the Christ. This was the content of the good news... the gospel.

The gospel contained a better way to achieve righteousness. It was not from a legal point of view but rather from the view point of total unconditional justification based on the faith OF Christ (Galatians 2:16.) You will see the actual wording faith of Christ and not faith in Christ in the KJV, the NET, and the YLT. The clear fact is that it was the faith of Christ in the original Greek text. The gospel operates in the following way. When proclaimed, it gives peace with the Father, (Romans 5:1,) that translates into love for the Father, which in turn when proclaimed often and heard often produces love in the individual toward his neighbor which according to Jesus is everyone including what we see as our enemies.

The bottom line is that it is the New Covenant, and the gospel that are now in charge. The Mosaic Covenant ended with the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem. The Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants are part of the New Covenant and the Mosaic Covenant can still be beneficial when not looked at as Law whereby one can become righteous.

Faith cometh by hearing

Many of the blog posts here have been devoted to proving that Jesus and his first century followers changed the meaning of the phrase word of God from Torah to gospel. Jesus taught a uniquely redemptive purpose to the scripture. This is plainly proclaimed in John 5:39-40 and Luke 24:27; 43-45. In the past, I have issued a challenge, to take all of the verses in the New Testament with the phrase word of God in them, and to substitute either scripture or gospel in place of the phrase. When one does that it is easy to see that their meaning in using the phrase was gospel or Jesus the living gospel and not scripture. Again, please do not think that I am downplaying the scripture or its inspired status. I am not. I am rather showing the extent that Jesus taught his followers to go to in emphasizing and underscoring the redemptive purpose of the scripture.

With this in mind let’s turn our attention to Romans 10:17. In the KJV it reads, “faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God.” So then, let me ask the question; did Paul mean that faith cometh by hearing scripture or gospel? Well, when you look at it in context it becomes rather obvious that he meant the gospel. The sentence could easily be stated that faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the gospel of Christ.

Let’s take a look at this verse in some of the new versions of the scripture.

NASB “Rom 10:17  So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.”

HCSB “So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the

message about Christ.”

ESV “So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.” 

Why is that so? The answer is that there are a number of original Greek texts from which the translations are made, and further there are many variations within those texts. Some say word of God and some say word of Christ. The Byzantine Text or Textus Receptus which the KJV was translated from says word of God, but the Westcott Hort and the Nestle-Aland say word of Christ.  The Greek is as follows: It is the rhematos christou (word of Christ) or the (rhematos theou) the word of God.

         When one realizes that the first century apostles meant the gospel or the word of Christ when they wrote word of God it becomes less of a problem. The newer versions call it the word of Christ because the translating scholars believe that it is far more likely that the original scripture had the word of Christ in Romans 10:17. I believe that the original text could have had the word of God there but I have proven beyond doubt that in most cases in the New Testament, and in ALL cases from the book of Acts forward they meant gospel or Jesus the living gospel when they wrote the phrase word of God.

It does have interesting implications that go against the common explanation of this verse. Faith does not come from hearing just any ole scripture passage. Faith comes by hearing the gospel of Jesus Christ. Since rhematos (a variation of rhema) more rightly means spoken word, it would suggest that faith cometh by hearing the spoken word of Christ.

Opening the scroll

Rev 5:6-9 NLT  “Then I saw a Lamb that looked as if it had been slaughtered, but it was now standing between the throne and the four living beings and among the twenty-four elders. He had seven horns and seven eyes, which represent the sevenfold Spirit of God that is sent out into every part of the earth.  (7)  He stepped forward and took the scroll from the right hand of the One sitting on the throne.  (8)  And when He took the scroll, the four living beings and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp, and they held gold bowls filled with incense, which are the prayers of God's people.  (9)  And they sang a new song with these words: "You are worthy to take the scroll and break its seals and open it. For You were slaughtered, and Your blood has ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation.”

There is a direct correlation between the above passage and the following one:

Luke 24:44-45 NLT  “Then He said, "When I was with you before, I told you that everything written about Me in the law of Moses and the prophets and in the Psalms must be fulfilled."  (45) Then He *opened their minds* to understand the Scriptures.”

Jesus had a specific way of looking at the scripture. He saw it as expressing his purpose and destiny. It is only in seeing the scripture as Jesus sees it that one can have the scripture opened. It is only opened when Jesus and the redemption that he brings is the sole focus of the scripture. All scripture must be viewed with the understanding that Jesus is Lord and Christ and the sole purpose of the scripture.

Paul puts it another way in this passage: 2Co 3:14-16 NRSV  “But their minds were hardened. Indeed, to this very day, when they hear the reading of the old covenant, that same veil is still there, since only in Christ is it set aside.  (15)  Indeed, to this very day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their minds;  (16)  but when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed.” Notice that the veil is only removed with a Christ-centered approach to reading and understanding the scripture.

That is one of the main obstructions to revelation knowledge today in the church. To really truly understand the scripture in the way that it was meant one must see the redemptive gospel focus. The passage that I quoted above from second Corinthians ends with an explanation of the ministry of reconciliation. God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself not counting trespasses. He made Jesus who knew no sin to be made sin for sinful humanity so that reconciled humanity could be the righteousness of God in Christ and be at peace with God.

