“FOLLOW MY TEACHING” – 2 TIMOTHY 3:10 CRA 2014 BIBLE CONFERENCE – JACK COTTRELL

INTRODUCTION.

A. What does it mean to “follow”?

1. The Greek word for “follow” in 2 Tim. 3:10 is parakoloutheō, used only 4 times in the NT. It is an intensified form of the common word for “follow,” akoloutheō, which is used 90 times -- mostly in the , and almost always for following .

2. The most basic meaning of akoloutheō is to literally follow behind someone as they walk.

3. In the gospels, though, it is used also in a metaphorical sense of following someone’s teaching or leadership or way of life.

a. This is how the word was used in Judaism: a pupil studying under a rabbi followed him everywhere, learning from him.

b. This is how Jesus used the word:

1) Mark 2:14, speaking to Matthew: “Follow Me!”

2) 1:43, speaking to Phillip: “Follow Me.”

3) Matt. 16:24: “If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me.”

4) Matt. 19:27, Peter speaking to Jesus: “Behold, we have left everything and followed You.”

B. How is Paul using this concept (using the intensified form of the word)?

1. Note first that he is not stating this as a general command. It is a simple statement to his disciple, Timothy: “You followed.” See also 1 Tim. 4:6, “You have been following.”

2. In 2 Tim. 3:10-11 Paul names EIGHT things about himself that Timothy has been following, and he praises him for it.

3. My task is to examine the first one: “Now you followed my teaching.” In 1 Tim. 4:6 Paul refers to “the words of the faith and of the sound doctrine which you have been following.”

4. In both verses, what is being followed is didaskalia, “doctrine, teaching, what is taught.”

C. What are the implications of this for us Christians living in the 21st century?

I. “FOLLOW MY TEACHING.” Why PAUL’S teaching?

This sounds a bit odd! Why follow PAUL? We are not Paulists, or Paulites, or Paulicians, or Paulophiles. We are CHRISTians! Shouldn’t we be content just to follow CHRIST? Aren’t we “Christians only”? Many today identify themselves as “Christ-followers.” So isn’t it enough just to follow Christ’s teaching? If we mean by that the red-letter teaching of Jesus in the gospels, the answer is a resounding NO! Now I will show you why.

A. What I am getting at here is what I have long considered to be one of the most common and most seriously FALSE doctrines that have permeated modern Christendom. I call it the CHRISTOLOGICAL FALLACY.

1. The “Christological fallacy” is – DUH! – a fallacy about Christ. Specifically it is a fallacy about Christ’s purpose and work, about why he came, and about what he thus means to us.

2. The bottom line of the fallacy is this: it is the idea that the main thing we get from Jesus is KNOWLEDGE: new knowledge, unique knowledge that could be given by God in no other way. It is the idea that Christ’s main work was revelation.

a. The implication is that if we want to know the truth about anything that matters, we should look to Jesus, to the gospels, to Jesus’ example and red-letter teachings.

b. So if we are going to “follow” anybody’s teaching, it should be the teaching of JESUS.

c. Our doctrine (both theology and ethics) should be Christ-centered. Christ’s deeds and words become our primary source and ultimate norm for all doctrine. The final word on anything is in the gospels.

3. Examples of the Christological fallacy.

a. Karl Barth: “Every theological proposition has its point of departure in Jesus Christ” (cited in my book, God the Creator, p. 174).

b. Emil Brunner: All the truth of the Christian faith “is derived from Jesus Christ alone” (ibid.).

c. John R. Franke, modern Evangelical leader, explaining how Jesus is “the Way” in John 14:6: “In the midst of a world teeming with religious diversity, what does it mean to say that Jesus is the Way? Simply put, it means we should look to Jesus to discover how God acts in the world. . . . He was . . . sent into the world not only to tell us about God but also to demonstrate how God wants us to live.” John 14:6 also declares that Jesus is “the Truth.” In this sense “Jesus is unique.” Others may speak truths, but “those truths are truths only insofar as they finally point to the Truth of God, that is, the life and work of Jesus Christ, the Truth.” We must always “maintain this fundamental understanding of Jesus.” (From Franke’s article, “Still the Way, the Truth, and the Life,” Christianity Today, December 2009, pp. 28-29.)

d. From a letter to Christian Standard many years ago by a Christian Church preacher: Jesus came to earth “to show us how to live a good life.”

e. Stuart Cook, “Making Jesus Central,” Christian Standard (4/19/1981), 116:13-14: “Every spiritual concept, practice, or deed must find its essential meaning and value in Jesus Christ—His identity, perfect life, atoning death, triumphant resurrection, and glorified status.” “If Christ is truly to be preached, then every doctrine and ordinance of the faith must be dependent on Him, His nature, character, and deeds, for meaning. . . . The ‘doctrine of Christ’ will be that doctrine which centers on Jesus Christ.” Jesus must be “the test of all true doctrine” (cited in God the Creator, p. 175).

