Re: Rightly Dividing

2 Tim.2:15

Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth. (NASB)

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. (KJV)

COMMENT 1: Only the KJV get the word "Study" right.

You say the KJV is the only version that gets the word "study" right. The Greek word, in ALL manuscripts, is σπούδασον, which has the semantic range "be diligent, eager, or strive" In no Greek text does it mean "study" as in "academic engagement." The KJV translates the same word (same form) in 2Tim4:9 and 21 as "do thy diligence." Latin "studeo" means "devote oneself to", which is how KJV translators understood the word. The NASB rightly translates it "be diligent" for modern English speakers.

“Make every effort to come to me soon;” (ESV)

Do thy diligence to come shortly unto me:  (KJV)

Σπούδασον ἐλθεῖν πρός με ταχέως·” (Greek)

COMMENT 2: "Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth"

All versions translate τὸν λόγον τῆς ἀληθείας as "the word of truth." So the dispute is over the word ὀρθοτομέω.

Manuscripts: there are no variations in the manuscripts for this reading, so the dispute is over the translation.

Translations: ὀρθοτομέω
NASB – Accurately handling
ESV – Rightly handling.
KJV – Rightly dividing.

Observations: This word is a new textament hapax logomena, so interpretation is not easy.

Scholarly works: to teach correctly, to give accurate instruction.

Non-New Testament Uses: Septuagint translators of Proverbs 3:6 and 11:5 use this word to mean "Keep/make straight" in both cases referring to a road or pathway.

Relations:
ὀρθός – an adjective meaning straight.
ὀρθοποδέω – compound, "straight-foot", indicating consistency, or with prepositional tag πρός to progress towards.
τομός- sharp, also hapax logomena, used with superlative extension meaning "sharper".

Conclusion:

Derives from basic meaning of "straightness" especially in regard to spatial directional. The compound meaning seems to indicate "straight sharpen" or possibly by extension "straight cut". However, the meaning from semantic proximity is more likely "keep straight", indicating correctness and accuracy of the task.

Accurate translation:

Accurately teaching, or even making straight the word of truth. History of the word divide: means only "to separate" which is not the thrust of this word.

Implications for interpretation:

"If you rightly divide, there are divisions" is an anachronistic and crosses semantic wires. There is no emphasis on division, but rather on the straightness, the rightness, the accurateness. Saying that this verse means the gospels belong in the Old Testament is inaccurate.

COMMENT 3:

Christian Truth Hammer says: The gospels should be in the “Old Testament" because in them Christ has not yet died and shed his blood.

"Testament" means "covenant" not “division.” To say a person has to be dead before a new literary division occurs is wrong. By your argument, the old testament shouldn't exist either until halfway through Exodus or halfway through Genesis.

The gospels are in the New Testament because they are part of the Greek scriptures (a very clear division) and because they are the account of the implementation of the New Covenant, just like the Old Testament is the Hebrew Scriptures regarding the implementation of the Old Covenenant.

In regards to their date of composition, the books of the OT were written down after the implementation of the Old Covenant (either Abrahamic or Mosaic), the books of the New Testament were all written down after the implementation of the New Covenant.

COMMENT 4:

Christian Truth Hammer Says: Salvation in the Old Testament was accomplished by a system of "faith and works."

This is the most crucial error, and the one lie that the Devil loves above all: that you can and must do something to earn salvation.

When Jesus said "Keep the commandments" he was answering the question "what good deed shall I do?" He was not answering the question "how can I be saved?" Jesus gave the only answer available to those who wished to earn their salvation: perfectly fulfillment of the law.

Salvation in the Old Testament was by faith: but faith worked with deeds to show itself complete, just like in the new testament.

Romans 3:20 (KJV)

"Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin."

Romans 3:20 (ESV)

"For ^by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since ^through the law comes knowledge of sin.^”

Romans 1:16-17 (ESV)

For ^I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is ^the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew ^first and also to the Greek. ¹⁷ For in it the righteousness of God is revealed ^from faith for faith, as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.

Romans 1:16-17 (KJV)

For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.  For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

Romans 3:21-26 (NASB)

21 But now apartfrom the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets,

22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those ¹who believe; for there is no distinction;

23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;

25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed;

26 for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Romans 3:21-26 (KJV)

²¹But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; ²² Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: ²³ For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; ²⁴ Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: ²⁵ Whom God hath set forth^c to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; ²⁶ To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

Limited or Unlimited Atonement? Or...

