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 |
Brad Jersak’s book continues to lead us
through II Corinthians 3 where he presents quite different ideas about the “veil”
over lost souls than does Paul. Let’s continue down the garden path and see how he
gives us his thoughts alongside explanations of what Paul was really talking
about.
|
BJ’s Claim |
Monte’s Response |
|
“Paul’s use of these metaphors is complex—” (p.
79).
|
What metaphors?! Paul is describing real life. The first covenant was real life, not a metaphor. The second covenant, the new covenant in Jesus’ blood is real life, not a metaphor. Yes, the veil being
removed is a metaphor for the new birth, but there is nothing complex in what
he is saying about it, and it doesn’t even remotely refer to replacing his
false equivalence of “literalism” with his false gospel of “another Jesus”. |
|
BJ’s Claim |
Monte’s Response |
|
"he is simultaneously saying 'Moses' (the
law) is fading away before the glory of Christ (the gospel)” (p. 79). |
No, Paul is not saying that Moses and the Law
are fading away before the glory of Christ in the gospel. He is saying that
the glory of the old covenant was fading, while the glory of the new covenant
is lasting. |
|
BJ’s Claim |
Monte’s Response |
|
“while also telling us how to read ‘Moses’ as
gospel (by the Spirit)” (p. 79). |
I’m trying to figure out how the author even remotely gets out of what Paul wrote that Paul was telling us how to read the old covenant as “gospel”. That is the exact opposite of the point Paul was making. Paul was making it clear that there is no room for Moses and the Law in the new covenant. We can’t read Moses and the Law as life in the Spirit. Ever. At all! There is such a clear break between the two that no one can suggest that bringing the old covenant Law into the gospel will do anything at all except destroy people. As Paul said in Galatians 1, “I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed” (vss 6-9). And yes, after seeing all the
endorsements and positive reviews, I am as astonished as Paul was that so
many professing Christians are abandoning the true gospel to endorse such a
twisting of Scripture. |
|
BJ’s Claim |
Monte’s Response |
|
“Further, the veils are not only being removed from our own hearts as
we read Scripture” (p. 79). |
This is horrible that even though BJ has not made this point, and what
Paul said is in conflict with what he claims, he now treats it as an obvious
conclusion that the removal of veils from our hearts (for believers) happens
as we read Scripture. I hope there are a few people by now who see how wrong
he is and how deliberately deceiving. |
|
BJ’s Claim |
Monte’s Response |
|
“Over the millennia, veil upon veil has been
progressively removed within the Bible itself” (p. 79).
|
I did a www.biblegateway.com
search of “veil” and found only five references in the New Testament, all
here in II Corinthians. We already looked at 4 of them in chapter 3. The only
one left continues to show BJ is wrong. In 4:3 Paul wrote, “And even if our
gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing.” This cannot apply
to the Bible. It applies to unbelievers, the unsaved, who are perishing in
their sins. There has been no veil “removed within the Bible itself.” The
only time the veil is removed is when someone turns to the Lord from their
“perishing”. |
|
BJ’s Claim |
Monte’s Response |
|
“That is, the authors who produced the
Scriptures by the Spirit were themselves subject to temporal veils” (p. 79). |
There is also no reference in the Bible to support this notion of the writers of Scripture being “subject to temporal veils”. The author hates that people believe what is in the Old Testament Scripture is what God himself breathed out through those men. That we believe God’s word is so offensive to the BJs that they will twist Scripture any which way they please just to convince us (unsuccessfully) that those Scriptures were not breathed out by God with the words the Holy Spirit gave those men to write down. I’m just appealing to
you readers to note that BJ is not giving one piece of evidence for this
point, but it also contradicts Jesus in his affirmation of the Scriptures as
the words that come from the mouth of God. |
In relation to BJ's false teaching about the "veil", I want to show how easy it is to test these
false teachers. BJ keeps making claims about the Bible. So far, every Scripture
he has shared as proof of something doesn’t come close to supporting what he
claims and contradicts it instead. In this case, BJ wants us to believe that
“veil” can refer to “progressive illumination”. So, all I had to do was look up
“veil” in www.biblegateway.com to see what the Bible says about
this from one end to the other. Here’s what I found.
First, in the ESV, there are 47 uses of
“veil” in any of its forms, 42 in the Old Testament and 5 in the New Testament.
