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 |
Now that BJ has brought up his theory of “the
‘tropological’ sense of Scripture” (p. 72), and since that means he will be
encouraging readers to treat much of the breathed-out Scriptures as figurative
instead of real, let me do a quick pendulum-plumbline diagram to see our three
options in this regard.
|
Pendulum Left |
Plumbline |
Pendulum Right |
|
The legalistic side treats all Scripture is
literally true without any allowance for symbolism, figures of speech, or poetic
and apocryphal language. |
The plumbline folks treat all Scripture as
meaning what it says accounting for clear uses of symbolism, figures of
speech, or poetic and apocryphal language. |
The “tropological” side reduces Scripture to figurative
language and moral-of-the-story lessons without regard for the descriptions
of historical events, precise prophecies, objective descriptions of God’s
character, or clear exhortations to the obedience of faith. |
As I woke up to a new day’s journal journey,
I found myself marveling that BJ has not referred to anything from Scripture to
explain how he thinks of Scripture. I am curious whether the last two
paragraphs of this section on Authority will be any different. It is a strange
thing to have so much opinion from a writer who either doesn’t refer to what
the Bible teaches or deliberately misrepresents what it says. Whatever the
case, on we go!
BJ’s Claim:
If we’re not reading Scripture with open hearts willing to be changed, then it seems it actually withholds its meaning from us
. In this situation, all we’re doing is playing chess with the Bible in our heads. Practically and subjectively, it has no authority for us. (p. 73).
Monte’s
Reply:
Wow, if I didn’t know the author was leading
us down the garden path in the wrong direction, that first sentence sounds so
close to the real thing that I can almost say Amen! Let’s talk this through as
we walk along and see what comes to mind.
BJ writes, “If we’re not reading Scripture
with open hearts willing to be changed, then it seems it actually withholds its
meaning from us.” My first thought is that this is like trying to tell the
difference between counterfeit money and the real thing. You have to admit that
the counterfeiter did a very good job of getting the numbers looking real, and
getting the pictures looking real, and getting the colors looking real, and
even got pretty close in making the paper feel real, and yet it's still counterfeit.
So, if this was real, I would absolutely
agree that if we do not read the authoritative Scriptures with an open heart to
hear Jesus’ words and put them into practice, we will never experience the full
meaning and reality of what God had breathed out in his word. When people come
to God with their lips (outer actions) while their hearts are far away from
him, they do not experience the attachment to God that is only given to the
poor in spirit.
However, knowing BJ is counterfeiting us, I
must clarify what this sounds like according to his theory. He has already
claimed that “inspiration” happens between the writer and the reader (not
between God and the writer). So, when he speaks of Scripture withholding its
meaning from us, it would be at the level of holding back inspiration, or
stopping the words God is trying to breathe out into us from reaching our
hearts. So, even with his tropological theory where people are free to read
Scripture figuratively and reduce it to a moral of the story, by not coming to
Scripture with an open heart, the figurative moral-of-the-story meaning is
withheld. That’s not the biggest problem with his theory, since the
tropological filter is already withholding the meaning of the text even when
the Tropologicalers come with their best rendition of open hearts!
BJ’s metaphor of the chess match works to
show that people indeed do relate to the Scriptures strategically instead of
personally, but I’m afraid that is what the whole tropological theory is doing
anyway, so it is the next sentence that needs clarification, “Practically and
subjectively, it has no authority for us.”
I would say this applies to the tropological
method. It has dissociated itself from God’s authority in breathing out his
words. That authority of God’s word is objective. So, when our hearts are
closed before God’s word, we are rebelling against God’s authority to speak to
us through his word. The tropological method is rebellion. It is the child
telling his father that he will not take what he said seriously but will fit in
the parts he’s okay with when he’s okay fitting them in for however long or
short he feels like doing so. Of course, this means that both the practical and
subjective applications of God’s word have no authority for that person, but not
as though the words of God are any less authoritative.
In fact, when Jesus concluded his Sermon on
the Mount, he contrasted the wise man who built his house on a solid rock
foundation with the foolish man who built his house on the sand. Both builders
were faced with the same calamity, a torrential flood coming against their
houses. The one with the foundation endured; the one on the sand collapsed.
When Jesus stated what made these two men
different according to his illustration, it wasn’t that one listened to Jesus’
words and the other did not. Jesus said that both the men heard his words. The
difference was that the wise man put Jesus’ words into practice while the
foolish man did not. This certainly applies to those who reject the authority
of Jesus’ words by declaring they are free to reduce them to figurative speech
and moral-of-the-story lessons. No, that is a glorified way of rebelling.
And I expect that as BJ continues selling his tropological theory, the evidence
of rebellion against the clearly revealed words of God will become even clearer
than what we have already witnessed.
BJ’s Claim:
My conclusion is that the Bible’s authority, both objective and subjective, derives from Jesus’s authorization of Scripture and our willingness to live under his lordship. Apart from reading it for its point, it becomes an impenetrable mystery and probably an offense. (p. 73).
Monte’s
Reply:
First, “My conclusion” continues the theme
of BJ giving us his thoughts instead of God’s. So, is “the Bible’s authority… both
objective and subjective”. No, it is not. Both senses of the definition were
objective. First, is there an objective testimony within Scripture that the
sources claimed authority? Yes. Second, is there an objective record of the way
Israel and the Church acknowledged that the Scriptures possessed authority?
Yes. Those are both objective. It is all about the authority IN the Scriptures,
which is there because the words were “breathed out by God” through the writers
into the Scriptures. They now sit as a perpetual authority to every generation
that the objective word of God is revealed to men. Any rejection of that
authority, including the manmade tropological theory, is rebellion against the
authority of God no matter how ignorant anyone may be of what they are
rejecting.
