Examining "A More Christlike Word"
by Brad Jersak
Day 68
“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 |
(note: I have no idea why the latter part of my article seems to have a white background)
Chapter 10 – True Myth: C.S.
Lewis and John the Beloved (p. 144ff)
I was
really hoping I could just read this whole chapter, show resources that refute
BJ’s claims, and see what comes next. After some consideration of this, I
realized that these are huge claims he is making and so many people are being turned
away from their sincere and pure devotion to Christ through the word of Christ
that I will have to continue the daily hikes through words and meanings in
order to keep showing the truth.
BJ
begins this chapter by referring to people like C.S. Lewis and Tolkien who
understood the message of the Bible through some definition of “myth”. Since he
is continuing his practice of name-dropping to make his claims, we need to look
beyond the names and test the claims. We have already seen that BJ
cherry-picked Origen from among all the church fathers without showing what the
other church fathers believed. I will simply present what other scholars have
to say about the meanings of words as best we can understand them.
|
BJ’s Claim |
Monte’s Response |
|
“John sees the life of Christ as factual and mythical – or, as C.S.
Lewis puts it, ‘true myth’” (p. 144). |
Because we know BJ is pushing for a non-literal Literal Sense that
turns history into allegory, and he has already shown that he uses Origen as
his example of the church fathers even though he was clearly not in the same
camp as the others, it is of great importance to know which meaning of
“mythical” BJ means, and whether he and Lewis agree on what is a “true myth”.
At this point, I’m simply watching to see if he makes clear what he means. |
In an
article entitled, “Inerrancy and the Patron Saint of Evangelicalism: C.S. Lewis
on Holy Scripture”, by Philip Ryken,[1] the author writes about Lewis,
As he admitted to one of his correspondents, “I cannot claim to have a clearly worked out position about the Bible or the nature of Inspiration. That is a subject on which I would gladly learn: I have nothing to teach” (The Collected Letters of C.S. Lewis, vol. 2: Books, Broadcasts, and the War, 1931–1949, 914).
The
point is that Lewis did not see himself as a scholar who had studied these
things in depth, but one who as a literary person had his own thoughts on the
matter. In fact, his lack of confidence in his views kept them out of his
public writing.
We should also recognize the significance of the fact that Lewis’s most serious reservations about the Bible do not appear in his published writings but in personal letters. Because he knew that he did not have all the answers, he was careful about what he said or wrote in public, where it seems that he never addressed the question of inerrancy as a category of systematic theology.[2]
Added
to this (because BJ is presenting Lewis as an authority to support his views),
Ryken continues,
But we should bear in mind that Lewis spent the majority of his time reading dramas, epic poems, and other great works of literature (as an English professor should). He owned barely a handful of books on the doctrine of Scripture. He read G.B. Bentley’s The Resurrection of the Bible, for example, and C.H. Dodd’s less conservative book The Authority of the Bible. But, as far as we know, he never read anything like B.B. Warfield’s seminal writings on the inspiration and authority of Scripture.[3]
Once
again, we have BJ cherry-picking his authority on a subject only to find that
Lewis himself hadn’t even picked many cherries in determining his own thoughts
about the Bible! And I do not recall BJ referring to this distinguished
resource by B.B. Warfield which was available during Lewis’s time (I just did a
search and Warfield’s name does not come up in BJ’s book). For those
interested, here is a .pdf of Warfield’s book free for the reading.[4] I do not present it as name-dropping on my own part, but simply to show
that BJ is using Lewis for his views about the Bible when Lewis was not
well-read on the subject and admitted that he wasn’t even confident in his
thoughts on the matter.
I also
want to point out that I sincerely do not feel that I am reading BJ’s book like
I have my theological position entrenched in concrete and am out to prove I’m
right and BJ is wrong. I believe Paul’s words that “All Scripture is breathed
out by God” (II Timothy 3:16-17) and BJ does not. No matter how BJ twists
things, he does not teach what Paul taught, that “all Scripture”, meaning, the
written texts that Paul was speaking about, IS breathed out by God, as in, is
already breathed out by God.
