Preach the word; what did Paul mean in 2Timothy 4:2-4?

I find it sadly interesting that the current evangelical view of scripture ends up perverting the very words meant to uphold the gospel of grace. One such passage is 2Tim 4:2-4. Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables. What did Paul mean when he had a scribe pen the words preach the word? Well, he did not mean preach the bible or the scripture for sure. He meant preach the gospel. We have amply shown through out this blog that Jesus, Paul and the other writers of the New Testament defined the word... word of God as the gospel or Jesus and it was never truer in this instance.

Paul defines the word of truth as the gospel in Ephesians 1:13. We have shown how substituting the phrase word of God, word of truth and word only makes sense when it is substituted with Jesus or the gospel. This is easy to establish in Paul’s use of the term in both of the letters to Timothy. Look at what Paul says in 2Tim 2:8-9 “Remember that Jesus Christ, of the seed of David, was raised from the dead according to my gospel, (9) for which I suffer trouble as an evildoer, even to the point of chains; but the word of God is not chained.” Here just like in 2Tim 2:15 and Ephesians 1:13 Paul defines the word of God as the gospel. It is obvious that Paul does not mean the scripture.

So then, what about his admonition to convince, rebuke, exhort and teach? It is the very opposite of what most evangelical preachers lead one to believe about the passage. The conventional wisdom is to convince, rebuke, exhort and teach those whose doctrines do not line up with the bible. That is not correct however. What Paul is really saying is to convince, rebuke, exhort and teach those who do not insist on the gospel of grace. That is the sound doctrine. Sound doctrine is not what we think scripture plainly or subtly teaches. Sound doctrine is to proclaim unabashedly the gospel of God’s mercy, love and grace and to convince, rebuke, exhort and teach those who do not.

Turning away to fables; turning from the truth is to veer off the course of proclaiming the gospel. Paul suffered as an evil doer for preaching the gospel of grace. He did not suffer for teaching what the bible says about correct behavior. He suffered because he preached the gospel to the Gentiles and Jesus suffered because he taught the gospel to tax collectors and prostitutes. It saddens me how twisted sound doctrine has become.

The gospel but,

Paul said that where sin abounds grace abounds all the more. John tells us that the law was given by Moses but, grace and truth came from Jesus Christ. And Paul again says that you are not under law you are under grace. And still, the church as a whole and, especially its leaders and shepherds are hung up on this thought... I teach the gospel but.... Can I share this? When you teach the gospel but.... whatever the but may be, you cease to preach and teach the gospel. That quite frankly is why the church is in the state it is in today. What is that state you ask? Thirty-eight thousand denominations, battles over heterodoxy and orthodoxy, marginalized and scorned by most of society, failing to promote significant social change and, most importantly, impotent to produce real transformation in people or society. This is quite a serious indictment but ever so true. Get up, look in the mirror and tell me that this is not true. Thought so!

I read an interesting book a few years back; it was called The Nature of Revival, compiled, edited and abridged by Clare George Weakley Jr. It contains the diaries of John Wesley, Charles Wesley and George Whitfield that chronicle the great revival that took place in England in the 1700,s under the preaching of George Whitefield. What caused that great revival? ...The preaching of George Whitefield. What did he preach? ...The gospel of grace! With no buts!

It is the love of God, and only the love of God, that transforms us spiritually. The love of God is best understood in the gospel of grace and, the life and mission of Jesus of Nazareth the Christ. The gospel does not contain one but! For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever shall believe on him..... that if you shall confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead you shall.... no buts at all.

 Furthermore, it is faith in the love of God.... apprehending this love by our steadfast trust in God and his mercy grace and love that ignites our transformation process. Unfortunately, all to often may I say almost always.... it is quenched by a big but. No I did not say by a big butt! The butt with the but can be a big butt or a little butt but the but that is always big.... overwhelmingly big is the gospel but.

What caused the revival to die out you ask? People asking the question .... how then shall we live? And, tying it to salvation with a but. God’s love is a radical love and it is projected and transmitted by a radical grace. We will never see a great sustainable encompassing revival until we rid ourselves of the gospel but mentality. Let God be God, us be us, and the gospel given without buts! Until we do we will not see transformation in ourselves or society.

A fresh look at the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent

Genesis 3:15 is regarded as the first prophecy of Jesus in the Old Testament. Here is how it reads in the NKJV: Gen 3:15Gen 3:15 “And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, And you shall bruise His heel." So then, we know that the seed of the woman is Christ but, who is the seed of the Serpent? This is an interesting question with what I believe to be an equally interesting answer. 

