Examining "A More Christlike Word"
by Brad Jersak
Day 13
“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 |
Preface: I’m adding this after I have tried to write a coherent response to an incoherent truth claim. All I can say is, I hope this makes some sense of something that I’m really having difficulty making sense of.
I’m continuing to process the things Brad
Jersak weaves into his journey as truth claims about God’s word. A truth claim
is not necessarily true, but it is stated as if it is true. That means it has
to be tested to see if it is true or false. So far, his truth claims have been
false claims.
I had to end the last day’s journey because
this next viewpoint was too full of tangled roots and windfall to add to what I
had already shared (metaphorically speaking). I suspect it will take most of this
day’s journal journey to put it to the test.
This next focus breaks my heart because it
is the essence of what my friend posted online that sucker-punched me about the
things he believed. It is time to find out if he had discovered something I had
truly missed in all my years of loving God’s word (not more than the Word, if
you know what I mean), or if those teaching him need to be confronted for
misleading God’s people as the Word warned would happen (in the word).
Here is the truth claim that is now staring
us in the face:
“Such attributes, according to Hebrews 12, are ever only anthropomorphisms12 of parental love aimed at restoration. That is to say, what the Bible calls ‘God’s wrath’ is a metaphor for the self-induced consequences or intrinsic judgment of our own turning from Perfect Love, even though these same ‘judgments’ may become the occasion for God’s redemptive acts” (p. 52).
Say what?
Let’s try to break this down into another
point-form journey:
1. The “such attributes” continues the
thought that “There is no divine anger, judgment, or wrath as over against
God’s love” (p. 52). That is another truth claim that is false (that's my truth claim).
It is clearly addressing all the things the Scriptures tell us about divine
anger, God’s judgment, and God’s wrath against sin. We are now going to be told
what we are to believe about these things since the BJs cannot deny that they
are woven through the whole Bible. So, if they can’t remove them from the path,
perhaps they can change their meaning from what was clearly stated.
2. The key point the author is making
is that these attributes “are ever only anthropomorphisms”, meaning, human
traits ascribed to non-human objects. God is not human, so are there human
traits ascribed to God simply for the purpose of illustrating what he is like
when that isn’t really what he is like? If, as BJ claims, whatever anyone feels
is an undesirable attribute of God can be written off as an anthropomorphism, we
would then have the freedom to treat his “divine anger, judgment, or wrath” as
nothing more than human traits ascribed to him rather than divine traits that
are just as much facets of his nature as is love, grace, and mercy. This is a
truth claim. That means we are now testing to see where in the Scriptures it
says that any of the attributes of God are anthropomorphisms rather than
inherent characteristics of God. So far, we are not given any authority for
believing what is being claimed except for the book, the author, and his pals.
3. BJ says that his belief about anthropomorphisms
is “according to Hebrews 12”. This creates a conflict in me. Did I really miss something
in all my journeys through Hebrews 12 where the Scriptures tell us that certain
attributes of God are merely anthropomorphisms? Or are we in for more
slight-of-hand treatments of God’s word as our previous testing already
exposed? I couldn’t see in the next couple of pages of the book that the author
shared anything from Hebrews 12 to prove his point, so I am concerned that such
a truth claim would be made without pointing to the prooftext we’re supposed to
look at. However, I will do an initial read-through of this chapter with the
aim of finding anthropomorphisms and see if any show up. Just a minute while I
have a short reading break. I’ll be right back!
4. After listening to the reading of
Hebrews 12 while getting ready for my day, I was surprised/not surprised at
what I found. I was not surprised that there are no anthropomorphisms in this
chapter. I was surprised that there wasn’t even anything close that I would
have to explain! I trust that the author hasn’t just embedded a proof text to
make his claim sound legitimate because nothing in Hebrews 12 resembles an anthropomorphism!
For someone who has lost fellowship with a family because of this specific teaching,
to find it introduced without even a clear reference of support is hugely
disappointing. At this point, it feels very similar to the journey we already undertook
in Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22.
5. However!!! As my audio Bible kept
reading on into Hebrews 13 because I was still getting ready for my day, I had
to smile (sadly) that the biblical writer warned, “Do not be led away by
diverse and strange teachings” (vs 9). So far, the BJs are presenting teachings
that are both “diverse” (part of the great variety of false teachings in our
world) and “strange” (obviously different from scripture).
6. So, with no anthropomorphisms in
Hebrews 12 (proving BJ’s truth claim false), let’s continue untangling the mess
we have before us. Apparently these anthropomorphisms are “of parental love
aimed at restoration”. That sounds wordy, and it doesn’t even make sense to me,
so I’m just trying to figure my way through it. However, if I get the sense of
it, BJ wants us to think that the anthropomorphisms show us how loving God is
as a father and how he is constantly aiming to restore his people to the image
and likeness of Christ. Somehow, “divine anger, judgment, or wrath” as human
traits applied to God makes God look lovingly restoring. I don’t get it. Wrath
in a human wouldn’t make me think “lovingly restoring”, so why would saying
that God’s wrath is an anthropomorphism make me think that it really means
virtually the opposite in God? No sense whatsoever (If I'm missing something just remember something is seriously missing from BJ's truth claim!).
