Examining "A More Christlike Word"
by Brad Jersak
Day 59
“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 |
However, as I begin this day by first spending time with God in his
word, I once again have the ministry of God’s Holy Spirit bringing truth into
the spotlight at center stage and, at the same time, exposing the evil of the
BJs’ false teachings.
In the
previous section, BJ clearly expressed the ramifications of the deceptive
foundation he has laid throughout the early chapters of his book. His claim is
that the very clear history of Genesis can be written off as fiction. He claims
that the church fathers are on his side on this one without giving even one
example of anything they stated in their own words.
The
passage of Scripture I came to in Matthew 16 was one of the many conflicts
between Jesus and the religious elite. In this case, they were asking Jesus for
a sign, something that simply exposed their blindness because he had already
done so many signs and wonders to affirm his deity and his authority as God’s
Messiah. Jesus told them that the reason they could miss everything he did and
taught as evidence that he was the Christ was that they were an “evil and
adulterous generation”.
However, this isn’t the only way Scripture speaks of asking God for a
sign. So I looked up the verse the Spirit was reminding me about and found it
was this:
Show me a sign of your favor,
that those who hate me may see and be put to shame
because you, LORD, have helped me and comforted me.
(Psalm 86:17)
When I
read through the whole Psalm, I realized I was reading history in poetic form.
I found this especially touching because I love writing and have written many
songs (musical poems) that express my journey through life. I would love to be
able to hear what this song of David would have sounded like in his time, and I
have actually written music to parts of this Psalm so I can sing those thoughts
and feelings to the Lord.
My
point is that BJ has deceptively claimed that if something is presented in
poetic form it is fiction. He claims that the Genesis account of creation, the
fall, and the flood are fictional. He speaks of the parts of the Bible he
doesn’t like to be true as “Homeric myth or poetic embellishment” (p. 121).
The
fact is that, in poetry, as in any writing, the story being told could be fact
as much as fiction. We can easily think of how poetry can be fiction, as it
describes things in figurative terms and sometimes imaginary scenes. However,
poetry as a genre can also speak of real-life events but in some rhyming form.
In
fact, one of the most amazing examples of this is Psalm 119 in the Bible.
This psalm is divided into twenty-two sections, one for each Hebrew letter. Each section has sixteen lines, with that section’s letter appearing at the start of each alternate line. So, for example, the first eight verses contain sixteen lines of poetry, and every other line begins with aleph (א), the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet. The next section of Psalm 119 comprises verses 9–16, and each verse begins with the second letter of the Hebrew alphabet, beth (ב).[1]
This psalm is beautifully arranged using the 22
letters of the Hebrew alphabet, but everything it describes is real. It is one
statement of testimony after another, but simply presented in an organized
poetic form.
A
non-biblical example of poetry describing real history is one quite familiar to
older Canadians, Gordon Lightfoot’s hit song, “‘The Wreck of the Edmund
Fitzgerald”. It is obviously poetry put to music, “But it’s a true story that
we all know well in these parts of Michigan,” said Lightfoot.[2]
The
song shows that poetry must be interpreted as fact or fiction just as other
parts of the Bible and that BJ is totally wrong to claim that the genre of
poetry in the Scriptures means something is fiction. I do not believe that
Genesis is poetry, but even if parts of it turn out to be some ancient form of
poetry I didn’t pick up on, the fact that someone took the time to write
history in poetic form does not make it less historical.
The
second thing I did was look up what some of the church fathers believed about
the things BJ is dissing. Since he didn’t give one example of their beliefs, it
is worth taking the time to find out the truth of the matter.
First,
this article about Origin clarifies what he did and did not believe about the
issues BJ is claiming. It is clear that this is where BJ is getting many of his
ideas in his book.[3]
Second, this article gives a summary of what the early church leaders
believed about creation and the flood, which happens to disagree with BJ’s
claims.[4] And this one explains how “The Early Church Defended Creation Science”.[5]
Third,
anyone can look these things up, so I will leave it at that for now. My point
is simply that BJ was not representing the church fathers in his claims, but
cherry-picking the one he feels supports his unbiblical views.
I will
try to finish up BJ’s look at chapter 7 in his book as he talks about
“Restoring the Literal Sense Today”, something we should NOT want to happen if
it is the way BJ is preaching it.
I
skimmed the lists of all the things BJ claims belong to his literal sense (pp.
122-123). Because he puts inspiration between the text and the reader instead
of between God and the text, I really don’t know what he would do with all
those things. They continue to sound more like the Historical-Grammatical sense
than his not-literal literal sense. However, twisting what it means for God to
breathe out his words can change the meaning of things drastically, as all his
false claims about the Bible have already shown.
However, I take exception to the claim that “All of this and more
speaks to the revival of the ancient literal sense – the ‘first reading’ – as
over against modern ‘clearly says’ literal-ism” (p. 123). What he's trying to "revive" might be as
ancient as the Garden of Eden, but it also once again leaves out the plumbline
between his two pendulum extremes.
|
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.
|
My
point is that what BJ describes as his non-literal literal sense is not what
the church fathers taught, although there are some aspects that were believed
by Origen but not others. I continue to maintain that what he calls “literalism”
isn’t the strawman version he has fabricated, but people trying to “Declare
these things; exhort and rebuke with all authority. Let no one disregard you”
(Titus 2:15). Because he did not like them showing how clearly and plainly the
Scriptures speak on the matters at hand, he has had to misrepresent them into
his “literalism”, hoping the contrast would leave people choosing his different
Jesus, spirit, and gospel because who would want to be so Spirit-stifling as
those others guys?!