The first person to definitively answer the question was John the Baptist. He made this statement when the Sadducees and the Pharisees came out to see him. Mat 3:7 NKJV But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, "Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? What is a brood of vipers if not the seed of the serpent? Brood is offspring...seed and, a viper is a snake/serpent. So then, John the Baptizer identified the seed of the serpent in his forerunner vocation. It was the religious elite leadership.

John was not alone in this proclamation it was also echoed by Jesus himself. Mat 12:34 NKJV Brood of vipers! How can you, being evil, speak good things? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. Jesus also used the same description in Matthew 23:33 and in that passage called them serpents... brood of vipers as he warned them of the coming hell that they would experience in the destruction of the temple and their city. The plain answer for the question regarding the seed of the serpent is plain and simply the religious. By religious I mean those that would try to find a righteousness of their own before God.

It started with the first parents in the garden right after the unlawful meal. They, realizing that they were naked before God gathered fig leaves to try to cover their shame and, began the first religious practice of trying to gain favor and acceptance before God with their own efforts. I would submit to you for your consideration that the sewing of fig leaves, to make a covering, was in fact the first religious act. They thought that somehow this would make up for their disobedience.

God then killed and skinned animals to give them a covering. The reason is that only God can give us relationship with him. He had to do it for them. If they were to be properly covered he had to do it and, he had to shed blood to do it. The skinned animals were indeed sacrifices for the covering they needed. Why? Because the fig leave would not have lasted at all? No; The skins, while not eternal, were much more permanent and practical; especially in such a hostile environment but, the skin coverings were not able to cleanse the conscience however, they did allow relationship between God and them to continue.

No doubt, some reasoning philosopher is wondering why an animal had to be killed? Well, it wasn’t because God cared that they were naked. He made them that way. So then, the sacrifice was not to satisfy God... no.... it was to cleanse Adam and Eve’s conscience because it was done by God and not them! And, for any that think that this was cruel to animals... what about the fig leaves??? They had to die didn’t they? Aren't the leaves just as important as the animals? They died in Adam and Eve’s attempt to cleanse their conscience through religious ritual.

So here is the bottom line folks; Jesus died because of religion. Religion cannot ever cleanse the conscience. Only God showing that he has forgiven once for all... never to take it up again... can cleanse the conscience. I have often wondered why a sinner like me could have such confidence in Jesus? How can I have such a cleansed conscience? Well, today I have been given the answer. It is because Jesus has taken care of my religion problem once and for all... and yes, I am saying that religion and sin are synonymous. The reason for confidently stating that fact is that religion stems from unbelief in the declarations of God, and the author of Hebrews equated sin and unbelief. Relationship is the reason for the cleansed conscience. Religion will only frustrate.

The read and do mentality is antithetical to the gospel

Several Christian leaders are questioning the way that most evangelicals read the scripture. Brian McLaren calls it a constitutional reading and I have heard Darin Hufford refer to it as a policy manual reading. So to be clear, I would call it a constitutional, legislative, policy manual approach that can be most easily explained as a read and do mentality. Read and do is the foundational proposition undergirding a constitution, legal code or, policy manual. My point is that no matter what you call it, the concept is antithetical to the gospel message.

Still, a large portion of the words written in the scripture deals with constitutional, legislative and, policy manual type issues and, it is easy to see why so many evangelicals view it that way. Commandments are not suggestions; they are edicts... aren’t they? In fact, I think that it would be fair to say that the Old Covenant was indeed a constitutional, legislative, policy manual type covenant and the read, memorize and do edict was just that, a commandment.

The question becomes; how has the new covenant changed that if at all? It appears that the New Testament writings are full of instructions that answer a different question... a question that asks; how then shall we live? That after all is an important question and not one to be easily dismissed. One would hope that redeemed people would be different than those who do not believe that they have been redeemed. This however, does not answer my first question; has the new covenant changed the read and do aspect of the scripture? Has it changed from a constitutional, legislative, policy manual reading to an all together different reading method? I think that the answer is a definite yes.

So the question then is what type of reading method is taught? The short answer is a redemptive method. The gospel of the death burial and resurrection of Jesus is the focus of the scripture (John 5:39-40; Luke 24:27; 44-48 ). The redemptive reading is meant to spiritually transform the individual that believes the gospel. So then, it is the transformation of the person that should not and can not be accomplished by a constitutional, legislative, policy manual, read and do reading method.