4. Why is this apparently oh-so-pious teaching a fallacy?

a. It is true that Jesus is our teacher, but he is not our ONLY teacher—and not even our PRIMARY teacher! Why not?

1) Because the entire Bible (which by the way is our only trustworthy source of knowledge about the deeds and words of Jesus) is the God-breathed words of God (2 Tim. 3:16; Rom. 3:2), and as such is “profitable for teaching.” And --

2) Because this is not why Jesus came in the first place! He did not come simply to teach us something, to show us something, to demonstrate something, to give us an example to live by, to increase our knowledge. We can say that in many ways he did these things, but this is not why he came! This was not his primary purpose! Revelation was not his main mission; REDEMPTION was!

b. The fact is this: Jesus himself tells us this! Here is what Jesus said to his apostles the night before his death: “I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. But when He, the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you” (John 16:12-14). By telling them this, Jesus was delegating the task of teaching TO HIS APOSTLES!

B. This leads us to consider PAUL’S APOSTOLIC MISSION.

So why should we follow Paul’s teaching? Because he is one of the apostles anointed and appointed by Jesus to teach in his stead!

1. We know the historical event of his call to be an apostle (Acts 9, 22, 26).

2. Throughout his writings Paul constantly reminds us of his calling and of his authority as an apostle. For example:

a. “Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle” (Rom. 1:1). b. “Paul, called as an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God” (1 Cor. 1:1). c. “Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?” (1 Cor. 9:1). d. “I consider myself not in the least inferior to the most eminent apostles” (2 Cor. 11:5). e. “The signs of a true apostle were performed among you” (2 Cor. 12:12). f. “Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus according to the commandment of God” (1 Tim. 1:1). g. “For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying) as a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth” (1 Tim. 2:7).

3. As an apostle Paul was the recipient of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, as Jesus promised to his apostles in John 16:12-14. Paul was conscious of being inspired to speak and write inerrant truth by the Holy Spirit.

a. “My message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power” (1 Cor. 2:4). b. (Speaking of apostles and prophets:) “We speak God’s wisdom in a mystery . . . . For to us God revealed them through the Spirit . . . . Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely give to us by God, which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit . . . . For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he will instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ” (1 Cor. 2:7, 10ff.). c. “For our did not come to you in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction” (1 Thess. 1:5).

4. Paul says he was taught by the Lord (Jesus Christ) himself:

a. “For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you” (1 Cor. 11:23). b. “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received” (1 Cor. 15:3). c. He refers to “visions and revelations of/from the Lord” (2 Cor. 12:1). d. “For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of/from Jesus Christ” (Gal. 1:12).

5. Paul knew that what he preached and taught was the WORD OF GOD.

a. “When you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God” (1 Thess. 2:13). b. In his ministry Paul takes care not to be “adulterating the word of God” (2 Cor. 4:2). c. His ministry was to “fully carry out the preaching of the word of God” (Col. 1:25). d. He calls his message -- “the gospel of God” (Rom. 1:1). “the testimony of God” (1 Cor. 2:1). “the word of truth” (2 Cor. 6:7; Col. 1:5). “the word of the Lord” (1 Thess. 4:15; 2 Thess. 3:1). “the Lord’s commandment” (1 Cor. 14:37). e. Paul says that he writes “with the authority which the Lord gave me” (2 Cor. 13:10). f. “For you know what commandments we gave you by the authority of the Lord Jesus” (1 Thess. 4:2). g. Appealing to this authority, he says his letters were recognized to be “weighty and strong” (2 Cor. 10:8-10). [barus: “serious, weighty, important”; ischuros, “strong, mighty, powerful”] h. Indicative of this authority: “If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of that person and do not associate with him, so that he will be put to shame” (2 Thess. 3:14).

C. In the final analysis, why must we follow Paul’s teaching? Because when you are following Paul’s teaching, you ARE following the teaching of the Lord himself! The teaching of the apostles, including the Apostle Paul, is the fulfillment and the completion of Christ’s own teaching.

1. Paul says, “Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ” (1 Cor. 11:1). “You also became imitators of us and of the Lord” (1 Thess. 1:6).