I wanted to write a post, and possibly more than one, about my understanding of the atonement. Most of my fellow Calvinists ask me why I call myself a 4.5 point Calvinist. Most of my consciously Arminian friends wonder what I mean when I say I believe Jesus died for every single person in the whole world, but I do not agree with their position on the atonement. How can there possibly be a middle ground? Did Jesus die for everyone or didn't he?

The problem in my mind is twofold: 1) There is a problem with the question "limited or unlimited?" 2) There is a misunderstanding of the efficacy of the atonement

1. When the atonement is presented to theological students it is usually presented as either limited or unlimited. Infinite or finite. Positive or negative. Jesus Christ either payed for everyone or he only paid for some people. However, this is a misuse of the law of the excluded middle. Because we are not dealing in mathematical terms, but instead abstract, we should be cautious about making these kind of black and white boundaries.

I believe that the Bible very clearly teaches both that Jesus died for the entire world (to say the "world" is limited to only the church out of every nation is an unjustified stretch of scripture) and that God predestined some to grace and some to wrath (meaning he chose those who would be saved). At first this may seem inconsistent: If Jesus paid for the whole world's sin, doesn't this mean everyone is saved? You are correct. Everyone is saved according to this model. But we also know that the Bible teaches that everyone is not saved. So we have a quandary, and thus is birthed "limited atonement." In fact, when I first heard of limited atonement it was called "the logical next step from the biblical truth." In other words, the truth taught in scripture (i.e. the first four points of Calvinism) logically implied this truth (limited atonement) even though it wasn't in the Bible. Now, I am content with logical implications from scripture, but not when they contradict other parts of scripture. And that is exactly the case with limited atonement. So does the Bible then contradict itself?

The answer to this conundrum is not in scripture twisting or contenting oneself with the "illogical truths of God." No, rather it is in definition. "Atonement" what does it imply? What is its nature? It is this question that creates the conundrum above, not the truths themselves. And that leads us to:

2. Theologians misunderstand the nature of atonement, and also its extent. Most Calvinists assume that the very second Jesus died on the cross, every individual sin which Christ bore on the cross was legally paid for. God could no longer require any payment from anyone for whom Christ died. Therefore they also assume that since God still requires payment from the unbelieving he must not have died for them. Problem: Bible teaches he died for all.

On the other hand, Arminians often assume that Jesus died for every single sin in the whole world... except unbelief. Thus on judgment day the only sin that will be punished is the unforgivable sin: unbelief. Problem: Bible teaches that everyone will be judged according to their deeds, and thus some more harshly.

Solution: When Jesus died for sin, when he atoned for the world, nobody's sins were forgiven. Now, I have to say it that way to catch your attention. Think of it this way, Jesus made an offering for sin on the cross, but he did not then and there cancel individual sins. And that is the slight descepancy on which this whole issue hangs, in my opinion.

And I blieve this is acurate according to the Bible. The Word is very clear that forgiveness, atonement, only occurs after belief, or faith. So, although Jesus' death on the cross was sufficient and complete to pay every sin in the whole world, it is only accessed or applied to those who have faith. That is why Paul says "by grace through faith." Faith did not save us, faith gave us access to salvation.

Think of one short illustration. Limited atonement says that everyone in the world owed God $1. God predestined his church to have their debt paid. Jesus then went and procured $1,000,000 and deposited $1 into the accounts of each believer. Thus the 1,000,000 believers were paid for and the others lost. Arminians believe that Jesus got $6.5 billion dollars and deposited $1 into everyone's bank account. However, if these people do not thank Jesus, they are thrown in the "ingrate's cell." My view however, is that Jesus procured an infinite amount of money and placed it into an account. He then went into the world and said "Come and have your debts forgiven!" No body listened to him, so he and his buddies went out and grabbed a selected amount of people and brought them to the bank and paid their debts.

This is a start, it is incomplete, but I am out of time. Please leave your questions and point out inconsistancies so I cant fine tune my beleifs and my descriptions of them.

A RELATIONSHIP OF TRUST - Psalm 16

From a sermon preached at Grace Bible Church on May 3, 2009 by Joshua Smolders.

Thesis: Trusting in God means being confident that we are fully secure in our relationship with him.

Outline:

Introduction: Circumstances will drive us to trust God.

I. Trusting God means acknowledging who he is.

II. Trusting God means actively valuing him.

III. Trusting God means securing our ultimate hope is in our union with him.

Application.

