Examining "A More Christlike Word"
by Brad Jersak
“For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough.” (Paul’s concern from 2 Corinthians 11:4)
|
The False Filter |
The Biblical Filter |
|
The word OR the Word |
The Word THROUGH the word |
Yes, it is all about authority (beginning at p. 70). So, before
looking at what BJ does with this topic, let’s remind ourselves of a few
things.
1. BJ is writing this book as an “authority”.
Whatever authority means, it includes leading people in what they believe. BJ
wants us to believe “another Jesus” with a “different spirit” and a “different
gospel”. He also wants us to believe that he has the authority to discredit the
authority of God’s word when he doesn’t agree with something that is written (I say he doesn't).
2. BJ has a 100% failure rate in proving
that Jesus’ death for sinners was NOT a punishment (penal), was NOT
substitutionary (Jesus dying in our place) and was NOT atonement (a sacrifice that makes sinners right with God).
3. BJ has a 100% failure rate in
proving that Jesus “corrected” Yahweh, Scripture, the Law, Moses, or anything else
in the Scriptures the Jewish people had at the time (what we now call the Old
Testament).
4. BJ has a 100% failure rate in
proving that God’s attributes (or at least some of them) are anthropomorphisms
instead of inherent qualities of his divine being.
5. BJ has a 100% failure rate in proving
that the historical descriptions of creation, the worldwide flood, Noah’s ark, God’s
judgment on criminal nations, or any other event of history described in the
Scriptures, was anything less than 100% factual.
6. BJ has a 100% failure rate at
discrediting Inspiration (when it is understood as God breathing out his words),
Inerrancy (that the Scriptures are without error), and Infallibility (that the
Scriptures are incapable of error).
7. Bottom line: BJ has a 100% failure
rate in presenting any evidence whatsoever that would change my mind about
treating all of Scripture the way Jesus Christ our Lord treated Scripture. As
our Savior breathed out into Scripture by quoting breathed-out Scripture, “It
is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes
from the mouth of God’” (Matthew 4:4).
And so, with all that in mind, let’s see how
BJ handles God’s “Authority”.
I ended my lost journal entry with the
observation that these are fightin’ words. Why? Because BJ claims that when he
refers to “the human element (yes, discrepancies) in the text,” he is being “honest”.
As my seven introductory reminders indicate, that’s not even close to the
truth.
So, he says, “the question arises, ‘Do you
or don’t you believe in the authority of Scripture?’” (p. 71). Obviously, this
doesn’t mean one of the pendulum extreme ideas, right?
|
Pendulum Left |
Plumbline |
Pendulum Right |
|
Legalistic authority that is really a cover for the church power-brokers
to be the authorities of what happens in their churches. |
Submitting to the authority of Scripture as the words of God that Jesus
expects us to put into practice every day of our lives in the way the Scriptures communicate we ought to do so. |
Cheap Grace authority that presents itself as the authority on which
parts of the Bible God really doesn’t expect us to put into practice. |
Next,
let’s see what BJ gives as his working definition of Authority.
First,
we see that he divides authority into two senses.
Applied to the Bible, the first sense would describe how the Bible’s authority is derived from its source. In other words, is it authorized, and if so, by whom? The second definition includes a subjective side—is it recognized as having authority, and if so, by whom? (p. 71).
For now, we will simply keep this in mind and see how he develops it. This is important because both those senses fit the two pendulum extremes as well as the plumbline, so his development of this is a big deal. At this point, we only know that he tends to stay away from the plumbline of God's word.
Also, we will be
testing BJ to assess whether he has been authorized in any way to teach us what
is in his book, and to take a close look at who recognizes his authority. This
was one of the “gulp” experiences for me when I saw who was endorsing his book
because it left me with an “it figures” conclusion since the first two (in one of
the places I was looking) were also men I was quite sure were comfortable
replacing God’s thoughts with their own.
Okay, his
“first” look at these two points on pages 71-72 is like a scene filled with so
many claims that we need to stop, sit down on a log, and take a moment to
figure out what this viewpoint is revealing.
BJ’s
Claim:
First, is the Bible authoritative according to its source or sources? Do we understand God as the ultimate source? Or was it authored by the people of God? Or some combination of the Holy Spirit and human scribes? And since we know for sure that people wrote it down, to what degree are their limited perspectives and temporal worldviews in play? (pp. 71-72).
Monte’s
Reply:
Since
he doesn’t answer these questions here (although he already has throughout this
journey), I will simply remind us that all three groups (the two pendulum
extremes and the plumbline) have their own answers to these questions and
usually it is the two extremes fighting over them with the listeners not
realizing the plumbline hangs true between the two. I will wait to respond to
his answers to these questions when they come up.
BJ’s
Claim:
While that is an interesting set of mysteries open to debate, I come at it differently. I start with the authority of Jesus. I recognize his authority as ultimate. Does he authorize the Scriptures, written before him or after him? And to what degree? (pp. 71-72).