2. This is why Paul can say, “Therefore I exhort you, be imitators of me” (1 Cor. 4:16). “Brethren, join in following my example, and observe those who walk according to the pattern you have in us” (Phil. 3:17). “The things you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, practice these things, and the God of peace will be with you” (Phil. 4:9). “For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example.” We did what we did “in order to offer ourselves as a model for you, so that you would follow our example” (2 Thess. 3:7-9).

3. Do you want to follow Jesus? Then you MUST follow Paul, and you must follow his teaching! Paul tells us flat-out that it is “the Christ who speaks in me” (2 Cor. 13:3). If you do not follow Paul’s teaching, you are not following Jesus Christ.

II. Now the question is: HOW DO WE FOLLOW PAUL’S TEACHING?

Paul’s writings are SCRIPTURE. The Apostle Peter (in 2 Peter 3:16) refers to Paul’s letters, along with “the rest of the Scriptures.” What is the NATURE of Scripture? The Protestant Reformers identified several attributes of Scripture. They spoke of the necessity, the authority, the clarity, and the sufficiency of Scriptural writings. I would add to these the unity of Scripture. So, when we follow Paul’s teaching as part of the totality of Scripture, this means –

A. We must follow Paul’s teaching by accepting its AUTHORITY..

1. In the Bible we read of occasions where God spoke directly to individuals. If God were to speak directly to you, how would you respond? Would you not experience something like “fear and trembling”? Would you not “bow in humble adoration”?

2. Here’s the deal: Scripture IS God speaking to you! Paul’s writing is Scripture. Therefore, Paul’s writing IS GOD SPEAKING TO YOU. How then shall we approach Paul’s teaching? How reverently and seriously must we regard it as we study it? How submissive must we be in spirit?

3. Here I want to take a closer look at the Greek word Paul uses for “follow” in our text. We will remember that the word is parakoloutheō. The addition of the prefix para makes it a more intense kind of following.

a. It means not just “to follow,” but “to follow closely, to stay right at the side of” the one you are following. When used for following someone with the mind, it thus means “pay close attention, concentrate, stay with it until you understand it.”

b. To follow in this strong sense also means that you AGREE with the one you are following. “A strong emphasis is laid on the exactness or constancy of agreement” with the teaching (TDNT, I:215). It means “to follow faithfully,” and thus to make the teaching your own, to hold on to the teaching and not let it go.

c. This “following” can be summed up as ABSOLUTE, UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER.

d. But how can we be absolutely surrendered to the words of a mere man? Because Paul’s words are NOT the words of a “mere man”! The contents of Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, etc. are NOT just Paul’s teaching. They are Jesus’ teaching. They are the Holy Spirit’s teaching.

4. We do not stand in authority over Paul. Paul stands in authority over us!

B. We must follow Paul’s teaching by accepting its CLARITY.

1. In Reformation terminology this is the “perspicuity” of Scripture – a considerably unclear word that means CLARITY. When the Reformers described Scripture thus, they were opposing the Roman Catholic idea that only the clergy were able to interpret it. The Bible is clear enough for the average person to understand it. Since Paul’s teaching is Scripture, we must approach it with these assumptions:

a. This is GOD speaking to us. b. God wants to communicate with us. I.e., he wants us to understand what he is saying. c. This divine communication can have only ONE correct understanding or meaning, i.e., the one God intends it to have. d. The very fact that God is speaking thus to us implies that we are able to understand him. e. God expects us to AGREE on what that correct understanding is. (See 1 Cor. 1:10; Eph. 4:13.)

2. Isaiah 55:8-9 says, “’For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways,’ declares the LORD. ‘For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways and My thoughts than your thoughts.’”

a. It is commonly thought that God is here affirming that his divine intellect is so transcendently superior to our puny human intellect that we can never really understand what he is trying to say to us. The assumption is that the more divine the communication is, the harder it is for us to understand it.

b. This is exactly backwards, though! The fact is this: the more divine the communication is, the EASIER it will be to understand it! Shouldn’t we assume that an omniscient, all- wise God is smart enough to know how to communicate with us on our level—especially since he created us in his own image for this very purpose?

c. So what does Isaiah 55:8-9 mean? Is it not “perspicuous,” i.e., clear? It is very clear, if you just pay attention to the context. In verse 7 you can see that the contrast is not between divine and human thoughts and ways on an intellectual level, but in a MORAL sense: “Let the wicked forsake his [wicked] way and the unrighteous man his [unrighteous] thoughts; and let him return to the LORD.”