Conclusion: Trusting as Christ did.


Context:
The Psalms are a beautiful part of scripture: because of their poetic nature; because of their vivid images and metaphors; because of their literary structures.

But they are beautiful for another and more important reason. Of all the parts of scripture, the psalms identify the closest with the human soul. They express the deep emotions that you and I can relate to: love, joy, fear, anxiety.

You know, sometimes when I read other parts of scripture I find myself saying “I believe this is true, but I have no clue how I am supposed to feel it is true.” For example, 1 Thessalonians 5:16 says “Rejoice always.” Oh great! I might be able to follow that if it read “rejoice daily.” Or better yet “rejoice biweekly.” Just ask my parents. For the past two weeks I have been unsuccessfully trying to find a job here, a job in Vancouver, a place to stay in Burnaby, and help my stressed out fiancé with wedding plans. In my circumstances I find it hard to “rejoice always.”

Yet I know and believe that scripture is the inspired Word of God, and that God would never leave us with an impossible command. Passages like 1 Thessalonians 5:16 are in scripture for a reason; and we know that a person who is walking in the full freedom of the truth can follow these commands with their whole heart. Yet I think many of you would agree with me that the heart follows slowly after our heads.

So how do we get there? How do we reconcile our emotions with the commands of scripture? How do we bring our feelings under the sway of the truth? Well, that is largely what the Psalms are for. You see the psalms take us from our first response, our raw emotions, and then lead us into the light of the truth in order to transform our emotions. You might say that the psalms act as a bridge from earth to heaven. Our circumstances or the state of this world cause us to feel a certain way: anxiety, restlessness, sorrow, fear. Heaven calls us to a better reality: peace, rest, joy, trust. The psalms meet us in our fears and sorrows, take us by the hand, and lead us into the presence of the Lord.

This morning I would like to lead you through Psalm 16. This Psalm meets us in our worry and fear about our security and teaches us how to trust in God. So, please turn with me to Psalm number 16.

As I said, this is a Psalm about what it means to put our trust in God. It was written by David, presumably when he was facing some difficulty. Although the specific circumstances that inspired him to write it are not known, it is clear from the content that David was afraid for his life and his possessions. And we know from reading in 1st and 2nd Samuel that David’s life was filled with danger.

So, David wants us to learn from his example what it means to fully trust God. And his main point is this:

Trusting God means valuing and being secure in our relationship with God.

Preserve me, Oh God, for in you I take refuge.
I say to the Lord,” You are my Lord;
I have no good apart from you.”
As for the saints in the land, they are the excellent ones,
in whom is all my delight.
The sorrows of those who run after another god shall multiply; their drink offerings of blood I will not pour out or take their names on my lips.
The Lord is my chosen portion and my cup; you hold my lot.
The lines have fallen for me in pleasant places; indeed I have a beautiful inheritance.
I bless the Lord who gives me counsel; in the night also my heart instructs me.
I have set the Lord always before me; because he is at my right hand, I shall not be shaken.
Therefore my heart is glad, and my whole being rejoices; my flesh also dwells secure.
For you will not abandon my soul to Sheol, or let your Holy One see corruption.
You make known to me the path of life; in your presence is fullness of joy; at your right hand are pleasures forevermore.

Introduction: Circumstances must drive us toward God. (v.1)
Preserve me, Oh God, for in you I take refuge.

David begins with this plea to God: “preserve me!” Obviously he is distraught, he is full of anxiety, because he is in danger. He is saying “Protect me! Cause I am gonna die!” This is the starting point, the raw emotion we are dealing with. I am sure that most of you have felt this same sense of desperation and fear, whether your life was threatened, or your finances, or your health, or your children.

He then gives the basis of his plea: “for in you I take refuge.” In David’s trouble he has only one place to go. He has no great fortress to hide in (and perhaps he wrote this when he lived in the wilderness). He has no store of arms or legions of men to call upon. He has no trust funds to fall back on. Here he is saying to God “You have gotta help me, because you are my fortress.” Not one of my fortresses, but the only place I look to for help.

And that leads me to my introductory point: Before we can understand what it means to trust God, we have allow our circumstances to drive us toward trusting him.
I am not sure what all of you are facing in life, but hear this: you will only learn what it means to trust God if you are willing to turn solely to God when you face those circumstances. David would not have learned trust by fleeing to a fortress, or by trusting in an army. He would only learn trust by taking his raw emotion, his fear, going to God and saying “I look to you and no other, teach me to trust!”

