Jump Start # 1538

2 Timothy 4:8 “in the future there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will award to me on that day; and no only to me, but also to all who have loved His appearing.”

Here, in these well known words of Paul, we find his hope for a crown to be given to him by the Lord. Paul’s journey was nearing the end. He was locked up in a Roman prison and he knew that this time was just about up. His great example and finish are found in the expressions, “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith.” I have. I have. I have.

But tucked within our verse today is a gentle reminder. The Lord is the “righteous judge.” Paul would face Caesar first. Caesar wasn’t righteous. Caesar was political to the core. His decisions furthered his dynasty. He was selfish, sinful and corrupt. But after Caesar, there was yet another judge that Paul would face, the Lord. The Lord was a righteous judge. The Lord would judge fairly. The Lord would not be bought off. The Lord was merciful. The Lord knew.

The political scene in our country is buzzing because of the death of a Supreme Court Judge. Now the search will begin for his replacement. What happens next and who actually makes the appointment will cause further political divide. This is a good time to talk about judges.

One of the things we notice about Supreme Court Justices is that they interpret the law, particularly as it applies to the Constitution. I’m not a lawyer. My brother is. That’s enough in one family. He’s the attorney and I’m the preacher.  A preacher and a lawyer—that’s all you need for all kinds of jokes and conversations. I feel that many look at the Bible through our legal process today. This can lead to some misunderstandings.

The Supreme Court can look at a law and interpret it differently. It is not uncommon to hear of decisions which were not unanimous. Some thought one way and others thought a different way. This thinking spills over to how some folks look at the Bible. They feel that we each can interpret God’s law differently. Some are conservative and strict. Others, are more progressive and loose with how they see God’s law. This thinking has allowed folks and even churches to travel down different avenues doctrinally. We feel this way. Someone else declares, “I don’t read it that way.” The concluding thought is that the word of God is open to various interpretations. More than that, it is believed that each of these conclusions are allowable with God. So the pattern for worship, how one is saved, the means a church raises money, how a group does outreach—all varies, we are told, based upon how one interprets the word of God.

This thought is troublesome to me. I don’t see it that way in the N.T. Paul taught the same thing in all the churches. Faithful men were told to teach the same thing to those who would teach others. I find expressions of one mind, one voice, one purpose. United in one spirit. No divisions among you. Those wonderful expressions imply a consensus of understanding. We agree. We are on the same page.

The idea that God’s word means different things to different people misses the point of the message. It makes the word vague and ambiguous. It takes away from the absoluteness that faithfulness and obedience demands. How can there be one faith, if we cannot interpret that faith the same? We must be careful that we do not allow the concepts of our court systems to color how we see the Bible. When God told Noah to build the ark, he seemed to understand and do all that God commanded. Noah didn’t interpret the ark to mean a condo at the beach. When the tabernacle and later the temple were built, God’s people understood what God meant. The sacrifices of the animals, the priesthood and even understanding what God required, all seemed to be clear to those people. When the young man asked Jesus what he had to do to interpret eternal life Jesus told him to keep the commandments. Jesus named a few of them. He replied that he had done that. He seemed to understand what Jesus was saying.

When the apostles went into all the world and preached the gospel, and part of that saving message included believing, repenting and being baptized, it seems that people understood it. They didn’t come up with “I just don’t see it the way you see it,” thinking. We’ve just bought into that concept. We’ve allowed that thinking to allow differences among us. We just assume that all these different ways and different ideas are fine with God. We’ve just concluded that when God said something, it could mean multiple things.

How could Paul keep the faith, unless he understood what the faith meant? How could he tell Timothy that some had shipwrecked the faith unless he understood what the faith meant? How could he warn about those teaching strange doctrines unless he understood what the faith meant? Maybe those doctrines weren’t strange. Maybe that was just how those folks interpreted things. Do you see how fuzzy, cloudy and confusing this could be. Does stop mean stop? Does go mean go?  There has been lawsuits argued in courts that tries to define just when is stop, really stop?

Contend earnest for the faith is what Jude told his readers. The message that Peter taught, Paul taught and John taught didn’t result in different conclusions or different interpretations. There is a sameness that flows through the N.T.

When someone says, “I don’t see it the way you see it,” instead of accepting multiple ideas, maybe it’s the guys eyes. Maybe he doesn’t see it because he doesn’t want to see it. Maybe he doesn’t see it because he’s looking through rose tinted glasses and his mind is made up no matter what the Bible says. It’s not an interpretation issue but an honesty issue. Reading the same Gospels ought to lead us to the same conclusions.

Variety is found in ice cream shops, not the word of God. The Supreme Court interprets the law. Their interpretations vary and often change. We believe and obey God’s law. The two are not the same.

Next time, more on The Righteous Judge.

Roger