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 |
A key scripture that stood out regarding BJ’s misleading teachings is from II Peter 3 where Peter is talking about Paul’s writings as Scripture. He warns, “There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures” (vs 16). Because BJ is presenting himself as a teacher, and because teachers will be judged more strictly than hearers (James 3:1), it is fair to apply this verse to what BJ is doing in this section since he is clearly twisting Paul’s “Scripture” to say things it doesn’t say. It appears that he wants people to see things his way before showing what Paul wrote in II Corinthians 3, and then he reinforces his “twist” on Paul’s teaching with what he says afterwards.
It is for good reason that Peter continued with this warning, “You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability” (vs 17). Peter rhymes the thought of “the ignorant and unstable” who “twist” Paul’s letters with “the error of lawless people”. There is no stability when we let false teachers be the authority who tell us what to think about the Scriptures.
We now take today’s journey into this next
section related to the canonicity of the Bible as the word of God.
BJ’s Claim:
Why did the canon of faith matter so much to the first Christians? Why did the apostles and their protégés work to develop a gospel framework through which to read Scripture? What’s wrong with a “Scripture alone” approach to interpretation (p. 75-76)?
Monte’s Reply: I lean to “canon of Scripture”
rather than “canon of faith” simply because it is the collection of what is
written, the Scriptures that were breathed out by God. I suspect that “a gospel
framework” should be “a whole-counsel-of-God framework”. And I am suspicious of
his question, “What’s wrong with a ‘Scripture alone’ approach to interpretation”,
because the author has already tried to show a false scenario of how Christians
relate to Scripture as the authority over the church as if that makes it more
authoritative than Christ. I will need to know what else he thinks is needed
that is beyond Scripture (I'm sure his "Emmaus" approach is included). The way he has treated and disparaged Scripture has
already given a deceptive picture.
For a long time I have tried to live by
Paul’s instruction, “I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for
your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is
written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another” (I
Corinthians 4:6). When we stick with what is written (Scripture), no one can be
puffed up. We all just teach the whole counsel of God.
However, when people do go beyond what is
written, it then creates distinctive teachings that polarize people so that one
teacher is “puffed up in favor of one against another”. That, of course,
appears to be what is happening here, where it is so obvious that BJ wants to
take people beyond what is written in order to have teachings that give him
special status as an authority over the Bible. Because I believe that what we
have in our Bible is “what is written”, I will continue focusing on how BJ goes
beyond that.
BJ’s Claim: In relation to Irenaeus,
BJ presents these four stages the false teachers would follow:
1. The false teachers would begin by gathering ideas from sources other than the Scriptures.
2. From these ideas, they would weave what he called “ropes of sand,” anchored to nothing but fantasies.
3. To make their ideas seem more probable, they would adapt scattered sayings from the prophets, Christ’s parables, and the apostles to affirm their opinions.
4. And thus, they would dismember the Scriptures and reassemble them according to their deception (pp. 75-76).
Monte’s Reply: Doesn’t BJ’s book meet
all four of those criteria? In fact, by the time BJ explained Irenaeus’s
illustration, I was positive that is what BJ had been doing with this book. But
when I read his conclusion, it was like BJ was looking in a mirror and calling
himself out! He wrote, “In modern Christianity, the need is no less urgent, as
we are accustomed to seeing how the treasury of Scripture can be reconstituted
to serve hideous images in the name of the King that, in fact, do not resemble
Christ at all” (p. 77). And all I can say is, Yes, a More Christlike Word is
exactly that kind of “hideous image in the name of the King,” and does “not
resemble Christ at all” because Jesus affirmed Scripture while BJ distorts it
and seeks to remove its authority.
Although this was standing out to me, it
still did not prepare me for what BJ was to present next. And because he is
using a longer passage this time, I will need to take my time stepping around
the rubble of what he is trying to make this say regarding “Unveiled:
Progressive Illumination”. And I already can see that he is claiming Paul said
things he clearly did not!
BJ’s Claim:
Paul offers the Corinthians a different model. He sees the truth of God’s message breathing through the inspired text. But, he explains, we have a problem. We read through veils. These veils cover our eyes and our hearts so that we may read what the Bible says but can’t perceive what it teaches. The words are all there, but when read by the letter (literalism) rather than the Spirit (the gospel sense), the message becomes a source of death and condemnation (pp. 77-78).
Monte’s Reply: I’m afraid we’re going
to need to break this down!
“Paul offers the Corinthians a different
model.” By this, the author means a different model than the belief that the canon of
Scripture as we have it in our Bibles is now the complete word of God to get
the church through to the second coming of Christ. That, of course, is NOT what
Paul is doing! However, I believe that what BJ is doing IS what Irenaeus was warning us about, the way
false teachers would dismantle Scripture and turn it into something
quite different than the word of God.
“He sees the truth of God’s message
breathing through the inspired text.” No, he sees the truth of God’s message
breathed out INTO the inspired text of Scripture (it’s right there in the
Bible). Remember, BJ has already changed what “breathed out” means in reference
to the Scriptures (what God already did through the writers) into something it
does not mean (an inspired experience between the reader and the writings). So,
no, BJ does not get to change what Paul said into something he didn’t.
“But, he explains, we have a problem.” Again, BJ is trying to say that Paul “explains” this problem, but it is BJ who is both creating the problem he describes and providing his unauthorized reply. So, yes, we do have a problem, but it isn’t the one BJ is working on!