So I would ask you:
Are you willing to learn what it means to trust God, or do you want to have your security apart from God?

Well this leads us nicely into the first point, which is:

I. Trusting God means acknowledging who he is. (v.2-4)
I say to the Lord,” You are my Lord;
I have no good apart from you.”
As for the saints in the land, they are the excellent ones,
in whom is all my delight.
The sorrows of those who run after another god shall multiply; their drink offerings of blood I will not pour out or take their names on my lips.

Notice how David begins by telling himself exactly who God is: I say to the Lord you are my Lord. His wording here shows that he is both acknowledging God for who he says he is, and taking ownership of that reality. He says, you are “Lord,” exactly who you say you are. But more than this, you are my Lord, meaning this directly affect my life. He then says “apart from You I have no good”, meaning nothing of value.

I get take two things from this part of our text:

1. First of all, trusting God means acknowledging that he is who he says he is, and then taking ownership of that in our lives. If God says he is good, then we need to trusting him means acting as if he is! God says he is merciful, forgiving, and loving… then we must live it. God’s character traits should not be nominal or irrelevant to us.

For example, some people acknowledge the character of God as a fact that has no bearing on their life: Its like if I were to say “George Brown from Manchester is a generous man!” and you were all to say “Amen!” You can all agree because it doesn’t affect you. You don’t even know who George is!

But if I were to say “your father is a generous man.” Then you would have to think about it. Perhaps you think your father is an angry man, and so you would never want to ask him for anything. Or perhaps you think he is apathetic, that he doesn’t care about you, and so you would never ask him for help. But if he truly is a generous man, then you need to treat him like a generous man.

If trusting God means acknowledging who he is, then we have to live out who he says he is! In this text, David acknowledges God as the LORD! And wrapped up in that name “Lord” are all his attributes. As Exodus declares:
“The Lord, the Lord, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin.”
Do your actions reveal that you believe God is who he says he is?
I know mine often do not. God says he is satisfying, I treat him like he is a burden. God says he is compassionate, but I act like he is a man with a nightstick ready to beat me for my sins. Trusting God means acknowledging that he is who he says he is.

2. The second under the first point is that trusting God means acknowledging that he is ultimately the only “good thing” we have. Allow me to make this statement: apart from a relationship with Jesus Christ, a person can have no good thing.

Now, you may say to me: “well, can’t people have good marriages, good jobs, good food, and still be non-Christian? And haven’t non-Christians received good things?” Yes, depending on your definition of the term “good.” You see, here David begins to draw us into that changed mindset that I mentioned before: he is not saying that he could never experience any good without God, but rather that any experience of good without God is useless. He is acknowledging that his relationship with God is the single most important thing in his life, and that apart from that nothing matters! Acknowledging who God is means acknowledging his supreme value.

Immediately after this David compares two groups of people: those who acknowledge God for who he is, and those who don’t - saints and idolaters.

As for the saints in the land, they are the excellent ones,
in whom is all my delight.
The sorrows of those who run after another god shall multiply; their drink offerings of blood I will not pour out or take their names on my lips.

His use of the term “saints in the land” simply means the faithful people of Israel. David delights in these people. They are the “morally excellent” people. They are ones who treat a relationship with God as their ultimate treasure.

He then contrasts these people (and himself) with those who seek refuge in other gods. Notice how he says that they “run after” these gods. These people were pursuing the help of idols. In the ancient near east, they did this through their grotesque religious rituals. David here commits that he will not pursue these gods, and he will not call on their names for help.

Now, in order to understand exactly what David was saying in this, you need to get into the mindset of the ancient world regarding idols. Like most people today, people in the ancient near east wanted security and prosperity. They wanted their crops to grow. They wanted their fathers, husbands, and sons to come back alive from the war. And they believed that their idols would accomplish these goals. For example, they believed that Baal was god of the rainstorm, and so they would worship him to get good crops. If he did not give them good crops they would worship harder, or they would try another god. Whatever worked, they worshiped. And unfortunately for the people of God, when they came into the promised-land and began living there, they adopted this mindset to some extent. Thus, in the minds of many people, then, Yahweh was thought of as “just another God.” He was a means to an end. If worshiping Yahweh did not get them good crops and success on the battlefield, they turned to Baal.

