In2Freedom: A Journal Journey with Brad Jersak’s “Different” Jesus

Examining "A More Christlike Word" by Brad Jersak

Day 53

“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

In our last day’s journey, we discovered that BJ is pitting what he calls “the literal sense” against what he calls “literalism”. However, we found that he misrepresented both sides as the two extreme swings of the pendulum without giving us the plumbline! So, here is my attempt to summarize the two opposing positions as he understands them (not as his words mean in real life).

However!!!

BJ totally contradicts himself regarding “the literal sense”! He begins with the claim,

The literal sense reads Scripture carefully to discover the author’s intent from the words they use and how they use them (including the use of genre, rhetoric, figures of speech, symbols, poetics excess, hyperbole) (p. 112).

This is so NOT what BJ does! However, he adds the claim,

The literal sense asks the text what it is doing (p. 112).

Again, that is not what BJ has shown us of his use of Scripture!

So far, what he has said all sounds good until he makes the application,

The literal sense is our launching pad on to the moral (tropological) and spiritual (gospel, typological) reading of the Bible. (p. 112).

You cannot say you are reading “Scripture carefully to discover the author’s intent from the words they use and how they use them (including the use of genre, rhetoric, figures of speech, symbols, poetics excess, hyperbole)”, and then say that this launches us into “the moral (tropological) and spiritual (gospel, typological) reading of the Bible” because the tropological, different gospel, and typological views he has espoused are NOT honoring either God as the ultimate author of the Scriptures, or the men who wrote down his breathed out words as carried along by the Holy Spirit to do so. And they are not honoring either God or the human writers because they claim that the writers got it wrong and God wasn’t relational enough to make sure they got it right!

Now, because of this glaring contradiction, we are left to summarize that whatever BJ means by “the literal sense” does not mean “literal”. In fact, he has already dissed the “plain reading” of the text, which is the way you would read it if you were doing what he claimed in the first two quotes!

Therefore, in looking at the two pendulum extremes, I am not describing them as they really are (literal vs literalism), but as BJ has packaged them for the sake of his “different gospel”.

BJ’s Literal Sense

BJ’s Literalism

BJ sees “literal” as “tropological” (moral of the story, not real words of God), his “different gospel” (comes outside of the Scriptures and interprets the Scriptures), and “typological” (reading the Old Testament relationship to Jesus as allegorical, not literal). In other words, BJ’s “literal sense” is nothing close to treating the Bible as literally meaning what it says. In his world, the authorities who tell us what Scripture means are outside of Scripture and unaccountable to the breathed-out words of God.

This is a distorted view of those who seek to understand the plain reading of Scripture. He has dissed “the Bible clearly says” folks as only able to believe such a thing if they shut down the whole intended meaning of the author’s and deny the ministry and work of the Holy Spirit.

It should be noted that BJ dissed the “literalist” focus without giving much of a definition of what it actually is. I would think it means (in his mind) that people can’t see the meaning behind the literal reading of the words, but he is the last one to make such a charge! And, I suspect that some of those he accuses of his literalist agenda are not even close to what he describes.

My contention is that BJ has lumped together people who treat the Bible as God’s word with those who use the Bible legalistically and don’t actually understand the heart of what they are reading. He has also used a title for his belief that is totally misleading since he does not believe in taking the Bible in its “literal sense”.

Look at these definitions of “literal”:

To describe something as literal is to say that it is exactly what it seems to be. For example, if you put up a literal barrier to keep the world out, you've actually built a real wall.[1]

BJ has repeatedly told us why he does not take Scripture to mean “exactly what it seems” to say.

1. ADJECTIVE [usually ADJECTIVE noun]

The literal sense of a word or phrase is its most basic sense.[2]

The literal meaning of a word is its original, basic meaning:[3]

Based on the actual words in their ordinary meaning; not figurative or symbolic.[4]

Each of these definitions brings out the opposite of what BJ means by “literal sense”. Turning the basic, ordinary meaning of words and phrases to mean nothing more than a moral of the story, or an allegorical symbolism, is obviously missing what it takes to view something as literal.

1 a: according with the letter of the scriptures

adheres to a literal reading of the passage

b: adhering to fact or to the ordinary construction or primary meaning of a term or expression : ACTUAL

liberty in the literal sense is impossible

—B. N. Cardozo

c: free from exaggeration or embellishment

the literal truth

d: characterized by a concern mainly with facts

a very literal man[5]

With all those definitions, one thing is clear: BJ’s approach is NOT a “literal sense” because “literal” does NOT include ignoring the plain reading of a text and reducing it to a moral of the story (tropological). It does NOT include claiming that “inspiration” happens between the Scriptures and the reader when the Scriptures say it already came between God and the writers. It does NOT include a demand that our understanding of the gospel comes from outside the Scriptures which then interprets the Scriptures from that external gospel when the Scriptures reveal the gospel to us in such plain terms that to deny it is absolutely deceptive. And, the “literal” sense does NOT include the typological approach that demeans the Old Testament teachings of Jesus to allegories since allegories are symbolic and not literal! In other words, BJ is literally, not literal!