However, when we look at the same things through the plumbline of the
Historical-Grammatical sense, we discover that we can take all the genres into
account, identify the fictional parables and illustrations, and still treat
history as history without being embarrassed by Yahweh carrying out justice against
criminal nations.
Before
we conclude this chapter, this claim needs clarification:
|
BJ’s Claim |
Monte’s Response |
|
“Yes, there’s much ado about literalism, but we just can’t ignore how
dramatically modernists have departed from the ancient literal sense, and the
havoc they’ve created for the Bible readers trying to faithfully interpret
the sacred text” (p. 123). |
Keep in mind that BJ is pitting his literal sense pendulum extreme on
one side against his fabricated literalism sense on the other. No matter what
he claims his literalistic buddies have done, his description of both sides
is not what it means to “faithfully interpret the sacred text”. Instead, it
is the Historical-Grammatical sense that has sifted through all the opinions
and ideas of the past and present to find the truest understanding of what
God said and what he meant. And BJ hasn’t even included this in his book! Also, it should be noted that BJ is claiming that his view is the ancient literal sense. He has claimed the church fathers support this when he has only cherry-picked Origen because he held the same views on some of the things BJ is teaching. The fact that BJ has not quoted anyone else, and has given no examples to support his claims of what the ancient view was, leaves us total freedom to continue believing that the ancient view is the same one held by Jesus and the apostles, that all the Scriptures as we have them written down are already the breathed-out words of God and are authoritative over every church in the whole wide world until the return of our Savior. BJ's claim is not just unfounded (without any references), but contrary to what is founded in the Scriptures themselves. I can also testify that over more than three decades of reading the
Bible in a prayerful way, I have never seen the Bible treat history as
allegory, I have never found anywhere that Jesus or the New Testament writers
corrected the Jewish Scriptures, and I have never found that Yahweh wasn’t
Christlike enough. However, reading BJ’s book has clearly shown me someone trying very
hard to create havoc “for Bible readers trying to faithfully interpret the
sacred text.” I have finally made it to the 45% mark of the book, and BJ is
still 100% dishonest in every use of Scripture he has presented. Havoc
indeed! |
|
BJ’s Claim |
Monte’s Response |
|
“I’ve been immersing myself in those fathers who taught us how to read
the Bible as Scripture and as gospel – perceiving Christ in Moses and the
Prophets by the illumination of the Spirit and the example of the apostles
and their successors” (p. 123). |
Yes, BJ has been cherry-picking which of the church fathers he uses as authorities. The majority do NOT agree with his false teachings. Do you see that he does NOT immerse himself in them? Cherry-picking! Other than that, I have already refuted what BJ has claimed to be the right way to read the Bible. He has had to lie too many times to be believable. From childhood, continually growing in my attachment to Scripture over
the decades, I have always known that I was reading Scripture, the
breathed-out words of God. I can see how Noah, Joseph, and Moses were types
of Christ without them being allegorical imaginations. They were real history people whose lives prophesied about what Jesus would do, but everything the Bible says about
Noah, Joseph, and Moses, is real history just as what we find about Jesus in
the gospels. I can also look to the illumination of the Holy Spirit as I read the
word knowing that this is NOT when inspiration happens, but that the Holy
Spirit teaches and reminds while I read Scripture because it is already the
authoritative breathed-out words of God, and endorsed by Jesus Christ and the early church as
exactly that. |
I am glad to be done this chapter. It was good to have a shorter day’s journal journey today. BJ plans to lead us down his Road to Emmaus garden path next, so I trust there will be plenty more to clarify when we continue next.
For now, I
have had so much encouragement in the word of God today (Sunday, July 14,
2024). A day of rest from the work of the week, and a day to rest in the word
of God that we have in the Bible. It reminds me of how “the word of God (as we
have contained in the Scriptures) is living and active, sharper than any
two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and
of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart” (Hebrews
4:12). I am thankful that the word of God is correcting BJ’s very
not-Christlike word about God.
© 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]
From What is an acrostic poem?
What examples of acrostic poems are in the Bible? By Got Questions ministry: https://www.gotquestions.org/acrostic-poem.html
[2]
An online search will bring up many sites speaking of this event and
Lightfoot’s song about it. This one is “Gordon Lightfoot explains why he wrote
‘The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald’” (https://www.mlive.com/entertainment/grand-rapids/2015/11/why_gordon_lightfoot_wrote_the.html).
Here is a Youtube video with the lyrics and music: https://youtu.be/rFkyDB2InTs?si=Gd4X7rWZXt3P3bIH
[3]
Origen, origins, and allegory by Andrew Sibley, https://creation.com/origen-origins-and-allegory
[4]
The Early Church on Creation by Dr. James R. Mook, https://answersingenesis.org/church/the-early-church-on-creation/
[5]
The Early Church Defended Creation Science BY LOUIS LAVALLEE, M.S.,
M.DIV., https://www.icr.org/article/early-church-defended-creation-science
No comments:
Post a Comment