But David’s trust in God was not a means to an end. That is why he could truly say that he will not turn to other gods. Although he was looking for help (by saying “preserve me!”), although he started at the same point as those other people, desiring safety and prosperity. Nevertheless, his trust in God meant that no matter what happened, HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD WAS ULTIMATELY THE ONLY GOOD HE HAD. David did not trust God because God guaranteed to get him something, BUT BECAUSE GOD GUARANTEED TO BE HIMSELF.

So, trusting God means acknowledging who he is: he is who he says he is, and he is of supreme value.

This ties in nicely with the next section, verses 5-8, and my second point:
II. Trusting God means actively valuing him. (v.5-8)
The Lord is my chosen portion and my cup; you hold my lot.
The lines have fallen for me in pleasant places; indeed I have a beautiful inheritance.
I bless the Lord who gives me counsel; in the night also my heart instructs me. I have set the Lord always before me; because he is at my right hand, I shall not be shaken.

None of us begins with a proper view of God. It takes work, hard work, to cultivate a mind and heart that acknowledges God for who he is. But in this section of the psalm we see how David labors to transform his own thinking:

He begins by using a metaphor. God is his inheritance, the plot of land allotted to him. Now how many of you have ever thought of God as a piece of land? You know, there’s a ton of development going on in this little town, has it ever caused you to pray “Lord, you are my half-million dollar seaside property!” Unlikely.

But David used this imagery for a reason. When Israel came into the promised-land, it was called their inheritance, and each of the tribes got a piece of land to build and prosper on. By using this imagery, David is seeking to reorient his values. God was his true inheritance, not his plot of grass in Palestine. He could have cared less about his property deed, or his vehicles, or his pension! God was his real investment in this world! But he had to train himself to think that way.

This is the type of mindset I mean by actively valuing God. It’s a mindset that says “my relationship with God is the only important thing in my life. It does not matter what I have and do not have, as long as I have him.” God is our inheritance. That is why 1 Peter 1:3-4 says “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to his great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to obtain an inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you.” Our face-to-face relationship with Jesus Christ is waiting for us, no matter what happens to our earthly possessions.

Notice how David goes on to show how he pursues this mindset. He heeds the counsel of God. He talks to himself about God’s worth when he is in the dark of night. He puts God’s priorities and God’s wisdom as his front-guard and his right hand man.

If we are going to trust God, we need to cultivate this mindset as well. When hard times come, or even when prosperous time come, we need to be telling ourselves, teaching ourselves, that our relationship with God is what truly matters. You know, God really broke me with this truth in the past year. When I did my pastoral internship, God really revealed to me how I was willing to give up my relationship with him for the security I wanted. I was more concerned with having what I valued, “success”, than having what God valued, “our relationship.”

The past two weeks have challenged me with this again. I have treated a job, and financial security, as more important than my relationship with God, and I have allowed it to take over. God convicted me that when I was praying to him, I was praying in order to get what I wanted: a job. I was not praying to build our relationship. So the challenge for me has been to actively value God: to teach myself that my happiness in God is more important than my financial situation!
We come now to the third and final part of the psalm:

III. Trusting God means securing our ultimate hope in our union with him. (v.9-11)
Therefore my heart is glad, and my whole being rejoices; my flesh also dwells secure. For you will not abandon my soul to Sheol, or let your Holy One see corruption. You make known to me the path of life; in your presence is fullness of joy; at your right hand are pleasures forevermore.

Well, David is now across the bridge. He has turned from his desperation to gladness and contentment. Even his body is at ease, though still in mortal danger.

Just as a side note, do you ever notice that your body tells you a lot about what you are truly felling. Someone asks, “are you anxious?” And you say “no, I trust that God will provide.” But your stomach is twisting, or you pace around the room, or you need some chocolate or something. Unfortunately for me I experience all these things, especially the latter.

Anyways, all that to say, David in heart mind and body is now truly resting, truly trusting in God. How can he do this? Because no matter what happens to him, he has secured his hope in the fact that his relationship with God is secure forever! Though he die and go to the grave, he will be raised again to live with God.

When he says “You will not abandon my soul in Sheol” he is talking about the “grave.” Sheol simply means “grave” signifying death. David knows that even death cannot keep him from his relationship with God.