Unfortunately, the above mentioned reading method is the one that is stressed by evangelicals the world around. Here is how it works: Believe the gospel and be born again.... then, begin immediately to apply the read and do method to change your behavior and answer the question how then shall we live with proper obedience. I have explained it as Nike Slogan Christians.... Just do it!

However, I think that the redemptive reading method emphasizes the spiritual reality of our situation. We must first believe and accept the spiritual reality of our situation and position. What is the spiritual reality of our situation and position when using a redemptive reading of scripture? The spiritual reality is the affirmation of the redemptive decrees. All are declared righteous by the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ. I like the way that the New Living Translation puts it: Col 1:19-22 For God in all His fullness was pleased to live in Christ, (20) and through Him God reconciled everything to Himself. He made peace with everything in heaven and on earth by means of Christ's blood on the cross. (21) This includes you who were once far away from God. You were His enemies, separated from Him by your evil thoughts and actions. (22) Yet now He has reconciled you to Himself through the death of Christ in His physical body. As a result, He has brought you into His own presence, and you are holy and blameless as you stand before Him without a single fault.

The positional declaration of righteousness is very important in the true transformation of the individual. If one believes the good news.... that is.... that we are holy and blameless as we stand because of Jesus... then and only then, will the Spirit of God in us begin to cajole us to have our behavior line up with our actual position... it is all generated out of love that is based upon the grace of God. Read and do is eliminated and yet, if we are resting in the redemptive decrees about us and our positional righteousness... we can attempt the read and do as long as we do not see it as evidence of our transformation and, instead see it as a natural response out flowing from God’s love and grace. This completely eliminates the constitutional, legislative, policy manual, read and do method of scripture reading.

The unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace

Many times ecumenical movements are perceived to be the result of the spirit of unity rather than unity of the Spirit. This causes a great concern for some evangelicals. Quite frankly, there are many evangelicals that cannot get beyond this idea and, will not strive to unite with other believers that they perceive to be of a different doctrinal stance. As a result there are thousands and thousands of denominations and divisions. Wikipedia reports that there are 38,000 various denominations.

Yet, the apostle Paul wrote the following to the church in Ephesus. Eph 4:4-6 There is one body and one Spirit--just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call-- (5) one Lord, one faith, one baptism, (6) one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. Okay.... is it possible that we can find the way to exercise the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace? Is it possible to find a way that believers can be more inclusive, especially of each other? All of the divisions center on our reading and understanding of scripture. Those who use what Brian McLaren calls a constitutional reading of scripture, use this to take their various doctrinal stances that they then divide on.

Let’s just look at Ephesians 4:1-4: “I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” Walking worthy of the calling should mean walking in love.

What would we expect the Spirit to unify believers on? First of all, it should be evident that the Spirit would unite believers in the fruit of the Spirit. So let’s look at the fruit of the Spirit in bullet form:

• Love (agape) selfless love
• Joy
• Peace
• Patiences
• Kindness
• Goodness
• Faithfulness
• Gentleness
• Self Control

I’m sorry, I do not see doctrine, scripture interpretation... etc. Think about the definition of each word in the list above, realizing that they all together make up agape and, then ask yourself, about the fruit of those who divide, judge, accuse, condemn and demand doctrinal purity. It seems to me that by definition those who divide and condemn do not exhibit any of the above fruit.

Further, if one uses the scripture interpretation method of Jesus and his followers.... that is... a strictly redemptive interpretation.... and, I think that we have sufficiently proven over the entries in this blog... that in fact, that was Jesus method.... the one he taught to his followers always; And more than this, if you witness the inclusiveness of Jesus as he ate and interacted with sinners it should be crystal clear that he was focused on the fruit you see listed above. That should be the source of the unity of the Spirit.

God is Love; how I was recently chastised.

The apostle John tells us in no uncertain terms that God is love... However, he spoke something to me that hit me like a ton of bricks. I read 1John 4:8, Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love. How many times and in how many ways do I NOT love? I think far too often. I don’t have a problem including the outcasts; for me, that’s easy, but, lately I have been confronted with the fact that I have been pretty unloving to those who I would say are religiously dogmatic. I’m sorry but I have struggled loving the self righteous... the judgmental. I have gone so far as to judge them and that is the source of my growing pains.

I hear the Spirit telling me this: “ My love is radical Joe... you are very correct, I love the outcasts; I love those who are judged and further, I am not judging them at all... I love them and accept them just where they are”...

Big smile on my face but, then, the Spirit goes on to say...” I love the judgmental also... yes indeed, I love the Pharisaic spirited person... I radically love all people and, that is why I was willing to go to the cross. I went there for the outcasts and, the self righteous.”