7. Also, I thought anthropomorphisms
were intended to convey a similar meaning. For example, I think it would be an anthropomorphism
to say something like, “God has raised his mighty arm against our enemies.” God
is spirit and does not have arms. So, ascribing an anthropomorphism to him
(arms) gives us the imagery of how God would come in strength to our defense. We
get that. The anthropomorphism takes something we would see with humans and
uses that to picture how God would do the same kind of thing even though having
no arms and no sword. But I can’t imagine using that same anthropomorphism to
communicate that God is weak. They aren’t used to communicate the opposite of
what is pictured, but the same kind of thing. So how do “divine anger,
judgment, or wrath” match “parental love aimed at restoration”? At the moment,
this looks a lot like the Emperor’s New Clothes!
8. This truth claim about anthropomorphisms
also raises the question, is God really the person his attributes describe? Is
he the good Father Jesus spoke about whose “our Father in heaven” love is
constantly aimed at restoring his people to the image and likeness of his Son?
Or is that just as opposite as “divine anger, judgment, or wrath” is to “parental
love aimed at restoration”? What I want to know is, where in the Bible does it
say that God’s attributes are not really the way he is but only a picture of
what he is like using human qualities? And where does it show that if we are
told he is “wrath” it means “parental love”, and if we are told he is “love” it
means… uh… well, what does it mean and how do we know? At this point, nothing
has been said that requires us to see God’s attributes as anthropomorphic
rather than inherently his nature and revealed in the word exactly as he wants
us to think of them.
9. BJ now gives an example of probably
the worst word in the Bible when it comes to his “another Jesus” focus: the “wrath”
of God. So, he continues that, “what the Bible calls ‘God’s wrath’ is a
metaphor”. Again, says who? A metaphor is an illustration. It would be telling
us something about God without that literally being what God is. Are the
attributes of God illustrations of what he is like when he really isn’t that
way, or are they revelations of the divine nature? Is his love a metaphor as
well? Or an anthropomorphism to use a humanlike quality that is not in God to
somehow tell us something that is in God, but not really? I know, it gets
confusing when we begin to claim that some descriptions of God are
metaphorical. Those atheists he referred to earlier would love us to treat the
Bible as metaphorical! At this point, I will say that I don’t know of one
reference to an attribute of God that is an anthropomorphism or a metaphor. I
trust that BJ is planning on some actual evidence for this because referring to
Hebrews 12 did nothing to support his case and only suggests a willingness to
mislead people who aren’t going to check out his references to see there is
nothing there.
10. Now, I admit it is taking some
mental exertion to climb through this windfall of disconnected ideas, but let’s
try and tackle what BJ says next about this metaphorical view of God: “God’s
wrath’ is a metaphor for the self-induced consequences or intrinsic judgment of
our own turning from Perfect Love”. The expression, “self-induced consequences”
appears to turn an attribute that belongs to God (his wrath) into an anthropomorphism
for man’s rebellion. Somehow that must mean that, by attaching “wrath” to God
as an anthropomorphism, it is really describing us and not him. It is imposing
what we have done onto God when (according to the author, it appears) God isn’t
really like the word that is breathed-out by God into the Scriptures (wrath). I’m
simply not getting this. I trust there will be clarification because this
sounds like more slight-of-hand playing with words. Wrath is an attribute. It
is an attribute of God. It is right there in the word. It can’t be separated
from any other words that are listed as God’s attributes (holy, righteous,
love, etc). Nothing in this description even makes sense of how wrath could be
an anthropomorphism, let alone proving that to be the case.
11. And, finally, “even though these
same ‘judgments’ may become the occasion for God’s redemptive acts”. I presume
that means that, even though God isn’t really feeling wrath, he may consider
our “turning from Perfect Love” to require a judgment from which he then
redeems us? At the moment, the best I can see for a windfall pile of sticks
like this is that we try to cut and stack it for firewood (remember,
metaphorically speaking). But right now, it makes no sense at all, and no
Scripture was shared to show that God’s wrath is a metaphor, an anthropomorphism,
or different from all his other attributes as the inherent qualities of his
nature.
BJ ends that section with a list of other voices
that continued to shape his thinking about the word and the Word. What suddenly
stood out to me is that he gives more details of how these people told him what
to think than what he tells us in God’s word. And, even when he does tell us he
is getting something from God’s word, we can’t find it when we go there to look
for ourselves. What I realize is that BJ is not telling us to put “the Word”
above “the word” so that we are hearing from Jesus instead of the Bible. He is
telling us to put his mentors about the whole collection of God, Jesus, and the
Scriptures so that we believe their interpretations of Scripture even though our
own Berean searching of the Scriptures shows that these things just ain’t so!
It is enough that BJ concludes with a
statement from one of his mentors, “Why does the Bible contain so many bizarre,
offensive, and un-Christlike depictions of God? Pete’s answer: ‘Because God let
his children tell the story’” (p. 53).
Again, nothing has been presented from
Scripture to show that the scriptural “depictions of God” were “un-Christlike”
(that the Yahweh revealed in the Old Testament is different than the Jesus Christ
revealed in the New). It is prejudicial to decide that God did anything “bizarre”
(contrary to his own nature), or “offensive” (to God’s standard of holiness). To
then move from one unproven claim to Pete Enns’ statement is totally
misleading.
And, it definitely is not what God’s word says.
© 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