3. We must approach Paul’s teachings expecting to understand them.

C. We must follow Paul’s teaching by accepting its UNITY with the rest of Scripture.

1. If we take the inspiration (God-breathedness) of Scripture seriously, we must resist the temptation to compartmentalize the Bible. We must oppose the common practice of separating the Bible into little boxes presumed to be self-sufficient, as if we can get a complete and coherent statement of God’s truth just focusing on the alone, or the gospels alone, or Luke’s writings alone, or the Johannine literature alone, or Paul’s writings alone.

2. ALL Scripture has come ultimately from one and the same mind – the mind of God. All its writings are interlocked and intertwined.

a. Thus to understand Paul’s writings you must understand them as a body, and you must put them in the context of the entire body of Scripture. The rule of hermeneutics is quite simple: Scripture interprets Scripture.

b. See 2 Tim. 3:15-17: “From childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.”

3. Illustration: how I came to understand the point of Galatians 3:28.

D. We must follow Paul’s teaching by accepting its SUFFICIENCY, along with the rest of Scripture.

1. Scripture as a whole is GOD’S idea. When God inspired the prophets and apostles to write Scripture, his plan was to have these sacred writings treated as distinct from all other writings and preserved for future generations.

a. In NT times, the Old Testament was accepted as a unique body of authoritative writings. Jesus refers to “the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms” as testifying to him (Luke 24:44). He refers to these writings as “the Scripture,” and declares that it “cannot be broken” (John 10:35). Paul says that one of Israel’s greatest privileges was that it was “entrusted with the very words of God” (Rom. 3:2, NIV).

b. In 1 Corinthians 13:10 Paul refers to a time when “the complete thing” will come. Though the word teleion is usually translated “the perfect” here, the context contrasts it with partial things (incidental prophecies and tongues) and shows that it means the complete thing. I am as sure as I can be that Paul is here referring to the complete New Testament canon.

c. These canonical writings, though originating in specific historical situations, were intended to be understood and used not only by their contemporaries but also by future generations.

1) Speaking of the statement about Abraham in Genesis 15:6, Paul says, “Now not for his sake only was it written that it was credited to him, but for our sake also” (Rom. 4:23-24).

2) Speaking of a rule in the Law of Moses, Paul says, “For our sake it was written” (1 Cor. 9:10). Speaking of events that occurred during Israel’s wilderness wandering, Paul says, “Now these things happened as examples for us” (1 Cor. 10:6). He repeats, “Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come” (1 Cor. 10:11). 3) Though Messianic prophecies were not intended to be understood by even the inspired writers used to record them, they are now meaningful to Christians in the light of the gospel of Jesus Christ (1 Peter 1:10-12).

d. As a complete unit, these “sacred writings . . . are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” They are “profitable for teaching” and are able to equip Christians for “every good work” (2 Tim. 3:15-17).

e. When the Reformers spoke of the sufficiency of Scripture, they basically meant that we do not need MORE Scripture, more inspired writings, such as Roman Catholic tradition and apocryphal writings, or new revelation such as was being claimed among some of the radical reformers. I will expand the idea of sufficiency just a bit in the next section.

2. To say that Scripture is sufficient means not only that we do not need more inspired writings. It also means that we do not need access to obscure materials outside Scripture itself in order to comprehend the basic teachings of the Biblical writings such as the Pauline letters.

a. I am not saying this in an absolute sense. Though we do not need more inspired and authoritative writings, we do need certain things to help us UNDERSTAND the ones we have.

b. For example –

1) God himself gives us TEACHERS as one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. See Romans 12:7; Ephesians 4:11; 1 Corinthians 12:25; 1 Timothy 2:2; Titus 1:9. (The point here is this: though the Bible itself is sufficient, not every individual is sufficiently and to the same degree ABLE to understand it in all its depth.)

2) We need language studies to help us understand Greek and Hebrew WE ALL NEED THIS. If nothing else, we need to know the basics of Greek. (Let me tell you what resources are on my writing desk at home. My desk is a wooden door lying on two two-drawer file cabinets. The right rear corner of this desk has a four-shelf 30-inch wooden bookcase sitting on it. The bottom shelf is occupied by copies of books I have written. But the shelf I use the most is the second one: nothing but principal Bible versions and Greek reference works. Specifically: a Greek NT, an interlinear Greek/English NT, two one-volume Greek lexicons, a Greek/English NT concordance, an analytical Greek lexicon, and nine English translations of the entire Bible. Close by are four multi- volume theological dictionaries of Greek words, plus several reference works on the Hebrew OT.)