Peace with God is the most important aspect of truly loving God. The Shema, Deu 6:4-6 NRSV  “Hear, O Israel: The LORD is our God, the LORD alone.  (5)  You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might.  (6)  Keep these words that I am commanding you today in your heart.” Jesus said that this was the first and greatest commandment. i.e, loving God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your might.

This commandment can only be fulfilled when one is set at peace with God because of the grace found in Jesus Christ. The scripture will only be opened when one understands the gospel of grace in its fullness and ties all the reading and teaching and preaching to it.

The uncompromised word of God

You often hear people refer to the uncompromised word of God. What do they generally mean when they use that phrase? Most of the time when they use the phrase, they mean, they teach the bible uncompromised. Is that a correct understanding of the phrase? I don’t think so; especially, if they are a follower of Jesus of Nazareth. The reason is that Jesus defined the word of God as the gospel, and he taught his first century followers to do the same. If you look at the New Testament writings you will find that predominately in the gospels, and exclusively from Acts forward, whenever you read the phrase *the word of God,* they always mean the gospel, the good news.

The follower of Jesus should then concentrate on the good news as it is presented in the scripture. When someone tells you that you should get the word of God inside you, and have it become a part of your DNA… if you are a follower of Jesus, then you should make sure that you get the gospel (good news) on the inside of you and have it become a part of your DNA.

So then you ask, what is the gospel? Galatians explains that according to the scripture the gospel was preached to Abraham (Gal 3:8.) What was the gospel that was preached to Abraham? The short answer is this… “that in Abraham’s Seed all the nations of the world would be blessed.” Galatians 3:16 explains that the promised seed of Abraham was Jesus Christ. This is how it becomes the gospel of Jesus Christ. Notice that we do not find out that the Seed is Jesus in Genesis. Revelation is progressive.

How is the world blessed by the Seed of Abraham? The answer is that Jesus reconciled the world back to the Father on the cross. His birth, death, and resurrection is the good news that reconciled humanity to Father God. This is what brings peace with the Father (Rom 5:1.) But, Galatians 3:29 explains that if one is in Christ, they are then Abraham’s Seed and heirs according to the promise. This is also part of the good news. The blessings of Abraham are for believers.

This means that the blessings in Deuteronomy 28 are blessings for all those who are *in Christ.* this means that believers are automatically blessed in the city and the country; they are blessed when they come and go. They are the head and not the tail, they are above and not beneath. This is really a birthright of the new birth. When one is born again, at the new birth, they become Abraham’s Seed in Christ, and heirs of the blessings of Abraham.  

So what does this have to do with the uncompromised word of God you ask? The uncompromised word of God is the uncompromised gospel. It is the fact that the believer is the righteousness of God in Christ. God made us convenantally right in Christ and we are in line for the blessings. How did Abraham receive the blessing in the first place? Look at this passage of scripture… Gen 15:6  “And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.” By the same token, we receive the blessing by believing the report (Isa 53:1.)

The Importance of Literal and Historical Context: Part One

Everyone, at one time or another has accused someone of taking what they said out of context. What exactly does context mean? I am including the first and second definition found at dictionary.com. 1) the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect: You have misinterpreted my remark because you took it out of context. 2) the set of circumstances or facts that surround a particular event, situation, etc. Now then, when we speak of literal context we are speaking of definition number one and when we speak of historical context, we are speaking of definition number two.

Literal and historical context are very, very important when one is understanding the meaning of a biblical text. Literal context always includes all that pertains to a definite subject the author is describing and historical context always includes what was going on, what occasion precipitated what was written. Whenever, one eliminates either of these two elements of context, the result will likely be a misunderstanding of what the author wrote and what the intended reader would have understood. 

The scripture must be read in a way that what is being said is totally understood by the one using it before taking parts of it to make a specific point. Here is an example. One cannot take Romans 10:1-2 without at the very least including the understanding found in Romans 10:1-4. Furthermore, it should always be understood within what is written from Romans 9:1 through Romans 11: 36. The main reason is that the larger passage, Romans nine through eleven is a parenthetical explanation of why the Jews did not receive Christ Jesus readily and the Gentiles did.

One cannot point out that Israel had a zeal for God but not according to knowledge and allow that to stand alone without including Paul's explanation of what it means to have a zeal for God but not according to knowledge. Therefore one could comment that the Muslims have a zeal for God but not according to knowledge and that statement would be true but, while it is true that one can have a zeal for God which is not according to knowledge it would not be proper use of the scripture when presenting it to a Christian group or audience to use verses one and two without including three and four. The pit fall that Paul is warning of is not recognizing and accepting the righteousness of God. 

The passage explains how one is made right with God. It explains how one enters into covenant with God. Jesus Christ, his death burial and resurrection have made it possible for people to be declared righteous and enter the covenant based upon faith in Christ and his aforementioned work on the cross. It would never be possible in context to use this passage without reading that "Christ is the end of the law for righteousness for all who believe." That is an important part of the passage which cannot be eliminated without doing violence to Paul's actual meaning.