The ways these words are used fall into these categories:
1. Someone covering him/herself with a
veil (12X - Gen 24:65; 38:14,19; Job 24:15; Song/Solomon 1:7; 4:1,3; 5:7; 6:7;
Is 3:23; Ez 13:18,21;)
2. The veil that separated the holy
place from the most holy place in the Tabernacle and then the Temple (23X – Ex
26:31,33,35; 27:21; 30:6; 34:12; 36:15; 38:27; 39:34; 40:3,21,22,26; Lev
4:6,17; 16:2,12,15; 21:23; 24:3; Nu 4:5; 18:7; II Chron 3:14)
3. The veil over Moses’ face (4X – Ex
34:33,34,35; II Cor 3:13)
4. Used as a metaphor for something
hidden from sight (4X - Job 22:14; Is 25:7; 47:2; Hab 3:4)
5. The veil that keeps people from
seeing the gospel (4X - II Corinthians 3:14,15,16; 4:3)
Note: Isaiah 25:7 speaks of “the veil that
is spread over all nations.” Doesn’t that sound an awful lot like Paul speaking
of “And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing”
(II Corinthians 4:3)?
Now, simply by searching a Bible concordance
for “veil”, we have already determined that there is not one reference to what
BJ claims. So, where is he getting his ideas from? Clearly, it is not from
Scripture. He hasn’t even quoted Jesus saying anything about such things and
yet he keeps telling us that his gospel is the answer to everything (whatever
that gospel is). But it gets worse!
|
BJ’s Claim |
Monte’s Response |
|
“Their veils glorified tribalism and
nativism, militarism and violence, racism and misogyny, imperial and colonial
ambition, and so on. Just like us!” (p. 79) |
I’m not even going to look all those up. Why?
Because he didn’t give one biblical reference we could check out! There is
not one place in the Bible that describes the writers of Scripture having
veils that glorified anything unholy, unrighteous, or unjust about Yahweh.
This is all just words without substance, but enough poison-in-the-pudding to
steal, kill, and destroy the work God is doing in people through his word! |
|
BJ’s Claim |
Monte’s Response |
|
“The chroniclers who recorded the Israelites’
sacred history with Yahweh often misapprehended their God. They recounted
their experiences through these veils, embedding Israel’s patently narrow,
shallow, and ugly projections onto God within their writings—sometimes
affirming them, at other times critiquing them” (p. 79). |
Again, not one reference to where in the Bible anyone, Jesus included, says such things. And, if it is not in the Bible anywhere, that affirms the obvious, that BJ is acting as an authority over the Bible. And the fact that so many are applauding this book instead of
challenging him to show in the Bible where any of this is stated, shows where
we are at in the fulfillment of prophecy about these end times! |
|
BJ’s Claim |
Monte’s Response |
|
“And that’s an important point (BJ’s belief
that the biblical writers got things wrong about Yahweh). These authors were
not unbiased, arm’s length observers. They had agendas in how they selected
and told their stories” (p. 79). |
The Bible says these men were carried along
by the Holy Spirit to write down the words of God. Jesus quoted the
Scriptures to show he endorsed them. Jesus never once corrected any Scripture
(BJ was lying about that from the Sermon on the Mount). The apostle Paul said
that all the Scriptures were “breathed out by God”. I’m just showing that
what we read IN Scripture is vastly different (opposite) to BJ’s claims, so
why are so many ditching Scripture to follow this man-centered authority?
Clearly the BJs have a strong agenda in how they select their interpretations
of Scripture! |
|
BJ’s Claim |
Monte’s Response |
|
“A wise reader asks, ‘Why are you telling me this?’