Monte’s Reply:
“Mysteries”? No, not really. There is a very
clear and beautiful picture of God’s authority right there in the Bible.
“Open to debate”? No, the answers are quite settled. Remember that even though religious hypocrites argued and debated with Jesus that didn't mean that anything Jesus said, did, or taught was "open to debate". Big and helpful difference!
BJ will “come at it differently”? Yes, “another
Jesus”, “a different spirit”, “a different gospel”. Understood.
The “I start” of the “I start with the
authority of Jesus” is BJ telling us how he makes himself the authority over
how to see God’s authority. This must be tested, of course.
The, “I recognize his authority as ultimate”
means that when BJ has authoritatively told us what his “another Jesus” is
like, that is the one he ascribes authority to above all others (when it is really BJ's hand in the "another Jesus" puppet, so to speak).
“Does he authorize the Scriptures, written before
him or after him?” Again, we have already seen BJ claim Jesus corrects
Scripture when the examples he gave were absolutely false. We will watch to see
if BJ shows objectively how Jesus treats the Scriptures, or whether he acts as
an authority who can continue being dishonest about what Jesus did and asking
his readers to believe him.
Let’s also keep in mind that we cannot know
anything about the Jesus revealed in the Scriptures without reading the
SCRIPTURES! In other words, we can’t say that Jesus’ authority is “ultimate”
without engaging with what is written about him. Which brings us back to
Scripture as our authority (strange how that keeps happening, eh?).
BJ’s
Claim:
Jesus affirmed the authority of Scripture by how he used it, and he also demonstrated the limits of its authority relative to himself. For Jesus, both the extent and the limits of biblical authority are defined by what I’m calling the Emmaus Way. That is, to the degree that the whole Bible testifies to Jesus and points to his authority, he (and we) read it as authoritative. (p. 72).
Monte’s Reply:
Because
there’s so much in there that shapes how the author will call us to believe his
view of “another Jesus”, let’s break this down into one sentence at a time.
“Jesus
affirmed the authority of Scripture by how he used it…” Okay, so that would be
part of the picture. But there is also what he said about Scripture. And there is
also what Scripture said about itself. And there is what the Apostles wrote,
and all the other biblical writers who were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
While we would not downplay the centrality of what Jesus teaches us about the
word of God, we are working with the understanding that it is “all Scripture”
that is “breathed out by God”, so we know Jesus is in agreement with “all
Scripture” even if he is not directly mentioned in a passage we are
considering. It is the word “of God”, and that’s what makes it authoritative.
After all, he did say that we live by “every word" that comes from the mouth of
God (meaning his Father), so we can delight to honor Jesus’ authority in saying
that, we can rejoice in the authority of God his Father (Yahweh of the Scriptures), and we can exalt the
authority of the words that come from God’s mouth which are full of as much
authority as Creator God has in himself.
“and
he also demonstrated the limits of its authority relative to himself.” Again, did
Jesus put limits on the authority of Scripture at all? Or did he make all
Scripture relative to himself? Didn’t we read about how Jesus kept making it
all relative to the Father? Didn’t he point out how both he and the Holy Spirit
were only doing and communicating what they were given by the Father? And isn’t
the Father (the prime focus of “Yahweh” in the Old Testament) the one that BJ
wants his “another Jesus” to be able to correct as faulty and immoral?
“For Jesus, both the extent and the limits of biblical authority are defined by what I’m calling the Emmaus Way.” Where does Jesus say what is “for Jesus”? Because there is no evidence presented here, I am extremely dubious that BJ is giving me what these things were like "for Jesus".
BJ has
yet to connect what he means about the Emmaus Way with anything in the Bible
that refers to Emmaus. I would have thought that if this is the focus, we would
have learned what happened on the Emmaus Way that is the quintessential pattern
of understanding Jesus or the authority of the Scriptures. I know Jesus had an
amazing visit with a couple of disciples on the Emmaus Road after his
resurrection, and I know he glorified the Scriptures during that walk, but I am
suspicious that this isn’t the point. However, at this point, we only have the
focus that this is BJ saying “what I'M calling the Emmaus Way”, and I have an
aversion to him telling me to think his way simply because he is calling it
what he wants.
“That
is, to the degree that the whole Bible testifies to Jesus and points to his
authority, he (and we) read it as authoritative.” Nope. The apostle said that “all
Scripture is God breathed”. It is the word “of God”. It is authoritative
because it is God’s word. It is not only the parts that speak of Jesus the way the
BJs wanted to find him in the Bible that is authoritative (when true to
Scripture, that is). It is “all Scripture” that is “God-breathed”, and so we
fully expect to find that Jesus affirmed “all Scripture” as fulfilling how we
live “by every word that comes from the mouth of God.” It is authoritative because
it is God’s word.
BJ’s
Claim:
In John 5, when Jesus rebukes the religious leaders, he makes it clear that you could spend your whole life studying the Scriptures and never once hear the Father’s voice through them if you don’t understand they are a testimony of his life, teachings, passion, and mission (p. 72).