However, as the author continues promoting
the false notion that the Bible’s authority is “both objective and subjective,”
he now summarizes again how the two work: “the Bible’s authority… derives from
Jesus’s authorization of Scripture and our willingness to live under his
lordship.” No, that is not what the Bible teaches. The Bible teaches that the
Bible’s authority comes from the fact that the words are breathed out “by God”.
It is the word “of God”, the word “of the Lord”, the word “of Christ”. It is
the word of the Triune God and that’s why the sources who communicated those
words spoke like they had authority. That’s why the nation of Israel and the
Church responded to the Scriptures like they had authority.
So, does this authority “derive from Jesus’
authorization of Scripture”? NO! It derives (comes from) God speaking from one
end of the Bible to another, and Jesus affirming that authority by constantly
using Scripture as his witness that the first sense of authority is true of the
Scriptures (that they communicate about themselves as having authority), and
the second sense of authority is true in that Jesus concurs
with the nation of Israel that the Scriptures are recognized to possess authority
because they are the words of God.
In no way am I downplaying the wonderful
gift of Jesus affirming the Scriptures we now have in the Old
Testament. This actually disproves so much of what BJ is teaching because Jesus
did NOT use the tropological theory to interpret any Scripture. He spoke about
creation happening as it is written. He spoke of the worldwide flood happening
as it is written. He spoke about sin being in the world as it is written. He
spoke about the wrath of God against sin the way it is written in the
Scriptures. He presented himself as the atoning sacrifice for our sins as it
was written in the prophets. Jesus DID absolutely uphold the authority of
Scripture in every way that BJ wishes he did not, but it is there, and it is
indisputable. It’s just that this is not how we know the Scriptures have
authority. God’s people already knew the Scriptures had that authority before
Jesus came. Jesus affirmed the Scriptures, partly to show how they spoke about
him, and to show that he was not a false Messiah doing his own thing
independent of what Yahweh had already written.
Now, how about the second part of that
claim, that “the Bible’s authority… derives from… our willingness to live under
his lordship”? Answer: A-B-S-O-L-U-T-E-L-Y-N-O-T! A father’s authority does not
derive from his children obeying him. A father has authority because it is
given by God. When children acknowledge that authority as God-given and honor
their father and mother, they are blessed for doing so, but it doesn’t add to a
dad’s authority one little bit. If a child utterly rebels against his parents,
that doesn’t diminish the dad’s authority in the least. It only shows the child
is rebellious.
So too (and not only because I have an
illustration that pictures it for us), the Scriptures have authority because of
the God who breathed them out. BJ is trying to show his theory that
“inspiration” happens when the reader reads what was written as though
something happens there that “breathes out” the words of God into their hearts.
Hogwash. Inspiration, or the breathing out of God’s words, happened through the
men who wrote down the Scriptures. The authority is already in the Scriptures.
If we reject that authority (as BJ is doing), we are rebelling against
authority, not determining if any authority is there. If we walk in the
obedience of faith by putting Jesus’ words into practice every day, we are
acknowledging the authority of Scripture as “the word of Christ”, not adding
authority to what we read.
Does our experience of God change based on
whether we are willing or unwilling to “live under his lordship”? Yes,
absolutely. But not because we affect how much authority is in the Scriptures
or how much God “breathed out” his words or how much the Holy Spirit carried
men along to give us the Scriptures.
Now, it appears that we must end this day’s
journey with an unbelievable paradox. BJ’s last line on this section regarding
Authority is, “Apart from reading it for its point, it becomes an impenetrable
mystery and probably an offense.” Really? After spending so much time
explaining why he is not going to read Scripture “for its point” (because he
has already put on his tropological filter), he is going to tell us how
horrible it is to miss the point?!
Knowing that the BJs are rebelling against
the two senses of scriptural authority makes me feel confident to say that the
Scriptures that have both senses of authority “becomes (to them) an
impenetrable mystery and probably an offense.” That’s what I hear in BJ’s
references to the Scriptures. Whenever he speaks of them as they speak of
themselves, there is a note of offense. He hasn’t come right out and declared
what he believes about creation, the fall, and the flood, but I’m pretty sure
my understanding that he is offended by these claims is pretty clear. He is
offended by what Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 declare about Jesus suffering and dying
for our sins (penal substitutionary atonement) and yet his attempts to explain
them away simply show that he is willing to play crazy word-games to demand
that we do not read them as authoritative descriptions of what would happen
that perfectly match the authoritative descriptions of what did happen.
I guess I am ending this day’s journey with
a head-shaking response to such a paradoxical claim that the author would miss
the point of what the Bible is saying while warning people not to miss the
point of what the Bible is saying! I can definitely see how the Scriptures are an
“impenetrable mystery” to him, and “probably an offense” to his tropological
opinion.
Having taken an extra day’s journal journey
to complete the trail on “authority”, I am HUGELY disappointed! Why? Because
the author did NOT… USE… ONE… VERSE… OF… SCRIPTURE… TO… SHOW… WHY… THE… BIBLE…
IS… NOT… AUTHORITATIVE!!! That wasn’t shouting. Just emphasizing. Strongly.
Lovingly. Hopefully.
Yes, I am hopeful that at least a few people
will realize that this book is truly leading people down the garden path into
rebelling against the authority of Scripture. If anyone realizes this today,
repent and return to Jesus. God’s will is that we live by every word that
proceeds from the mouth of God. God breathed out his words into the Scriptures.
How we treat the Scriptures is how we treat him. We can’t treat him as real and
his words as figurative. He is real; his words are real, and the obedience of
faith always hears what the Triune God is saying and puts those words into
practice with our best understanding of what God had in mind. And, with that in
mind, I set up camp for another day and get some rest before trekking out on
the next expedition through the “Canonicity” of the Bible.
© 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