Sometimes the authors are propagandists for the king or temple, and at other
times scathing critics of Israel’s policies. Sometimes they justify national
violence as a divine mandate. Elsewhere, they represent violence as a
reprehensible problem37” (p. 79). |
References? Keep noting there are no references, and keep
noting that not even Jesus said such things about the Scriptures. However, it ought to be noted that, if such
negative characteristics can be judged into the biblical writers without anything
from Scripture to support them, what is driving the author to misrepresent
what is written? |
|
BJ’s Claim |
Monte’s Response |
|
“An Emmaus reading of their accounts sees
these agendas” (p. 79) |
We still do not know what “Emmaus” refers to,
except that it has never been referenced to Scripture. And “these agendas” are fictitious since BJ cannot produce even one text where Jesus supports his claims. His agenda, on the other hand, is a different poison-in-the-pudding issue! |
|
BJ’s Claim |
Monte’s Response |
|
“When the authors rationalize bloodshed, we
ask, ‘How do they prefigure the Sanhedrin’s rationale for Jesus’s
crucifixion?’ And when they problematize violence, we ask, ‘How do their
critiques anticipate Christ’s denunciation of violence?’ (pp. 79-80). |
The lack of references continues to make this
BJ’s opinion, not anything arising out of Scripture, not even the gospels. To
believe the biblical authors rationalized bloodshed, or supported violence, without anywhere in the Bible saying that means we are letting BJ be the
authority on what is written. And with his 100% failure rate in explaining
Scripture, I certainly wouldn’t trust him to get this right. |
|
BJ’s Claim |
Monte’s Response |
|
“As I read any given text through Christ, I
need to consider whether the author’s perspective reveals a veil that Christ
has since removed or an unveiling that foreshadows his revelation of God”
(pp. 79-80). |
False: he is not reading anything “through
Christ” since he hasn’t quoted Christ making any of the statements that would
support his claims. So far, BJ’s talk of Christ is “another
Christ” like Paul warned about. And we already know the “veil” BJ is talking
about was false since none of the writers were in the camp of “those who are
perishing” who still had their hearts veiled to the gospel. |
|
BJ’s Claim |
Monte’s Response |
|
“Boiling it down, Paul says that ‘we,’
including the biblical authors, ‘see through a glass, darkly’ (1 Cor 13:12
KJV). The Greek word for ‘darkly’ is en ainigmati, which literally means ‘in
an enigma’! They saw the truth through veils that are evident in the text”
(pp. 79-80). |
Question: what was Paul talking about in the
text in question? Was it really a parallel reference to BJ’s concept of “veiled”
hearts? Nope. Not at all. First, Paul was speaking of knowing things
“in part”, which does NOT mean “veiled”. It is in reference to “when the
perfect comes”, which is the return of Christ. He then explains the time that
we are away from home as ambassadors in a foreign land, where we only have part
of our eternal life. He says it is like seeing “in a mirror dimly”, meaning, we can’t
see the whole thing because we don’t have it yet (eternal life in the new
heavens and new earth). This is in contrast to the “then face to face” which
applies to Jesus' return where everything will be seen with our own eyes. The Bible Sense Lexicon describes “dimly” as,
“abstruse thing n. — something difficult to penetrate mentally;
incomprehensible to one of ordinary understanding or knowledge.” Again, this
is not about being veiled from seeing the gospel, but about not being able to
comprehend what it will be like to see Jesus face to face, to be raised with
a glorified body, to be free of sin, the flesh, and selfishness. And the reason we can only understand these things "in part" is simply
because the experience of eternity is so vastly greater than anything we have
experienced on earth. Because Paul is using rhyming thoughts here,
the next phrase helps us understand the first, “Now I know in part; then I
shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.” Of course we only have
partial experiential knowledge of what is to come since we’re not
experiencing it yet! But when Jesus returns, our knowing of what we have in
Christ will be to the measure of how God has known us. And it is no surprise
that this is mindboggling to the childlike heart even though we have no veil
over our eyes hiding anything from us. We’re just not there in that future
glory at this time. So, NO, Paul did not see “the truth through
veils”, because the “veils” was talking about something totally different (we
already covered that). And, NO, the things BJ is twisting out of
Paul’s Scriptures are not the least bit “evident in the text”, and simply
repeating false claims does not make them suddenly become true! |
I will just add a separate note on this one
to show a parallel picture to what Paul said at the end of I Corinthians 13 so
we can see that knowing something “in part” does not equate with being “veiled”
in the heart. In Ephesians 1, Paul speaks of the place of the Holy Spirit in
the church like this, “In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the
gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised
Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire
possession of it, to the praise of his glory” (vss 13-14).
First, when we were saved (the same as what
Paul meant by having the veil removed in II Corinthians 3), we were “sealed”
with the Holy Spirit. Bible Sense Lexicon defines “sealed” as “to be sealed
securely (abstract) v. — to be or become designated and made secure as a sign
of authentication or ownership.” This is a life without the veil that was once
over our hearts. We are not yet with God in eternity, but God’s gift of the Holy
Spirit is his seal on us that we are his.