With all that in mind (I hope it sticks through the rest of the book), let’s add the plumbline column to the mix and use the heading “The Historical-Grammatical Sense”. Bodie Hodge of Answers in Genesis states it like this:

Reading the Bible plainly/straightforwardly (taking into account literary style, context, authorship, etc.) is the basis for what is called the historical-grammatical method of interpretation which has been used by theologians since the church fathers. This method helps to eliminate improper interpretations of the Bible.[6]

Do you notice that Brodie Hodge refers to “taking into account literary style, context, authorship, etc” as BJ did, but he ends up with interpretations that come from those plain readings, while BJ claims to be honoring all the intentions of God and the writers, including their various genres, and yet turns that into allegories and morals of stories that need to be added by the BJs!

I simply want you to see that BJ is contradicting himself, therefore we are going to add the “The Historical-Grammatical Sense” to the picture so we can refer to it as we call BJ out on what he is teaching. Incidentally (not really), the Answers in Genesis group is one of the fine groups that uphold the truthfulness of Scripture as the breathed-out words of God, they believe what the Scriptures say about creation, the fall into sin, and the worldwide flood, just as is written, and they also look at science as affirming these things instead of contradicting them.

For anyone who was told you must choose between science and Scripture, these folks (and others) have so much to say to the contrary. It has been so uplifting to me over the decades to read their scientific responses to the lies of evolution. Here are links to some of my favorite groups in this regard.[7]

Because BJ does not refer to the plumbline of reading the Bible in its “plain” or “straightforward” sense, we will need to come up with something to add here.

In the article, Thinking On Scripture, Dr. Steven R. Cook describes the plain, or normal, reading of Scripture like this:

A normal reading of the Bible is commonly called the grammatical-historical method of interpretation. The grammatical-historical method of interpretation means the Christian reads the Bible in a plain manner, paying attention to the normal rules of grammar and the meaning of words as they were commonly used in their historical setting^.[3] A normal reading also considers each word and verse in the light of its immediate context, as well as the larger context of the book, and the whole Bible.[8]

As we consider this in contrast to the two pendulum extremes (BJ's version of the "literal sense" and "literalism"), here is an article that explains why BJ’s allegorical approach does not fit Scripture, and another that explains biblical hermeneutics (interpreting Scripture) quite differently than BJ has represented.[9]

For simplicity's sake, let’s use Dr Cook’s description of the “normal reading of the Bible” as our plumbline to contrast the other two views which are both BJ’s fabrications. I in no way admit that BJ has accurately portrayed either of the extremes, although two extremes always exist.

BJ’s Literal Sense

The Historical-Grammatical Sense

BJ’s Literalism

BJ sees “literal” as “tropological” (moral of the story, not real words of God), his “different gospel” (comes outside of the Scriptures and interprets the Scriptures), and “typological” (reading the Old Testament relationship to Jesus as allegorical, not literal). In other words, BJ’s “literal sense” is nothing close to treating the Bible as literally meaning what it says. The authorities who tell us what it means are outside of Scripture and unaccountable to the breathed-out words of God.

"A normal reading of the Bible is commonly called the grammatical-historical method of interpretation. The grammatical-historical method of interpretation means the Christian reads the Bible in a plain manner, paying attention to the normal rules of grammar and the meaning of words as they were commonly used in their historical setting.^[3] A normal reading also considers each word and verse in the light of its immediate context, as well as the larger context of the book, and the whole Bible" (Dr. Steven R. Cook).

It should be noted that BJ dissed the “literalist” focus without giving much of a definition of what it actually is. I would think it means that people can’t see the meaning behind the literal reading of the words, but he is the last one to make such a charge!

What I want to keep showing us is that BJ is in no way leading us to an honest understanding of Scripture. As I have said repeatedly now, he is failing 100% in representing any Scripture accurately, he has been proven on many occasions to be outright lying about what is stated, and no allegories or morals of stories can rescue him.

Which brings us to another look at “Inerrancy Versus Authority” (p. 112), and right away we are facing trouble because the author immediately claims that “the literal sense is essential to my reading of the Bible” (p. 112) even though he means allegorical and NOT literal! And he writes of “literalism” and “inerrancy” as “modernist ideology” (p. 112) when reading the Bible in its plain meaning and treating it as inerrant is right in the Bible itself!

Now the next thing he says is so full of misrepresentations and contradictions that I will need to pick it up on another day’s journal journey. For the moment, here is a summary of the three views that should help us stay on course even while BJ leads us down the garden path.

BJ’s Literal Sense

The Historical-Grammatical Sense

BJ’s Literalism

Claims “literal” but means “tropological” (moral of the story), his “different gospel” (from outside of the Scriptures), and “typological” (allegorical), none of which mean "literal".

The grammatical-historical method means reading the Bible in a plain manner, respecting grammar, word meanings, and other factors with an emphasis on context, Context, CONTEXT.

BJ puts people here who ascribe to the plain meaning of Scripture as if they are stifling the Holy Spirit and missing the point of the divine and human authors.

With that as our general differentiation between the plumbline and the two pendulum extremes, let’s get a good night’s rest and prepare for a rugged hike on the next day’s journey. But let us also be encouraged that God’s word will not fail to do what it was sent out to accomplish, so we will seek to receive everything God intends for us as we trust him to lead us safely to our journey’s end.

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.)

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] https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/literal

[2] https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/literal

[3] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/literal

[4] https://www.yourdictionary.com/literal

[5] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literal

[6] https://answersingenesis.org/bible-questions/why-do-you-take-the-bible-literally/

[7] Answers in Genesis: https://answersingenesis.org

Institute for Creation Research: https://icr.org

Creation Ministries International: https://creation.com

[8] https://thinkingonscripture.com/2016/02/14/the-plain-interpretation-of-scripture/