Furthermore, he is confident that his reunion with God is the ultimate joy and pleasure! Is he worried about losing his home? To dwell in the courts of God for a moment is better than a thousand days in any other house! Is he worried about losing the love of his family? To enter into communion with God is to be washed in love for eternity! Is he worried about losing his money, his possessions? What could he possibly buy that would satisfy him more than being with God? Trusting God means setting our ultimate hope in our reunion with God one day and nothing else.

Application:
So, we have come full circle, from anxiety to complete trust. And David has shown us that:

Trusting God means valuing and being secure in our relationship with God.


This truth has some serious implications and applications for us, and some of them may seem quite backwards. But as one of my professors often says “we live in the upside-down kingdom.” I want to propose two applications, but feel free to think up your own:

1. Trusting God does not mean trusting that everything will work out. So do not turn to other gods if they do not.
The truth is, God can and may rightfully let your worries come true. You may die. You may get sick. You may go bankrupt. Just look at Job. He trusted and he lost everything. Jim Elliot trusted in God and he died without ever seeing the fruit of his labor. And I am sure there are many Christians who have gone hungry, poor and naked and still trusted God. That is because instead of trusting that everything will work out, they trusted in the one who was working everything out. And in their relationship with him they were content.

So, if God would have you endure some suffering in this life, do not turn to other things to try to numb the pain or fix the problem. Now, I’m not saying do not go for treatment for your illness, or don’t try to seek help for your crumbling marriage. But do not treat these things as your salvation. First things first, cultivate contentment in your relationship with God. Then you will be able to say “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.”

2. Trusting God means that our prayer life should focus mainly on our relationship with God, not on our needs.
You have probably heard someone talk about treating God like a vending machine. Just going to him, plugging in a prayer coin, and hoping to get what we asked for. Some of us, myself included, treat God like an accountant. We go to him with a suitcase full of confusing situations, hand it over and say “work this out please.” Then we walk away. Well that doesn’t cut the cheese either. Trusting God means focusing on what he says is important: our relationship with him. That means spending time worshipping him, expressing your love for him, listening to him. Is your prayer life focused on a relationship with God?

Well, if you see any other practical applications for this truth I encourage you to share it with each other after the service.

Conclusion: Trusting as Christ did.
I want to finish off the message this morning by pointing your attention to one important aspect of this Psalm. It is a messianic Psalm, which means that it predicts something about the life of Christ. In Acts 2:25-28, Peter quotes verses 8-11 to show how God promised that he would not leave Christ in the grave, but would raise him to life and that he would ascend to the father’s side.

1. I want to encourage you with this truth by saying first, that Jesus is the ultimate example of what it means to trust God. No one valued and was more secure in his relationship with God than Jesus. That is why the scriptures say “for the joy set before him, he endured the cross.” So read of his life in the gospels and follow his example.

2. But I also want to say that if you doubt in any way that you should trust God for who he says he is, if you doubt that he is as valuable as he says and that you should fight for that understanding, or if you doubt that you truly do have a hope beyond this life, and that hope is a face to face relationship with God himself. If you doubt, let me assure you that the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead is the proof, the guarantee, that it will be worth it all in the end.

He trusted God, and God did exactly what he said he would: he raised him from the dead to eternal happiness in his relationship with God. And as Paul says in 1 Corinthians “But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. But each on in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at his coming.”

If you trust God like Christ did, like David did, like Jim Elliot did, you too will be able to rest in your relationship with Christ.

The Vision of a Dying World

A Hymn by Henry S, Cutler 1872. I think the words of this hymn stand out powerfully when arranged in poetic verse and spoken instead of sung:

The vision of a dying world
Is vast before our eyes;
We feel the heartbeat of its need,
We hear its feeble cries:
The savage hugs his god of stone
And fears descent of night;
The city dweller cringes 'lone
Amid the garish light.
Today as understanding's bounds
Are stretched on every hand,
O clothe thy Word in bright new sounds,
And speed it o'er the land.
The warning bell of judgment tolls,
Above us looms the cross;
Around are ever dying souls---
How great, how great, the loss...

Lord Jesus Christ revive thy church,
In this, her crucial hour.
Lord Jesus Christ awake thy church,
With Spirit-given power.

A Comparison and Evaluation of Two Views on Our Relationship with God

FROM THE SHACK BY WILLIAM YOUNG AND JOHN MACARTHUR'S SERMON ON DOULOS AT WILLINGDON CHURCH, JUNE 20th 2008.