Second, the Holy Spirit is “the guarantee of
our inheritance until we acquire possession of it”. Believers have “an
inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for
you” (I Peter 1:4). This is part of what Paul means by experiencing our
salvation “in part”. There is far more to come! The “guarantee” of our
inheritance is that God gives us his Holy Spirit until “we acquire possession
of it" at the return of Christ. The Bible Sense Lexicon defines “guarantee”
as, “deposit n. — a partial payment made at the time of purchase (with the
balance to be paid later).”
This also indicates that we do not have the
full measure of our salvation at this time (because the inheritance is waiting
for us in heaven). However, this is NOT the same as having our hearts veiled before
we are saved.
So, let’s put these things together: before
we are saved, our hearts our veiled to the gospel because of our sin, and because
of our dead condition. When we receive Christ by turning to the Lord, we are
made alive in Christ and the veil is removed as we leave the domain of darkness
and enter the kingdom of God’s beloved Son. Once we enter the life of the
kingdom we are the beloved children of God who have an inheritance waiting for
us in heaven. We do not yet see Christ face to face, so our incomplete knowledge
is likened to looking at ourselves in a poor-quality mirror. This is another
reason BJ’s idea of “progressive illumination” in reference to the veil is
bogus. Paul’s incomplete knowing in relation to being here on earth instead of
in our heavenly home will instantaneously change at the return of Christ. As
John wrote, “Beloved, we are God's children now, and what we will be has not
yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we
shall see him as he is” (I John 3:2).
So there we have it, three apostles
disagreeing with Brad Jersak. What he calls progressive illumination, the three
witnesses of apostolic authority all say it is bogus because the veil is removed
instantaneously in conversion, and our partial knowing is replaced instantaneously
at the return of Christ.
I also hope that, by me sharing so much Scripture in contrast to BJ sharing so little, the glory of the Scriptures will stand out to us all and people will utterly reject BJ’s false gospel and do what the apostles instructed,
Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, 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).
|
BJ’s Claim |
Monte’s Response |
|
“But we also see the Holy Spirit at work
within that process, not adding truth upon brittle truth (as if all their
primitive notions of God had been correct) but, rather, progressively
removing veils for the people of God even as their story moved forward” (p
80). |
Since he has fabricated the process he speaks
of, offering no Scriptural support for his claims, it is fair to say that,
no, the Holy Spirit did not progressively remove the veils for God’s people
as their story moved forward. God did continue revealing more prophetic
testimony of what was to come, but not one of the references to “veil”
claimed that it referred to such a work of the Spirit. However, BJ’s claim
does help us understand why Paul warned about people like BJ presenting
“another Jesus” through “a different spirit” than the Holy Spirit, and “a
different gospel” than the one we find in the Scriptures (hence BJ presenting
himself and his yet-to-be-explained “Emmaus Way” as authorities over the
Scriptures). |
|
BJ’s Claim |
Monte’s Response |
|
“We see divine illumination transforming
their image of God all along, preparing them to see what God had revealed to
Abraham from the beginning: that God’s heart was to bless the whole world
through his Seed (Jesus Christ)” (p. 80). |
No, we see divine “revelation” expanding
their image of God. It is sad that BJ will show that he gets tiny
slivers of what is written because this part about what God promised Abraham
that is fulfilled in Jesus Christ is a big part of Paul’s message. However, it
is so sad that so much of the Scriptures Paul wrote have already been twisted
by the author! |
|
BJ’s Claim |
Monte’s Response |
|
“Thus: God is not a bigoted national
deity—God wills to bless the world” (p. 80). |
Of course, God is not a bigoted national
deity. But not because of anything BJ has said about Yahweh. It’s because the
Scriptures never present him as bigoted, or as the creation of a specific nation as were all
the other gods. And, no, God’s will is not to bless “the
world”, but to bless people from every nation around the world by calling
them out of their darkness into the light of Christ. Jesus said that this
would cause all kinds of persecution and hatred from “the world”, but he
promised that the good news of the kingdom would be proclaimed throughout the
whole world, and then the end would come. |
|
BJ’s Claim |
Monte’s Response |
|
“God is not a violent militarist—God’s agenda
is peace for all” (p. 80). |
Of course, Yahweh is not a violent
militaristic God. Whatever he did against the nations was as the Judge of
creation executing holy and righteous justice on criminal nations. And, no, God’s agenda is not peace for all.