Whoa! ... that stings! I’m thinking to myself....”but Lord you yelled at the Pharisees!.”

The Spirit reading my mind says... “yes, I did but it was out of love.... why have you yelled at them?”

I immediately had to realize and answer honestly... “out of anger,” my head drops.

Then the Spirit asks, “Can you love from a place of anger?”

My reply has to be “No,” a little shame sneaks in.

Ok, I have bared my heart a little. I need to repent... If I have hurt you with my ministry please forgive me. Understand that when I begin to be critical from now on... I am going to try to be loving, considerate and, if I have to come from a place of anger... I am going to try to just be silent.

Still, I want to point out that God is Love. God is agape (ahg-a-pay). So what is this love that is what God is? I like this definition; Thomas Jay Oord has defined agape as "an intentional response to promote well-being when responding to that which has generated ill-being” In other words, it is making the situation better. Agape has the highest and best outcome at purpose. This is the highest and best outcome for all people. This is radical love. This is the love that Jesus possesses and, guess what, if I truly have Jesus in me it should be the love that I possess. All of us who name the name of Jesus should have this love for all. This is not syrupy love. It is love that causes us to esteem others greater than we esteem ourselves.

Can I confess? Can I be honest? This is painful. This is hard. This will take some radical rethinking on my part. Pray for me as I seek the Lord’s help in cultivating this love.

Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, Sadducees and Herod.

I can still remember my grandmother’s baking days. She made some awesome bread. It smelled so good when you walked on the porch and the closer you got the more inviting it became but, goodness gracious.... when you tasted it warm and buttery it was soooo good! The substance that made it rise and be airy was yeast, leaven. I have watched her make it from scratch. I have smelled the yeast in warm water just fermenting waiting to do its magic. When introduced to flour, water and other ingredients it took over. It permeated the entire batch of dough.

Jesus is warning that the doctrine of the Pharisees, Sadducees and Herodians was just like my grandmother’s yeast. Except, instead of bringing goodness into the loaf it just would take over. Yeast, leaven is a metaphor that is used often in scripture. It is a metaphor that is used for sin and interestingly, the Jews were instructed to get rid of all leaven for the Passover meal. They could not even keep it in the house. It was a metaphor for sin and contamination.

Jesus went on to say that the leaven of the Pharisees was their teaching and, that it was hypocrisy. Mat 16:6-7 Jesus said to them, "Watch and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees." (7) And they began discussing it among themselves, saying, "We brought no bread."....... Mat 16:12 Then they understood that he did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees. In other words, Jesus said that the teaching/doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees was just like leaven. It would permeate and ruin the purity of the teaching that he had taught them. In Luke 12:1 Jesus called the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees hypocrisy and in Mark 8:15 he mentioned to beware of the leaven of Herod which was the leaven of the Herodians... that is, people who followed Herod.

Let me describe the historical context of each of these groups. The Pharisees were strict lawyers, self righteous and very judgmental. They believed in the imminent resurrection but they were very exclusive in their acceptance of people and extremely dogmatic about their beliefs and rigid with their understanding of God’s will.

The second group was equally religious and self righteous when it came to the Law of Moses but were far more liberal in the spiritual realm and, did not believe as much in the supernatural. They did not believe in an imminent resurrection. Likewise, they were not expecting the kingdom of God to be manifested in a supernatural way. They were the wealthy elite ruling class.

Finally, the third group was called the Herodians. They were followers of Herod who thought that co-operation with the government was the best way to aid the kingdom advancing. They wanted to see Herod in power and, believed that they could best advance the issues important to the Jews by supporting and, working with Herod and the Roman government.

I find it interesting that there are such close parallels to these groups within the church today. There are modern day Pharisees who are self righteous and exclusive. They are judgmental and claim to speak for God and exclude all who do not believe as they believe... do not interpret the scripture the way that they do.

Likewise, there are modern day Sadducees. They have removed much of the supernatural from Christianity. They self righteously tout the teachings of the sermon on the mount but, deny the power of the Holy Spirit and, the efficacy of the cross. They play down humanities need for redemption and the fact that Jesus put the world to rights for all by his death, burial and resurrection.

Also, we have the Herodians.... militia groups and saints that believe that we need to take over the government and rule by the Ten Commandments. They believe that the best way to change the world is to have government officials elected that have a biblical agenda.

Was it Solomon that said there is nothing new under the sun? In subsequent articles we will dig deeper into this topic.