These past few weeks I have found myself thrown into a flurry of contrasting winds of doctrine. It all began with the sermon below, on 1 John 2:28-3:10. I had the subject of our spiritual identity on my mind, my sermon falling on Father's day and also the needs of the congregation calling for it. I wanted to explore the interaction between identity, behavior, and relationship with God. Since the book of 1 John was written for the assurance of the saints and as a test against false conversion, it seemed like a good book to start. What I found in John's argument was that the believer has been given a new external relationship of fellowship with God, and a new internal identity of sonship with God, and thereby the believers actions will begin to conform to who he now is. In short, we are God's children (literally) walking in the light, and righteous behavior should and shall flow from that.

SLAVES OF GOD

The Friday after I preached this sermon I went to see John MacArthur preach at Willingdon Church, Vancouver. He spoke on John 15:14-15, and talked mainly about the word doulos which is translated in this verse as "servant." His argument went thus: the word doulos has only ever meant, will only ever mean, and has never been translated "slave." The reason that it is so commonly translated "servant" is because we are afraid of the stigma of "slave" or we consider the implication of the relationship too harsh. A slave has no property, no rights, no freedom, no right to defend himself in court, and even no right to live if his master chooses. He is the slave, and his Lord is his sovereign. "Servant" however, gives room for some sense of volition, or some sense of dignity to the position. Some even made a composite word to remove the stigma while retaining the meaning, and thus some versions translate "bondservant." He rebuttled the arguments against the stigma of cotton fields and suger plantations by saying that the Greek's of John's day had their own equally as horrendous stigma attached to their word doulos.

MacArthur argued that this comes from the contemporary gospel where we treat Christ as our servant, where he is our personal savior who helps us in our troubles. On the contrary, he argued, we should see our relationship to Christ as being "slave-Lord." We can sum up the gospel in three words "Jesus is Lord." This is reflected throughout the whole New Testament where Paul constantly identifies himself as literally the "slave of the Lord." And where in Revelation God continually refers to his suffering saints as his "slaves." The simple multiplicity of the terms slave and Lord in the bible shows the importance of this relationship.

At the wrap up of his sermon MacArthur showed how John 15:15 showed us our relationship as friends as well. Slaves never knew why their master commanded certain things of them. They had no knowledge of their master but that they must simply obey him. But God now calls us friends, for though he is our Lord he cares enough about us to let us know him and the why behind his commands. Therefore, he concluded, our primary relationship with Chris is the slave-master relationship, which is worked out as it was meant to be in joy and love and friendship with our Lord. All other relationships, he said, included how we are children of God, sheep of God, vines on the branch, are secondary and metaphorical.

CIRCLE OF RELATIONSHIP

About a week after I heard MacArthur speak I picked up the seemingly new evangelical Bible, The Shack, to see what all the craze was about. In a complete reversal of MacArthur's view of our relationship of God, William Young expounded on the idea that God is inviting us into a life of family or peer relationship with God. Although all the issues covered in The Shack are too numerous to touch on right now, and since they have been better covered by numerous critics and advocates, I will simply focus on the aspect of our relationship with God.

In the story Mack Phillips meets the trinity in a shack where his young daughter was murdered years before and begins the process of healing and learning how to live in relationships. The book is well written and contains thrilling plot line, captivating descriptiveness, and also a multitude of modern Socratic dialogue. God appears as three people: Papa, a black woman representing the Father (or Mother in this case), Jesus (who is everything we would expect him to be), and Sarayu, an Asian woman (who seems to be made of movement and air and light).

Mack learns from God how the Circle of relationship is to work. God designed people to love and receive love in community, even as God himself/herself has done in the trinity. The Father, the Holy Spirit, and Jesus are constantly submitting to one another, constantly loving one another in the community of theirself. God designed human relationships to reflect that, and he also desired humans to join his/her circle of relationship. The reason why humans have broken from this circle of relationship with God and with others is because they have asserted their independence, and when one is independent there is no one to love and thus there is no love. Throughout the story there is a strong emphasis that structures of authority (whether political or religious institutions, or even authority between husband and wife) is the result of human independence
and by no means pleases God. God does not desire any relationship of authority to exist, but rather that all people would be on equal plain in the circle of relationship.

