The Word Abused . . .

WHO IS THE FALSE TEACHER?

False prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. — 2 Pet. 2:1

I may shock some of my more staid readers with the thesis I now set forth as to the identity of a false teacher. I do not believe, as I was always taught in the sect in which I grew up, that “denominational preachers” are necessarily false teachers, which is the view still urged upon us by many within Christian Churches-Churches of Christ. I have long since discarded the notion that “our” men are the true teachers while “their” men are the false teachers. If you still hold to this view, I will love you just the same. I only ask that you hear me out before writing me off as a false teacher.

On the very face of it, it is a cruel doctrine that makes false teachers of the likes of Adam Clarke and Albert Barnes, to mention two old-line commentators long esteemed by our people. Clarke labored upwards of a lifetime preparing his highly resourceful and deeply spiritual commentary, doing the Old Testament after finishing the New. It is said that he wrote his last lines about Malachi on his knees, in grateful acknowledgment that God had given him the strength to complete the task.

Albert Barnes revealed in a sermon in his latter years, recorded, by the way, in Alexander Campbell’s Millennial Harbinger of 1860, that he did all the writing on his commentaries between 4 and 9 a.m., when his mind was the freshest. When 9 a.m. came he stopped on the second, even if it meant leaving a sentence incomplete. When I read Barnes, as I often do since it is such good stuff even if old, I find myself appreciating the fact that it was all carefully searched out and prepared in early morning.

Can I really believe that such men as these are false teachers? These commentaries grace the libraries of many of our preachers, serving as mute witnesses to what preachers of the word can learn through such painstaking study as is evident in their works. I would that Clarke and Barnes were as carefully studied as they are preserved and shelved! But who of us can be serious in the view that when our preachers soak up the riches of Clarke or Barnes that they are being influenced by false teachers. It is an impossible conclusion. Something has to be wrong. Indeed, most every worthwhile book in the preachers library, whether Thayer or Hort, or Trueblood or Barclay, is the work of a false teacher, since but a few of them were authored by our own faithful band. It just doesn’t cut.

Running the risk of being branded a false teacher myself, I will venture to liberate you from such an unnecessary and ungracious doctrine. It is unnecessary in that you can cling tenaciously to all truth without having to believe that all teachers are false beside your own. It is ungracious because it is judgmental, setting at naught all those not of us. Besides, it is grossly erroneous in that it presumes that one is false when he is only wrong or mistaken. Surely Clarke and Barnes, along with the thousands like them, are mistaken in some of their interpretations. If that makes men false teachers, then we all are false. One might even be seriously mistaken without being a false teacher. Let us see.

This term, pseudo-didaskalos, appears only the one time in the New Covenant scriptures, 2 Pet. 2:1. But there are several other passages that refer to the same character, false teacher, though not by that exact description. These references make it abundantly clear who these false teachers are, for they were obviously a weighty problem to the primitive community of believers.

2 Pet. 2 gives us a strong indication of their character. They secretly bring in destructive heresies (v. 1); they deny Jesus (v. 1); they bring swift destruction upon themselves (v. 1); they are licentious, that is, their behavior is shameful (v. 2); they exploit people (v. 3); they are liars (v. 3); so wicked are they that their destruction was predestined (v. 3). All of this hardly fits an Adam Clarke on his knees before God, doing his best to explain the prophet Malachi.

The word pseudo (false) means lie, and a pseutes is a liar (as in Jn. 8:44, where the devil is “a liar and the father of lies”). He is secretive, underhanded, malicious, deceitful, unconscionable. The other references make this clear.

Ro. 16:17-18 describe him as one; who serves his own appetite rather than Jesus. He deceives the innocent through flattery. His aim is to create problems and even dissension.

2 Tim. 3:8-9 describes the false teachers as those “who oppose the truth, men of corrupt mind and counterfeit faith.”

Tit. 3:11 judges them as perverted, sinful, and self-condemned. That they are self-condemned shows that they know they are wrong, but they do not care, being as perverted as they are.

2 Tim. 4:3 shows that it is only those who themselves become perverted, turning from the wholesome teaching of Jesus, having “itching ears,” who heap to themselves teachers after their own lusts. 2 Tim. 2:16 refers to their “godless chatter,” and Jude 4 nails them as “ungodly persons who pervert the grace of our God into ]icentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.”