Monte’s
Reply:
We already looked at this extensively in an
earlier chapter, so let’s just clarify because BJ is making such a major point about
this. The Scripture in question is, “You search the Scriptures because you
think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness
about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life” (John 5:39-40).
My point here is that Jesus did NOT say that
the Scriptures they had at that time were “a testimony of his life, teachings,
passion, and mission”. He said they “bear witness about ME”. In other words, Jesus
was telling them that HE was the one the hypocritical elites claimed to be waiting for.
Everything the prophets said about the coming One, Jesus was telling them that
HE was claiming that status.
Please also note that this is not Jesus saying
that the only thing the Scriptures spoke about was him. We know the whole story
is his story, but everything God said that wasn’t directly about Jesus is just
as authoritative as what is spoken of his Son.
Why is
this so important? Because BJ has already set the stage for his “another Jesus”
to correct Yahweh, the Law, Moses, the Psalms, and the Prophets. Here he is
putting the spotlight on how the Scriptures spoke of Jesus, which is partly
true, but missing the point that Jesus was making a statement about himself as
the fulfillment of those things, not giving an extensive list of everything it
said about him.
The truth is that everything the Scriptures
say about Yahweh, Creation, the Fall, the Flood, the history of Israel, the
judging of the criminal nations, and EVERYTHING else the Scriptures spoke about
is in question here, so it isn’t enough to claim that BJ’s “another Jesus” is
the box that everything must fit in.
BJ’s
Claim:
In fact, the first Christians would not have asked whether the Bible was authoritative. Instead, they would have said that Jesus was their authority, and then they would have asked, “Which books testify to this?” Those that did were chosen for inclusion in their written canon, which I discuss in more detail in the next section. (p. 72).
Monte’s
Reply:
Okay,
there’s a lot of “says who?” going through my mind with this!
How
does BJ know what the first Christians would NOT have asked about the Scriptures
that were already theirs, and of the ones that were being written from the
teachings of the apostles?
How does BJ know that the early church would have said that Jesus was their authority when he wasn’t there? Through what or whom would they have known how Jesus was communicating with them authoritatively? Who was teaching them? Where are these teachings collected? How did they relate to the teachers and teachings so they all knew they were submitting to Jesus' authority? The New Testament has some great answers to these questions, but you can only find them at the plumbline!
Where does BJ see in the Bible that the early church was testing what was being written to ascertain whether it testified about Jesus rather than looking at who the apostles were and how they were authorized to teach what Paul called “the whole counsel of God”? I know that it was an ongoing work to know which writings were Scripture and which were not, but methinks that BJ does not have any authority to tell us what the first Christians would have done in determining how to follow Christ. Or at least he didn't present anything to validate his claim to know such things.
Well, between
traveling along the short stretch of thoughts BJ shared in his first point, and
all the time we have had to spend clarifying what he is talking about, that’s
about it for today’s journal journey.
My conclusion
is simply that BJ has not given any information to support his claim that we
must isolate our understanding of the authority of Scripture to either Jesus as
he IS revealed in the Scriptures, or the “another Jesus” BJ wants us to believe
in.
In
fact, I will repeat what I said earlier when BJ drew our attention to John 5,
that Jesus was constantly making the Father the authority (even though this is
why Jesus had authority), and we will remain with that focus until anything is
shared from the Scriptures to suggest otherwise.
However, as we get ready to set up camp at the end of today’s journey,
let me just point out one thing Jesus said in John 5 that helps us see where
his focus was. In dealing with the hard-heartedness of the religious leaders, Jesus
told them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him
who sent me has eternal life” (John 5:24). Do you see the relational dynamic
there? Everybody was hearing Jesus’ word. But where did Jesus point them? To
whether they believed “him who sent me”, meaning, his Father. Why would he
point them there? Because he had already told them that the words he spoke were
taught to him by the Father.
So it
is now. Everything we see Jesus do or say tells us about the Father. It is
scary ground (of the eternal-life-and-death kind) that we can only demonstrate that we have
truly believed Jesus when it is equally true that we absolutely believe his Father. And that includes believing
in Yahweh of the Scriptures Jesus was always talking about because that was what Jesus kept telling his hearers to do. Disconnect Jesus from his Father (as BJ’s garden path requires), and you get “another Jesus”, not the Way, the Truth, and the Life, of the
true Lord Jesus Christ.
© 2024
Monte Vigh ~ Box 517, Merritt, BC, V1K 1B8
Email: in2freedom@gmail.com
Unless otherwise noted, Scriptures are from the
English Standard Version (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. ESV® Text
Edition: 2016. Copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a publishing ministry of
Good News Publishers.)
A More Christlike Word © 2021 by Bradley Jersak Whitaker House 1030 Hunt
Valley Circle • New Kensington, PA 15068 www.whitakerhouse.com
Jersak, Bradley. A More Christlike Word: Reading Scripture the
Emmaus Way. Whitaker House. Kindle Edition.
Definitions from the Bible Sense Lexicon (BSL) in Logos Bible
Systems
No comments:
Post a Comment