There is a strong emphasis on the tenderness of God, his motherhood over people. Throughout the book God refers to all people as his children, and there are subtle and ambiguous hints of universalism (where all people are ultimately delivered from hell). For example, when Mack is judging God in court he is asked to send choose two of his children to go to heaven and have the other three be condemned to hell. He can't handle the choice and offers himself in their stead. God commends him for that and tells how he has died for the sins of all people, and now they merely choose to opt out of relationship with him. Now God is doing everything he/she can to draw those people into relationship with him/her. That is partially why God appears as a female to Mack, because he is more receptive to a relationship of motherhood than fatherhood.

There is also a strong emphasis on being before doing. God wants people to be in a relationship with him, not do rules.

THE COMPARISON

These two views represent opposites in my mind. For example MacArthur exalts the position of authority. It is the ultimate relationship that exists. God has authority over his slaves. Young, however, demeans authority as a biproduct of the fall. Ideally, for him, there should be no authority.

On another note, MacArthur sees those who submit to Christ as being his slaves who have the privilege to be called friends and to serve him unprofitably. Young sees everyone as children of God, in need of healing and restoration of relationship, whom God pursues and serves.

Look for yourself. Its not hard to see the frequent polars between these two sources.

THE EVALUATION

So, why did I bother writing this post? Because I believe both MacArthur and Young are imbalanced, and therefore incorrect. This conclusion has sprung from my studies in John, and also from a third source: a sermon on the Supremacy of Christ and Truth in a Postmodern world by Voddie Baucham.

MacArthur presents a valid and necessary perspective on our relationship with God as Christians. It is true that most people do not see Christ as their Lord and themselves as his slaves. They do not understand nor act upon this aspect of their relationship with God, even though it is so abundantly done so in the New Testament. Yet MacArthur goes too far. First, in his stringent demand that the word doulos be translated "slave," he dismisses the true effort of godly men to remove the stigma of negro oppression (which is valid, since that abuse was condemned on biblical principles) and retain the meaning by coining the word "bondservent." The important thing is not the word, it is the meaning and its application. We need to see ourselves as having no rights, no property, and no freedoms before our holy master. However, this does not mean that we need to morbidly pursue a negative stigma.

Secondly, MacArthur goes too far in designating the slave-master model as the primary relationship between believers and God. If this were so, you think you would find some mention of that in the book of 1 John. On the contrary, while John does commend and recommend obedience, he does so on the basis of our new relationship fellowship and our new identity as children. John emphasizes that our primary relationship to God, as I believe Paul also does in the concept of the new man/old man, is that we have a complete and total reverse in spiritual orientation and are now called sons of God. MacArthur commits ad populum when he argues that our primary relationship is doulos because that word appears 125 times. Who cares! The word kai is the most common word in the NT, but that bear no theological significance! What John needs to present is a clear verse or chapter that argues that slave-master takes priority over all other biblical descriptions of our relationship to God.

On the other hand, William Young presents a relavent view of a tender and loving God who desires a personal relationship with his children. However he does not treat this relationship accurately either. He enters the other extreme and presents a view of God that does not include authority or justice or wrath. First, Young arbitrarily (and forgive my deconstruction) sets up a value system between Authority and relationship. Where in the world does he come up with the idea that authority is so bad, and that God hates it? The Bible is clear that even within the perfect and mysterious relationship of the trinity there is submission, where Christ works only on the authority of God, and where the Spirit comes to finish the work of Christ on the earth. And who is to say that a relationship of authority is not as good as or even is better than a relationship of equality. Can not love be perfectly present in both types? Young too easily dismisses the biblical images of headship, Lordship, and authority and unfortunately paints them black (if you will allow my arbitrary distinction between the moral values of the extreme shades... joke!).

Secondly, Young presents a picture of our spiritual childhood in a diluted fashion. The power of our new relationship with God in sonship is found in its contrast with out old relationship. Young makes no mention of this. He leaves no room for there to be enemies of God, no room for children of the Devil, no room for hostility toward God. The world, through his paradigm, is a bunch of fundamentally good children of God who need to be coaxed back from their assertion of independence over their relationship with God.

CONCLUSION

Only a balanced view will do, as I hope you are starting to see. God created all people as the crowing glory of his work, therefore we have dignity and we have the privilege of a relationship with God. However, since he is also Lord and master, and since we violated his authority, we have become enemies and children of the Devil. Only through atonement and a spiritual re-orientation can we be restored into a proper relationship with God. And that relation is this: we are his children, we are his slaves, he is our Father, he is our Lord. There is both intimacy and authority, personal relationship and structural position. This is the best model, for in it we have everything we need as humans: family and government. Love and truth. Trust and obedience. Amen.