Now, while I admit that there can be debate over what Paul's comment that "Christ is the end of the law for righteousness"  actually means in the greater context of Romans chapters nine through eleven, the fact that he posits that Christ is the end/goal of the law for righteousness must be factored into every use of Romans 10;1-2.

In part two of this two part post we will examine historical context. 

Before the foundation of the world

(1Pe 1:18-25 NLT)  For you know that God paid a ransom to save you from the empty life you inherited from your ancestors. And the ransom He paid was not mere gold or silver.  (19)  It was the precious blood of Christ, the sinless, spotless Lamb of God.  (20)  God chose Him as your ransom long before the world began, but He has now revealed Him to you in these last days.  (21)  Through Christ you have come to trust in God. And you have placed your faith and hope in God because He raised Christ from the dead and gave Him great glory.  (22)  You were cleansed from your sins when you obeyed the truth, so now you must show sincere love to each other as brothers and sisters. Love each other deeply with all your heart.  (23)  For you have been born again, but not to a life that will quickly end. Your new life will last forever because it comes from the eternal, living word of God.  (24)  As the Scriptures say, "People are like grass; their beauty is like a flower in the field. The grass withers and the flower fades.  (25)  But the word of the Lord remains forever." And that word is the Good News that was preached to you.

There are three verses that have the phrase, from before the foundation of the world in them (John 17:24, Ephesians 1:4 and 1 Peter 1:20.) Jesus was chosen, to be the redeemer before the foundation of the world… in other words, before creation. What exactly does this mean? Well, it means that redemption is the earliest purpose of God that has been revealed to mankind. This is the same as saying that God’s sole purpose in creation was redemption. Yes, you got it right… you heard, read me right. God created the world to redeem it! Why, you ask? Ephesians 1:6 provides the answer to this question, Eph 1:6 NLT “So we praise God for the glorious grace He has poured out on us who belong to His dear Son.” He did that, (created the world to redeem it) so that he could be truly praised for his glorious grace. God wants to be praised but praised in truth!

The foundation… the ground for praising God is His glorious grace demonstrated in Jesus and His cross. Yes friend, it is the gospel that produces real true praise for God. Remember Jesus words in John chapter four. The Father wants people to worship Him in Spirit and truth. That is the reason for the gospel. That is the reason that God had redemption as his sole purpose in creation. That is the reason that God chose Jesus to be the Lamb Slain from before the foundation of the world. It is also the reason that John pointed out in his gospel, that the Word was in the very beginning. There you have it. Redemption in and through the Word, was the first and sole consideration for creation. How much more does this give the redemptive focus of scripture absolute primacy?

It is past time that we acknowledge this purpose of the sacred writings and reject the legal constitutional reading of scripture. God's New Covenant purpose was redemption to the praise of His glorious grace. Let's face it, the church exists under the New Covenant provisions (Matt 26:28), or it does not exist at all... Join me in praising God for the redemption that was before the foundation of the world.

The sole purpose of the scripture

John 5:39-40  You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me,  (40)  yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.

In John chapter five Jesus explains to the Pharisees the purpose and proper use of scripture. The scriptures are there to point to him so that one can come to him and get life. That is it. It is a totally redemptive purpose. The only proper use of the scripture by a follower of Christ is redemptive. There is no other possible use.

But what about Second Timothy 3:16?  Good question! First, if one only reads Second Timothy 3:16 they miss the boat exegetically. That verse does not exist in a vacuum and it changes the meaning when taken out of context. The proper context for Second Timothy 3:16 is to include three verses. The context demands that you include verse 15 and 17. The reason is that verse 15 says the same thing as John 5:39-40. It gives the redemptive purpose saying that the scriptures makes one wise for salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. There you have it very, very plain. This means that it can only be profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction and for training in righteousness in a redemptive way.  2Ti 3:15-17 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.  (16)  All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, (17) that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

Ok, so how do those things work in a redemptive way? It means that they are only good for teaching from a redemptive standpoint. All teaching has to center on being made wise for salvation, redemption. That it is only good for reproof from a redemptive standpoint. This makes it a different meaning entirely. One should be reproved for not trusting completely in the redemption provided by Jesus Christ. The same thing is true of correction. It is only valuable for correcting the person who is not resting in grace. Finally, for training in righteousness means that the only righteousness that one has is the righteousness of God that comes from faith in Christ. Didn’t Isaiah say that we are all as an unclean thing and all of our righteousness are as filthy rags? That is precisely why God imputes righteousness. The Old Testament agrees. The first mention of righteousness was Genesis 15:6.

Isn’t it obvious that 2Tim 3:16 is misused when it is taken out of its redemptive context. We cannot receive instruction from the law apart from redemption and Christ Jesus. We cannot receive instruction in righteousness apart from the righteousness of God. It is just plain wrong to teach from the scriptures except for the redemptive purpose. When 2Tim 3:15-17 agree with John 5:39-40 it should make people stop and think about how