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 |
The first question BJ asked regarding the
authority of the Scriptures was, “is the Bible authoritative according to its
source or sources?” (p. 71). We responded to his teaching on that matter in
yesterday’s journal journey.
Hmmm… now that I think about it, I don’t
think the guy answered the question! I know he told us his opinion, but I don’t
think he actually answered whether the Bible claimed to be authoritative. You
know, like when the prophets said, “Thus says Yahweh…” and everyone knew that
was the highest claim to authority for a source to make! Okay, that one got by
on me, but let’s see if I can pay better attention on today’s journey.
The second question is, “is the Bible
authoritative according to the recipients?” (p. 72), and we will follow the
garden path to interact with where the author leads us today.
BJ’s Claim:
That depends on our orientation to it. Does it operate as an authority in our lives in practice? Does what it says matter to us? Do we read it as skeptics, looking for reasons to dismiss it? Do we read it as radical fundamentalists, looking to weaponize it? Do we read it as literalists, oblivious to much of its spiritual meaning? Only you can decide whether you recognize its authority in your life. And if so, how so? (p. 72).
Monte’s Reply:
Something in me says this is not what the
definition of authority meant when it said, “2. : possessing recognized or
evident authority: clearly accurate or knowledgeable // an authoritative
critique // an authoritative source of information29” (p. 71). My
brain is getting a workout trying to understand how BJ’s claim above comes from
the second part of the definition of authority. In fact, asking, “is the Bible
authoritative according to the recipients” just doesn’t seem to match this
sense of the definition.
Okay, I’m sitting down on a log here to
ponder this. It’s got me stumped, and I’ve got to put my thinkin’-cap on for a
minute.
So, if the first question was, “is the Bible
authoritative according to its source or sources?” and that comes from the
definition that was shared, “having, marked by, or proceeding from authority” (p.
71), then what we are looking for is whether the sources that make up the Bible
claim to be authoritative. For example, nothing at all in C.S. Lewis’s
Chronicles of Narnia makes any claim that it is an authoritative source of
doctrinal information about Christ (as Aslan). On the other hand, the Bible is
full of claims of authority by constantly declaring it is the word of God (in
its many synonymous expressions). So, I think I’ve got that straight, that the
first focus was whether the Bible presents itself as authoritative in its
sources, which it does.
However, the second question, “is the Bible
authoritative according to the recipients?” doesn’t seem to match the
definition of, “possessing recognized or evident authority: clearly accurate or
knowledgeable”. It seems to me that this side of the coin is about whether the
Bible “possesses” an authority that is “recognized or evident” as authority.
And that seems to be about how the Jews acknowledged the objective authority of
Scripture, and how Jesus magnified the objective authority of Scripture, and
how the proclaiming of the gospel of the kingdom was received as authoritative
over people who repented and turned to Christ, and then over the governing of
the church through the apostles, and over the collecting of the Scriptures into
the Bible we have today. So, with an I’m-not-sure-about-this-at-the-moment caution,
I will get back to hiking and consider what BJ says in this paragraph.
After reading that paragraph again, I really
think BJ has the wrong focus. He is asking questions that are far too
subjective for the second half of the definition of authoritative. I don’t
think the point is whether we treat it as “an authority in our lives in
practice”, or “recognize its authority in your life”. I’m thinking of the many
cycles of Israel’s history with God where they always viewed the Scriptures as
authoritative, meaning having an authority that the whole nation of Israel
recognized to be in their Scriptures, but they could hardly say they were
always putting the word of God into practice or recognizing its authority over
their daily lives. I don’t think the subjective application of authority is the
point of “authoritative”, but whether the Scriptures are objectively recognized
to be authoritative (not just claiming to be so). I will continue today’s
journey and see if things become clearer, but (thinking like Matlock) I reserve
the right to recall this witness!
BJ’s Claim:
I personally receive the Scriptures as authoritative insofar as they testify to Jesus. But I don’t see them making authoritative claims on matters of history, science, or even religion (e.g., I don’t submit myself to the purity laws of Leviticus). Rather, I ask, “How are the Law and Prophets not abolished but fulfilled in Jesus?”30 I let the authors say what they say on their own terms and then ask what the message is saying to me about Christ, his gospel, and his call for me to grow in love, by grace, toward God and my neighbors. (p. 72).
