2 Kings 4; 1 Timothy 1; Daniel 8; Psalm 116

A recent discussion highlights the ongoing tension within the church regarding the proper acknowledgment of Jesus Christ's lordship. The speaker recounts an encounter with a reader who criticized the use of "Jesus" instead of "Lord Jesus Christ" in his writings. The reader referenced biblical passages emphasizing the importance of confessing Jesus as Lord, yet the speaker clarified that his choice of terminology was context-dependent, particularly when discussing the synoptic gospels where Jesus is often referred to simply as "Jesus."

The speaker reflects on the broader issue of individuals within the church who, despite lacking a solid understanding of scripture, assert their interpretations with confidence. He shares examples of people who have approached him with convoluted theories or demands for publication, all while missing the core message of the gospel. This phenomenon underscores a persistent challenge in the church: the presence of false doctrines and distractions that divert attention from the essential teachings of love and faith that should guide believers.

Some years ago I received a letter from someone who told me that he had read one of my books and was upset that I had often referred to the Lord Jesus Christ as “Jesus.” He quoted several passages about confessing Jesus as Lord (e.g., Rom. 10:9), and how such confession is the mark of having the Spirit (1 Cor. 12:3). I wrote back, explaining that when I refer to the Lord Jesus Christ as Jesus, I am not thereby denying his lordship. Rather, I am not at that point affirming it. Further, the book he had read dealt with one of the synoptic Gospels. In the Gospels, the Lord Jesus is most commonly referred to simply as “Jesus.” So since I was commenting on one of the Gospels, I tended to refer to Jesus in the same way that Scripture does. When expounding some passage from, say, Paul, I tend to use, predominantly, the forms for addressing or referring to Jesus that the apostle uses.

I received back from him a multi-page document giving most of the passages that refer to Jesus as Lord, offering many reasons for the importance of such a confession, and much more of the same. He did not respond to a single point in my letter: I was merely fodder for his tirade.

It was not worth answering. From his vantage point, he was upholding the Gospel. To me, he was more than a little like people to whom Paul refers: “They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm” (1 Tim. 1:7).

Of course, Paul has particular opponents in mind, and their profile does not exactly match that of my letter writer. Nevertheless, in every generation there are people circulating in and around the church who teach “false doctrines” (1 Tim. 1:3) and devote themselves to peripheral matters. One chap I taught in an evening school became convinced he had the key to the Scriptures by some elaborate typology of circumcision. Another has written me from Australia, offering a massive synthesis that is remarkably silly, and condemning all the publishers because they are so narrow-minded and heterodox they won’t give his views the airing he thinks they deserve. Yet another has written voluminous and repeated letters insisting I should publish his manuscript because the entire world needs to read it.

What these people have in common is false doctrine, a focus on peripheral matters (even if not genealogies, 1 Tim. 1:4) that distort what is central, and an arrogance that discloses itself in endless “meaningless talk” (1 Tim. 1:6). What they lack is the goal of the gospel command, which is love, and sincere faith promoting God’s work (1 Tim. 1:4–5).