“We read through veils.” Now, to follow the
slight-of-mind deception, watch how BJ plays around with who the “we” is (or is it "are"). In
the passage he is referring to, Paul is talking about two groups of people,
those who were reading Scripture under the Law, and those who are reading it under
the new covenant. One group does read through a veil, but not the other. So,
which one is BJ talking about? Because he seems to include himself, it must be
a reference to Christians (as he understands them). But in referring to
Christians, those under the new covenant, Paul absolutely does NOT say “we read
through veils”. In fact, his point is the exact opposite! More when we look at
the text, but I’m just pointing out how BJ is doing (right before our very
eyes) the very thing he had the audacity to quote Irenaeus describing! Wow!
“These
veils cover our eyes and our hearts so that we may read what the Bible says but
can’t perceive what it teaches.” Again, who is he talking about? If he means
that he is still with people under the Law, living under the Mosaic covenant, not born again, then sure, they all have veils over their hearts and eyes. But if the “our” is
Christians, what he says in that sentence is the exact opposite of what Paul
wrote.
“The words are all there, but when read by
the letter (literalism) rather than the Spirit (the gospel sense), the message
becomes a source of death and condemnation.” Okay, this is such a loaded
statement that I need to unpack it so you can see it is a hideous dog and not
the King!
First, the group Paul was speaking about
that could read the words but not get the sense was those who were not saved.
They weren’t under the new covenant. They were still living by the Law. They were the unsaved Jews! So,
Paul’s words only apply to unbelieving religious people, not born-again disciples of Jesus
Christ.
Second, when Paul referred to “the letter”
it was NOT “literalism”! That is another dishonest false equivalency.
Everything Paul is addressing here in relation to “the letter” is talking about
the Law, the Jewish people still living under the Law of Moses. It has NOTHING
to do with taking historical descriptions literally (creation, the fall, the
flood, God’s judgment on criminal nations).
Third, when Paul referred to “the Spirit” it
wasn’t “the gospel sense” in contrast to “literalism”. I know that’s the way BJ
is trying to refabricate Scripture, but that is definitely not what Paul is
talking about here. The “letter” represents the Law; “the Spirit” represents
the Christian life. It cannot be turned into a false equivalence between
literalism and BJ’s sense of the gospel.
Fourth, Paul is not talking about
“literalism” giving a message that “becomes a source of death and condemnation.”
If that were the case, Jesus affirming historical events as literal history
would need to be chastised with Paul’s reproof. However, it is living under the
law of Moses that keeps people dead and condemned, not believing the Bible
literally when it speaks literally.
All that misrepresentation sets the stage
for what BJ is going to do with the text he is referring to. However, because
he has already made one false claim after another about what Paul was saying
(as Peter warned), let’s look at what Paul really said and see for ourselves
that BJ has clearly gone beyond what Paul has written so that he now has his
own special teachings that puff him up above others rather than pointing people
to what the apostle wrote so we can praise Jesus for removing the veil from our
eyes in our salvation (not progressive illumination).
BJ’s Claim:
Yet, when we behold Christ in the Bible by the Spirit, the Spirit removes the veil from our hearts so we can see how the entire message has always been pointing to life and reconciliation. Instead of progressive revelation (stacking bricks), we have progressive illumination (removing veils). It’s best if you see this for yourself in Paul’s words: (p. 78)
Monte’s Reply: No, this is not talking
about beholding “Christ in the Bible by the Spirit”! It is talking about people
who “turn to the Lord”, meaning, they leave their faith in the old covenant and
come to Christ in the new covenant. They get saved! They are born again. And
when this happens, that someone is born again by the Spirit of the Living God,
the veil is taken away.
When the veil is removed in salvation (not
progressive illumination), we are then able to behold the glory of our Savior
so that we can become like him, something that could never happen under the
Law.
All I have given in my replies is to match
what BJ has given in his prelude to sharing the Scripture. Because of the way
he is distorting (twisting) what Paul wrote as Scripture, I will need a full
day’s journal journey to travel with you through what Paul wrote and the way BJ
twists it to say something different. We will see for ourselves what Paul was
led to write into Scripture as the breathed-out words of God, but I will counter BJ’s claim and say that Paul
was NOT speaking of “progressive illumination” in relation to “removing veils”.
He was talking about the veils being removed in our experience of conversion,
being born again into the new covenant in Jesus’ blood. And that is a HUGE
difference!
I will finish up today's journal entry with a few other ways Paul spoke of these same things:
And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— (Ephesians 2:1-5).
Paul's description here of how dead we were in our sins rhymes with his description of the Jews whose hearts were veiled because they were still under the Law. And his description of God making us "alive together with Christ" is when the veil was removed from our hearts!
But that is not the way you learned Christ! (acting like the heathen) — assuming that you have heard about him and were taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus, to put off your old self, which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness (Ephesians 4:20-24).
This is another way of picturing that clear change in us that happens when we "turn to the Lord". The old self was corrupt. It could not see Christ. But the new self is "created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness", you know, like Paul said that "we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another."
And one more:
He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins (Colossians 1:13-14).
When we were living in the domain of darkness was when our hearts were veiled so we could not see the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. And when God delivered us out of that darkness (veiled sight included) and transferred us to the kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ (in salvation), that is when we experienced redemption, our sins were forgiven, and the veil was removed from our eyes.
Now, I'm quite sure that is too much to remember as we begin tomorrow's journal journey, so I will repeat these things as needed in looking at II Corinthians 3 and hearing what our tour guide has to say to continue leading us down his garden path. I am quite hopeful that at least a few of us will much prefer Paul's way of thinking. After all, what Paul wrote is the words that came from the mouth of God, and Jesus said we need to live on those words and not just on bread alone!
© 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]
The Canon of Scripture (Voddie Baucham)
https://youtu.be/kqdFUvz0TVU?si=SJ-U9oT46yusGtai
How
Did We Get The Bible (Michael Kruger)
No comments:
Post a Comment