Monte’s Reply:
Okay, I think I see why BJ wanted the
subjective off-the-mark application of his interpretation of authoritative. His
first words are, “I personally…” That isn’t the point! The point is, do the
Scriptures claim to be authoritative (sense 1 of the definition)? Answer: YES!
Were the Scriptures considered to possess authority (sense 2 of the definition)?
Answer: YES!
I believe that this clarification must be
kept front and center because this “I personally” focus is not what it means to
consider the Scriptures authoritative. This is evident by the personal
amendment BJ makes of “I personally receive the Scriptures as authoritative insofar
as they testify to Jesus.” Again, that’s not the point. If we are
discussing “authoritative” by the two senses of his definition, then all we
need to know is whether the Bible speaks of its sources as authoritative, and
whether the Bible was received as authoritative. The answer to both is an
“absolute YES!” BJ’s response to this is an absolute NO!
I suspect that BJ wouldn’t see it this way,
but what he is describing is how he is tampering with the authoritative word of
God. He is telling God that he will only receive what testifies to his version
of Jesus (you know, the way we are warned in his other book about people
finding in the Bible the Jesus they want to find). Now, if he could show that
the Bible sources authorize that belief, and that the early church validated
that belief, different story. But he has yet to show anything that supports his
claim that the Scriptures are only authoritative when they testify to Jesus as
BJ understands him.
However, continuing his subjective tangent
away from the meaning of “authoritative”, he then makes a claim that is
contrary to both senses of the word! When he subjectively declares “but I don’t
see them… (speaking authoritatively about history, science, religion)” he is
simply telling us that even though the Scriptures claim the authority to speak
on the matters he refers to, and even though the Jews and the Church
acknowledged the authority of the Scriptures in these things, he is not going
to see them that way. Understood. Bad choice, but still his subjective “I
personally” preference.
HOWEVER!!! He is being deceptive when he puts “matters of history, science, or even religion” alongside “I don’t submit myself to the purity laws of Leviticus”! That is a clever bait-and-switch ploy. The bait is whether the Bible makes authoritative claims about history, science, or religion (which it does). The switch is in changing that to a specific aspect of old covenant purity laws that were authoritative on Israel until Christ, but now are not authoritative on anyone because of the new covenant in Jesus’ blood which authoritatively tells us we are done with those purity laws!
In other words, the author acts like he is
not accepting the Bible’s authority on the matter of religion and uses an
example of not accepting that authority when the Bible authoritatively tells us
that we are no longer under the purity laws that were given to Israel under the
old covenant! So, BJ’s “switch” example doesn’t fit the “bait” of whether the
Scriptures speak authoritatively about the matters of history, science, or even
religion.
Yes, when Scripture speaks about history,
it is an authoritative account of what happened.[1]
When Scripture speaks of issues relating to science (things that can be
observed, tested, repeated, and falsified), it is authoritative on those things
(in this footnote is a link to an article showing how accurate the Bible is
when making scientific claims that are clearly not figures of speech[2]).
In addressing anything to do with religion, whether that of Israel, the
idolatrous nations, or the church, it is authoritative in what it teaches
(including the very clear message of how the old covenant was fulfilled in the
new covenant).
So, no, I don’t buy the “blunder” of using a
bait-and-switch example that does nothing to substantiate BJ’s rejection of
what the Bible teaches with both the claim to authority, and the recognition of
that authority by the Jews of the first covenant and the Christians of the
second.
Let’s continue. BJ clarifies what he does
instead of submitting to the Bible’s authoritative claims. He asks, “How are
the Law and Prophets not abolished but fulfilled in Jesus?” That is a very good
question. In fact, it answers why his bait-and-switch example is so
hypocritical! We don’t keep the purity laws of the first covenant for the very
reason that the Scriptures authoritatively tell us how the old covenant is
fulfilled in the new covenant.
His next sentence almost gets it right. He
says, “I let the authors say what they say on their own terms and then ask what
the message is saying to me…” On its own, that would be great. The Bible is
authoritative. We come to the Bible in all its books and let the authors
explain the breathed out words of God on the terms they were given, and then we
ask how we can live by these words that are from the mouth of God. Yes, that
would be great!
However, without even moving from one
sentence to the next, BJ continues in the wrong direction, “about Christ, his
gospel, and his call for me to grow in love, by grace, toward God and my
neighbors.” I’m not saying those are bad things to ask or pray about when the
Scripture we are reading is about Christ, about his gospel, about his call on
our lives, about loving one another, about the way God’s grace pervades the
life of the church, or about how to relate to God and our neighbors. That’s
all good.