His agenda is to find his lost sheep and bring them into the kingdom, and to
judge all the lost in the second death. |
|
BJ’s Claim |
Monte’s Response |
|
“God is not a maniacal death-dealer—God is a
redeeming Lover” (p. 80). |
Of course, Yahweh is not a maniacal
death-dealer. Death is the wages of our sin, and death is the punishment for
criminal nations. It is partly true that God is a redeeming
Lover, but not in the sense BJ has been promoting in this book (without
scriptural support for anything he has been saying here!). |
|
BJ’s Claim |
Monte’s Response |
|
“So, throughout the Bible,
we see the veils,
and we see them being removed, layer after
layer,
uncovering a clearer image that comes into
sharpest focus in the Gospels” (p. 80). |
No, none of what BJ has said here is in the
Bible, as the absence of any Scriptural support indicates. No, we don’t see the veils because we already
saw that the “veils” Paul spoke about had to do with unsaved people being
blinded by the evil one so they are unable to see the gospel. No, we don’t see veils being removed, layer
after layer, because that’s not what Paul was talking about. We do see
revelation adding to the picture throughout history, but not as though any of
the biblical writers were veiled. There is a clearer image of the Christ in the
gospels, no doubt about it. However, because the author has presented
“another Jesus” than the one the apostles proclaimed, and teaches “a
different spirit” than the Holy Spirit described in the Scriptures, and
presents “a different gospel” than what Jesus and his apostles taught,
nothing BJ has said in this whole Journal Journey today has proven his point.
Which means, he is twisting Paul’s Scriptures just as Peter warned, and all us
readers should heed the warning and expose such false teachings as Paul was
doing. |
I want to conclude today’s journey with what
Paul said immediately after II Corinthians 3, just to show what he meant by sinners being
“veiled” and born-again Christians having the veil removed when we turned to
Christ. In the first 6 verses of II Corinthians 4, this is what we learn:
First, Paul says, “Therefore, having this
ministry by the mercy of God, we do not lose heart.” The ministry is the
ministry of the gospel of the kingdom, people turning to the Lord by grace
through faith. Even though there were so many false teachers, Paul would not
lose heart because he knew that he and the other apostles had the ministry from
God (people like BJ do not).
Second, Paul clarifies, “But we have
renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways. We refuse to practice cunning or to
tamper with God's word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend
ourselves to everyone's conscience in the sight of God.” BJ clearly has not
renounced such disgraceful and underhanded ways. He has so much to learn from
Paul if he would be honest about what Paul was and is teaching.
Third, “And even if our gospel is veiled, it
is veiled to those who are perishing.” This makes it so clear that the “veil”
is over the hearts of the “perishing”, not over the hearts of Christians
reading the Scriptures!
Fourth, “In their case the god of this world
has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of
the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.” Because Paul says
“in their case” he is referring to “those who are perishing”, the ones to whom
“our gospel is veiled”. The reason they cannot see “the light of the gospel of
the glory of Christ” is not because they haven’t experienced progressive
illumination, but because “the god of this world has blinded their minds” (veiled).
Fifth, “For what we proclaim is not
ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants for Jesus'
sake.” Unlike BJ, Paul could say that he was not proclaiming himself, but Jesus
Christ as Lord (meaning as revealed in the Scriptures). That made Paul and his
comrades servants to the churches for the sake of Jesus Christ.
Sixth, “For God, who said, ‘Let light shine
out of darkness,’ has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of
the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.” That is why our hearts are no
longer veiled. The same God who said, “Let there be light” in creation, has
shone into our hearts in salvation so that now the veil is gone. We have the
knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ our Lord. Although we
get to know him better every day than we have ever known him before, that has
NOTHING to do with progressive illumination, but everything to do with the
“knowing God and Jesus Christ whom you have sent” of our eternal life.
And because BJ is stealing from people the
true Jesus, the true Holy Spirit, and the true gospel by twisting Scripture
into a veil over people’s hearts, let us follow Paul’s example and not lose
heart because they need to hear the truth along this garden path of lies.
© 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