3) Bible background studies help us understand such things as historical and geographical references.

c. But here is what I am saying when I refer to the SUFFICIENCY of Scripture: For our understanding of the basic theological and ethical teachings of the Bible, the Bible alone and the Bible in its entirety is sufficient.

3. Here is an example of how this applies: the so-called New Perspective on Paul, which is a new way of interpreting the entire teaching of Paul. It has been around for a few decades.

a. This title implies there is an OLD perspective on Paul, which is identified as the one everybody held up to about 1960. It is represented especially by Augustine, Martin Luther, and the Protestant/Evangelical world in general. According to this “old” perspective, Paul’s main concern is to teach us about PERSONAL SALVATION, or how the sinner can be right with God. His answer: we are justified by faith in the substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ.

b. The “new” perspective (beginning around 1961) is represented by certain NT scholars, mainly Krister Stendahl, E. P. Sanders, James D. G. Dunn, and N. T. Wright. Their thesis is that the traditional understanding of Paul (as summed up above) is completely wrong. Why? Because it is a TOTAL misunderstanding of what Paul is trying to do in his writings. They say that Paul is NOT mainly concerned with personal salvation. Rather, he is concerned with how to welcome the Gentiles into the circle of God’s people. Everything he says should be interpreted around that question.

c. HOW COME such a mistake was made in the first place? Because Augustine, Luther, et al. did not understand the extrabiblical Jewish writings, and how Paul’s own theology was shaped thereby. But now, 1900 years after Paul, somebody has finally understood these Jewish writings—which are the key to really understanding what Paul is all about! As a result, NOW we know what Paul REALLY meant about Israel, the law, works of law, faith, faith & works, and the atonement.

d. What are the implications?

1) You cannot understand Paul if you do not know and understand these extrabiblical Jewish writings (from the so-called “second temple Judaism”).

2) It is just too bad that the church was in the dark for nearly two millennia, until these “new perspective” folks came along and set us all straight.

e. Note: we are not talking here about some obscure historical detail or an esoteric meaning for some Greek word. We are talking about the central doctrines of the Christian faith! We are being told that you CANNOT really know the main point of what Paul is teaching if you do not have access to these extrabiblical Jewish writings.

4. I do not have enough negative adjectives to tell you what I think about this “new perspective on Paul.” I will simply say: the Bible is SUFFICIENT for us to know what Paul is teaching, if you will study his writings in the context of the whole of Scripture.

5. You can study all the extrabiblical sources, commentaries, theologies, and obscure monographs you want. I encourage you to do so. BUT: there is NO SUBSTITUTE for simply soaking your brain in the text of Scripture itself.

a. I am not talking about some mystical, magical false meditation technique for “reading” Scripture. I am talking about simply reading it over and over, looking especially for how the thought flows, how the ideas are logically outlined, why certain things are said at certain points in that logical flow.

b. Personal examples: how I came to my understanding of Galatians 3:28 (again), of Romans 5:12-19 (the so-called “original sin” passage), and of the phrase “works of law” (especially in the context of Rom. 3:26-4:8).

c. My overall conclusion is that the OLD perspective on Paul is the correct one.

ADDENDUM

Many leaders in Christendom today (including the Restoration Movement) do not have a conscience about their responsibility for following Paul’s teaching as described above (or the teaching of Scripture in general, for that matter). They may care about what they call the essentials, but they regard most Biblical teaching as opinion. This is in part a product of our relativist culture. The fact is, though, that NOTHING Paul teaches is opinion for us. It may not be a salvation issue, but that is NOT how you tell if something is an essential or an opinion. Still, many leaders have decided that it is not really necessary and not worthwhile to dig deeply into Paul’s teachings and try to discern what the one correct meaning of each of them is. To do so is regarded as divisive; and there are so many conflicting views that it is considered impossible to discern what that “one correct meaning” is. How can we really decide between feminist and non-feminist interpretations of Pauline teaching? Is the Roman Catholic or the Protestant view of works the correct one? Shall we go with believer’s baptism or infant baptism? Premillennialism or amillennialism? Eternal security or not? Surely we can tolerate differences of “opinion” on such matters! I suggest that the biggest conflict here, the biggest contrast, is between (1) what Paul specifically says on any subject, and (2) what we WANT him to say. But if we are truly following Paul’s teaching as described above, the latter aspect of the conflict will go away.