The problem is when there is a
non-authorized and artificial practice to treat what was written about history
(creation, the fall, the flood) as optional even though the two senses of the
definition of authoritative declare that they are just as authoritative as
Jesus’ teaching on the good news of the kingdom. This kind of disparaging of the
authority of God’s word while making personal testimonies of subjectively
deciding what he will treat as authoritative (and what he will not) is
disappointing at the least, and so deceptively poison-in-the-pudding at the
worst.
BJ’s Claim:
The technical term for this is the “tropological” sense of Scripture. That’s a fancy word that asks, “When you read the Bible, do you allow its message (Jesus) to transform your will?” If you do, then you’ll experience its inspiration firsthand. You’ll sense the Spirit breathing life into you and changing you from the inside as you reciprocate in obedience to the voice of Christ. (p. 72).
Monte’s Reply:
What?
Okay, I had to take a nap before continuing
on that one!
BJ claims that “The technical term for this
is the ‘tropological’ sense of Scripture.” What is the “this” he is referring
to?
Rereading the previous paragraph, the “this”
is the way BJ subjectively decides he will “personally receive the Scriptures
as authoritative” but only “insofar as they testify about Jesus.” He
subjectively rejects their authoritative character (authoritative in its
sources, and authoritative in its recognition) over anything he doesn’t like,
such as history, science, and religion. He hypocritically lets “the authors say what they say on their own terms” when it fits his terms, and will even go so
far as to “ask what the message is saying to me”, but then shows that he is the
one deciding what the authors can say to him “on their own terms”! He has
reduced “authoritative” down to his personal and subjective buffet of favorite
morsels (which is not what authoritative means) instead of relating to Jesus’ “every
word that comes from the mouth of God”, or the apostle Paul’s “whole counsel of
God”. To make this clear, when he says he is talking about “this”, he means a self-centered
and selective response to Scripture that does NOT treat it as authoritative in
its sources or authoritative in its recognition. Whatever he does with this
next, it has nothing to do with interacting with the Scriptures as
authoritative.
So, back to his quote: “The technical term
for this is the “tropological” sense of Scripture.” The technical term
for the pick-and-choose response to the authoritative Scriptures is called “tropological”.
Well why don’t we look that one up in our Funk and Wagnalls!
Okay, I could not find any way to access
that famous encyclopedia, so I will go with some of the popular dictionaries
for the meaning of “tropological” as an adjective or “tropology” as a noun.
“Tropological”
from Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
1: of,
relating to, or involving biblical interpretation stressing moral metaphor
also : MORAL
2:
characterized or varied by tropes : FIGURATIVE
“Tropological”
from Wiktionary:
Relating to
or involving the interpretation of literature focusing on the ethical lesson or
moral of the story.
Characterized
by tropes; varied by tropes; tropical.
“Tropology”
from Dictionary.com:
the use of
figurative language in speech or writing.
a treatise on
figures of speech or tropes.
the use of a
Scriptural text so as to give it a moral interpretation or significance apart
from its direct meaning.
Summary (from
Monte’s Musing Mind Dictionary): tropological would mean denying the direct and
obvious meaning of a text and imposing a moral and/or figurative interpretation
in its place. This would require rejecting the authoritative nature of
Scripture from beginning to end, and the history of Israel and the Church in
recognizing that authority.
Returning to the arduous paragraph at hand, when the author says, “The technical term for this is the ‘tropological’ sense of Scripture”, he is adding a third sense of his own to the two senses of “authoritative”. Why do I say that? Because the first sense of authoritative is that the sources claim authority. That’s what we find in the Bible. BJ rejects this and makes himself the authority on which parts of the Bible he will accept. And because the second sense of authoritative is that the Bible would be recognized to “possess” authority, which is clearly the case in the way both Jews and Christians have viewed the Scriptures as authoritative. BJ rejects this historical heritage and imposes his customized version of the poison-in-the-pudding variety.
In other words, the “tropological” view he
espouses makes the reader the authority on which parts of the Bible will be
received as authoritative irrespective of how clearly the sources claimed to be
authoritative and our spiritual ancestors understood the Scriptures to be
authoritative. This “third sense” is in direct conflict with the two senses of
authoritative.