1 Tim. 1:19-20 names Hymenaeus and Alexander as being in this class. It says they rejected their own conscience and made shipwreck of their faith, and the apostle turned them over to Satan “that they may learn not to blaspheme.”

Surely that is enough. In the light of all this, some of our folk will quote 2 Pet. 2:1 — “There will be false teachers among you” — and browbeat those who would venture to a stadium to hear Billy Graham. That Graham errs in some things he includes or excludes may be argued, but to say he is a false teacher after the order of 2 Pet. 2 is horrendously wrong. He who would so contend, to the confusion of well-meaning people who would like to help in what they believe to be a constructive effort, would come nearer fitting the scriptural description of the false teacher than does Graham. Campbell once observed that those who cry heretic’ are usually more heretical than those they are castigating. It seems to be so.

This term pseudo is the key to our understanding the true character of the false teacher, and its meaning becomes evident when we see it used as a prefix to numerous other words. 2 Cor. 11:13 refers to the pseudo-apostles and Mt. 24:24 mentions both pseudo-Christs and pseudo-prophets. Mt. 26:60 tells how pseudo-witnesses testified against Jesus before Caiaphas.

In each of these cases you have a bad egg, an unscrupulous person who acts deceptively and maliciously so as to satisfy his perverted ego. So Paul described the false apostles as “deceitful workmen, disguising themselves.” Those who testified falsely against Jesus were malicious liars. That is our word, pseudo is a lie. A false teacher is a liar, and he knows he’s a liar; or he is so corrupt of mind and heart that he no longer distinguishes between right and wrong. He has “rejected his own conscience,” as the apostle describes him.

It is unthinkable that such a characterization as this should be laid upon any sincere, well-meaning, God-loving person, however misled he may be on some ideas. One may even be caught up in the clutches of an insidious system and still not be a pseudodidaskalos. The nun that marches her girls in front of you as you wait at the light does not necessarily deserve the epithet of false, whatever judgment you make of Romanism. She may well be more devoted to God than yourself, even if wrong about some things, and she may be a kalos-didaskalos (teacher of good), as in Tit. 2:3, in that she is teaching those girls “to be sensible, chaste, domestic, kind, and submissive to their husbands, that the word of God may not be discredited.” No false teacher so behaves as to give credit to the word of God!

That is the point. Kittel, in his great Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, describes the false teachers as those who “reject the claim of Jesus to dominion over their whole lives.” Not out of weakness do they reject him, but out of a corrupt mind and perverted soul. They are in the class with “lying wonders” in 2 Thess. 2:9 and “the pretensions of liars whose consciences are seared” in 1 Tim. 4:2.

Some will insist that I identify the false teachers of our day, if 1 am so brazen as to exclude “denominational preachers,” for, after all, Peter says, “There will be false teachers among you.” I have no interest in excluding anyone as a false teacher if he fits the description set forth here, whether he be of “us” or of “them.” And we may be closer to the description than we realize when we bask in our own self-righteousness and set all others at naught. We have those among us who are willing to bruise and batter innocent lives in order to safeguard the party and preserve what they call sound doctrine. That too gets close.

The early church had it Gnostics and its Judaizers, its legalists and its antinomians, all false teachers. We certainly have our Christ-denying systems as much as they had. We too have our pseudo-knowledge (philosophy or science “falsely so called”) in various systems. I know brethren who have been led astray by the astral false teachers, professors of theosophy and the “spirit” cult. They now attend seances and commune with departed spirits rather than assemble with the saints and commune with the Holy Spirit.

We have those in the universities that are perverted by their godless “knowledge,” drunk on their own ego, and corrupted by their lewdness. One of my students was advised by her psychiatrist that she would “mature” if she slept with a few of the boys around. One of my colleagues poked fun at “this Jesus stuff” as he proceeded to educate young people as if there were no God. Some theological radicals wrench from the gospel its redemptive character, making it only a means of social reform. And some so legalize it as to strip it of God’s grace. Men build systems around such perversions and lead the unwary astray. The “God is dead” thing was another such lying theological wonder, perpetuated by the high and mighty.

No one is a false teacher who is honestly mistaken or in error. It is gracious of us to distinguish between unintentional wrong and deliberate and malicious falsehood. One may be misled without being a liar. We would do well to judge others with that same mercy by which we prefer to be judged. — the Editor