What if what we call orthodoxy is the combination of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Strong Delusion of 2Thess 2?

Is it possible that Orthodoxy is in reality the "strong delusion" of 2 Thessalonians chapter two? Likewise, is it possible that Orthodoxy is the combination of the "leaven of the Pharisees" and the strong delusion? Let's begin with the definition of orthodox. According to the dictionary, orthodox is "of a person or their views, especially religious or political ones, conforming to what is generally or traditionally accepted as right or true; established and approved." For contrast the definition of heresy is "a belief or opinion contrary to orthodox, religious doctrine."

For all of us that have ever been called a heretic, stinging and damning as it may sound, it is not really as forceful a put-down as connotation would have one believe. And by the same token, orthodox is not nearly so sacred a position connotatively that one must fear straying from. I mention orthodoxy and heresy because it will not doubt play a role in what I am asking in the title questions. 

In Matthew chapter 16 Jesus warns his disciples to beware or the leaven of the Pharisees. A few verses after the warning he defines their leaven as their doctrine, and in Luke he calls it hypocrisy. Leaven of course in this case is a metaphor for something naturally taking over a substance. In this case, He meant that the doctrine, teaching of the Pharisees was like leaven and once it was introduced it would permeate their doctrine. So then, did this warning of Jesus prevent the leaven of the Pharisees from taking over? I personally think not. I rather believe it was a prophetic warning that indeed this would happen.

Moving on to Acts and the Apostle Paul; you can read this in Act 20:28-32  "Keep watch over yourselves and over all the flock, of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God that he obtained with the blood of his own Son.  (29)  I know that after I have gone, savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock.  (30)  Some even from your own group will come distorting the truth in order to entice the disciples to follow them.  (31)  Therefore be alert, remembering that for three years I did not cease night or day to warn everyone with tears.  (32)  And now I commend you to God and to the message of his grace, a message that is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all who are sanctified." I have underlined and emphasized some portions of this. Now I ask, is this only to the Ephesians, or is it likely that this will be widespread among all the communities that Paul established? Of course, it only make sense that this is a broader warning that Luke records was given to the Ephesian elders. Paul no doubt is warning about the fulfillment of Jesus prophecy about the leaven of the Pharisees.

Now moving along to Thessalonica. Paul says this; 2Th 2:9-12  "The coming of the lawless one is apparent in the working of Satan, who uses all power, signs, lying wonders,  (10)  and every kind of wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.  (11)  For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion, leading them to believe what is false,  (12)  so that all who have not believed the truth but took pleasure in unrighteousness will be condemned." I have again underlined and emboldened parts of this passage that I want to draw specific attention to showing all of the passage in it context. What was the truth that they refused to love? More than likely it is the message of God's grace that Paul spoke to the Ephesian elders about.

It becomes likely that Jesus prophecy about the leaven of the Pharisees, Paul's warning to the Ephesian elders, and Paul's additional warning to those is Thessalonica was in fact the same warning to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees. So naturally, the doctrine of the Pharisees is very important. What are some of the distinguishing characteristics of the doctrine of the Pharisees? Well, the one I would mention first is that following the oral law, the Mishna made it so that their followers could live the law blamelessly. Paul mentions that as a Pharisee, with the righteousness that comes from the law he was blameless. Luke explains in chapter one of his gospel that Zechariah the father of John the Baptist was living blameless. Next would be the importance of the Mishna. The Mishna was oral tradition that explained to the Jews what the law actually meant, and provided an explanation of what was law keeping and what was law violation. In other words, it was tradition. It was humanities reasoning about what God wanted. These seem to be the two things that Jesus criticized most in his earthly ministry among the Jewish people.

Why then do I think that orthodoxy is the leaven of the Pharisees and the strong delusion? It can best be identified by a very early writing traced back to Qumran. It is called the "Didache." Didache is the Greek word for teaching or doctrine. The Didache is the written down "correct understanding" of the message of Jesus. It is the compilation of the sermon on the mount, the law and some of James and DOES NOT have the word GRACE in it except on one occasion and it is not then speaking about grace as Paul explained it. Yet Luke records the phrase "word of his grace" twice when referring to the gospel. I will include the two examples which are quite forceful. Act 14:3  "Therefore they stayed there a long time, speaking boldly in the Lord, who was bearing witness to the word of His grace, granting signs and wonders to be done by their hands." Likewise it is mentioned again in Act's twenty where Paul is warning the elders of Ephesus to not forget to focus on the word of his grace.

Further, when you look at Peter's sermon on the day of Pentecost he mentions the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus but does not rehearse any part of the sermon on the mount. This same Peter is called by God to the home of Cornelius, a God fearing centurion, realizes that the Gentiles too can receive the good news of the kingdom and preaches the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, and before he has finished the Holy Spirit falls on all in Cornelius house. Peter did not present the sermon on the mount as the gospel. Paul tells the Corinthian believers that the gospel he preached was the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, it was the preaching of the cross. I have heard some argue that Paul only preached this to the Corinthians long after he had established his ministry and to that I say that he preached it immediately after his conversion and the fact that it was finally written down in a letter to the Corinthians does not in any way show that it was not his gospel from the beginning.

Orthodoxy has been so appealing because it claims to be linked back to the first century church. But is it? The fact is that there was a silence from the Christian community from roughly 70AD forward until 110AD at the earliest. There is strong evidence that the works of John were written prior to 70AD. In my view, the doctrine that came about from the early church fathers did not resemble the doctrine found in the New Testament. This I think is evidence that the leaven of the Pharisees, and the strong delusion of 2 Thessalonians became fulfilled prophecy. 

Because I say that the gospel of grace, explained in detail in John's Gospel, the Acts of the Apostles and in the entirety of the works of Paul, which is at least two thirds, and probably three quarters of the entire New Testament writings, is an integral part of the gospel does not mean that I diminish the sermon on the mount or that I must do so. Loving ones enemies is definitely a part of Christian dogma that is important and should be strived to accomplish. Turning the other cheek, going the extra mile, feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless,, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and prisoners is also an important part of Jesus teaching. The kingdom of God is a non-violent kingdom. All of these things can be true without diminishing the power of the cross.

Finally, I believe that the operation of the gospel of the cross and grace is mostly misunderstood and not often articulated by any. How does the indwelling Holy Spirit transform? I believe it is from the gospel of grace. Once a person is put at peace with Father based on being justified by the faith of Jesus, not their individual faith, but by the faith in Father that Jesus had. After all, Jesus is the representative Last Adam. But we are the first Adam. Adam in Genesis is a metaphor for all of us. Jesus is a metaphor for all of us now that redemption has been accomplished. In us, all humanity is subject to death... in Jesus all humanity has been made alive, at least that is the case if you believe Paul. So then, this justification is the catalyst for real love for Father. Real love for father comes from peace with Father. This real peace begins to well up in joy, and patience, and kindness, and gentleness, and self control. However, to have this work supernaturally one has to be continually reminded of being justified by the faith of Christ and how He accomplished that in his death, burial and resurrection.