As I continue stepping around the knotted
roots of this section of the garden path, the rest of the paragraph does NOT
sound like an application of “tropological”! It sounds kinda bait-and-switchish,
but more like outright deception to me.
What I mean is that, when he says that he is
replacing the authoritative claims of Scripture with his tropological approach,
and that would mean that he treats obvious historical, scientific, and
religious teachings as nothing more than figurative stories with good morals,
when he then claims that “tropological” is “a fancy word that asks, ‘When you
read the Bible, do you allow its message (Jesus) to transform your will?’” he
is NOT talking about tropologicalness!
That statement doesn’t say anything about taking God’s word figuratively. It doesn’t hint at treating Jesus like we’re free to replace what he says with our interpretation of the moral of the story. He can’t honestly claim that if we “allow ITS message (the Bible’s message)” to transform our will we are free to turn “ITS message” into OUR figurative interpretations.
The Bible’s message is authoritative in both the claims of the
biblical writers and the readership of Jews and Christians. If we “allow its
message” of authority to transform our will it is because we recognize it has
the authority to humble us under the mighty hand of God so he will lift us up
in his time and pleasure. Not only is there no room for interpreting
authoritative teachings and authoritative accounts as figurative (when they
clearly aren’t presented that way), but that’s not even what this bait-and-switch
description says!
Let’s continue: “If you do, then you’ll
experience its inspiration firsthand.” “If you do” means that we let the
authoritative message of Scripture “transform your will”. According to the
author, when we let that happen, surrendering to Scripture for the transforming
of our lives through the renewal of our minds, that is when we experience the
inspiration of the Bible ”firsthand”.
But we already know that is NOT what “inspiration”
means! I’m just pointing this out, that the author is continuing to speak of “inspiration”
as this magical thing that happens between the writer and the reader instead of
what the Scriptures authoritatively show as the relational thing that happened
between God and the writers. So, this is absolutely false. Even if we read the
Bible authoritatively, what we learn in our meditation on the word of Christ is
not what the Bible means by “inspiration”, or its clearer meaning, “God
breathed”. God does not breathe out his word into our hearts when we read it,
although the Spirit's work of teaching and reminding us is obviously like that.
Rather, the Father breathed out his words into the Scriptures through the men
who were carried along by the Holy Spirit, and now, whenever we read the
Scriptures in the Bible, we are receiving the authoritative words of God. And
when we receive the authoritative words of God (what Paul called letting the
words of Christ dwell in us richly), then we are able to truly live by every
word that comes from the mouth of our God. But BJ’s slaughtering of “tropological”
neither explains what the word means, nor exemplifies how it works.
In the last line of this paragraph BJ
continues, “You’ll sense the Spirit breathing life into you and changing you
from the inside as you reciprocate in obedience to the voice of Christ.” In application
to his tropological view? Not a chance. In application of reading the Bible in the
authoritative way it is presented so that we allow ourselves to be transformed
through the renewal of our minds (the way I am praying for BJ and my friends)?
Yes, absolutely.
In fact, when Paul spoke about us letting
the word of Christ (the Scriptures) dwell in us richly, he described what would
happen as “teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms
and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God”
(Colossians 3:16). But when he exhorted us to “be filled with the Spirit”, he
said that this would result in “addressing one another in psalms and hymns and
spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart”
(Ephesians 5:18-19). Paul made letting the word of Christ dwell in us richly
and being filled with the Spirit two sides of the same coin. So, we will
experience the Spirit’s work in us as we let the word of Christ dwell in us
richly, but not like that is when “inspiration” happens in the “all Scripture
is God breathed” kind of way.
Okay, two paragraphs to go! And… well… I
just saw how far (or little) we have travelled and it is already time to make
camp for another night! So, I will take a break and come back to the next two
paragraphs rarin’ to go on lifting our “drooping hands” and strengthening our “weak
knees”, so we can “make straight paths for your feet, so that what is lame may
not be put out of joint but rather be healed” (Hebrews 12:12-13). And this book
is certainly giving us plenty of poisoned souls that need to be healed by “every
word that proceeds from the mouth of God”.
© 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
[1]
Historical Accuracy (Institute of Creation Research)
[2]
5. Scientific Accuracy, Seven Compelling Evidences (by Dr. Andrew A.
Snelling)
https://answersingenesis.org/is-the-bible-true/5-scientific-accuracy/
No comments:
Post a Comment