I
believe Peter’s words “knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture
comes from someone's own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by
the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy
Spirit” (II Peter 1:20-21). Peter puts the “breathed out” by God part in line
with the “carried along by the Holy Spirit” part, which happened when the men
were writing down the words God was breathing out. That gives us the words of
God, not a God/man hybrid as BJ peddles.
I have
had a lot of respect for C.S. Lewis over the years. I have enjoyed reading the
Chronicles of Narnia, and loved the three movies based on that series that were
produced somewhat recently. But I was always willing to admit to anything in
the movies that was contrary to Scripture. I understand that in the final
volume, Lewis pictures a Muslim man arriving in the real heaven without being
converted. That is alarming. I know this will also give the BJs a good boost of
excitement that someone of Lewis’s stature would present such a picture, but it
still comes down to where in the Bible it is taught. I read a number of Lewises
other books over the years.
My
contention is that Lewis is not an authority on the subject BJ has chosen him
to represent, so we don’t really know how he would relate to the same subject
if he had processed resources like Warfield’s books. I also found that in
reading what BJ quoted about “myth” in reference to Lewis, there was a sense in
which I was waiting for some evidence of how Lewis defined the word. Peter
warned against following “cleverly devised myths” (II Peter 1:16), so Lewis
couldn’t have been meaning the kind of myth the apostles warned against. But BJ’s
book didn’t seem to help clarify anything.
As I
read the quote of Lewis by BJ’s friend Ron, it is clear that Lewis
differentiated between the myths of other religions and those of Christianity
because he stated that the myth we have in the Bible comes “with this
tremendous difference that it really happened”, and then differentiated between
“God’s myth” and “men’s myths” (p. 144). This still doesn’t define the word,
but it shows a distinction between myth that is fairy tale, and myth that
“really happened”.
Before
I continue with Ryken’s article, here is one of BJ’s claims that requires a response.
|
BJ’s Claim |
Monte’s Response |
|
“There have been many ‘dying god’ and resurrection myths, ancient and
modern, that likewise call us to metamorphosis” (p. 145). |
I have heard this claim, the still-eyes-veiled Bart Ehrman being a favorite for promoting
such things. I have also heard rebuttals that show there aren’t any
comparable accounts of gods dying and being raised to life. I will simply
note that no examples were given to support the claim, so I will leave it on
the unsubstantiated side of things while I focus on what C.S. Lewis taught
about “true myth”. Since it is BJ who is making these claims, the onus is on
him to document his own evidence. Unfortunately, people are buying what he is
peddling, no evidence required. |
I
looked up this question about other mythologies that have been presented as
having death/resurrection stories because I know I had watched something about
it in the past that refuted such claims. In this video, Frank Turek answers
that skeptics have things the wrong way around.[5]
In
this article by Got Questions ministry, “Is Jesus a myth?”[6], they begin,
To discover the truth about the claim that the Gospel writers borrowed from mythology, it is important to (1) unearth the history behind the assertions, (2) examine the actual portrayals of the false gods being compared to Christ, (3) expose any logical fallacies being made, and (4) look at why the New Testament Gospels are trustworthy depictions of the true and historical Jesus Christ.
Continuing through the article, Got Questions
shows the details of a variety of mythologies compared to what we know about Jesus.
It is detailed enough to show the integrity of their conclusion,
In conclusion, the claim that Jesus is a copy of mythological gods originated with authors whose works have been discounted by academia, contain logical fallacies, and cannot compare to the New Testament Gospels, which have withstood nearly 2,000 years of intense scrutiny. The alleged parallels between Jesus and other gods disappear when the original myths are examined. The Jesus-is-a-myth theory relies on selective descriptions, redefined words, and false assumptions.
Jesus Christ is unique in history, with His voice rising above all false gods’ as He asks the question that ultimately determines a person’s eternal destiny: “Who do you say I am?” (Matthew 16:15).
Next,
I found a video by Cold Case Christianity titled, “The Bible Did NOT Copy Other
Religions” with J. Warner & Jimmy Wallace.[7] J. Warner became a follower of Jesus by applying his skills as a cold
case detective to the very “cold case” of Jesus’ death and resurrection. He
became convinced that the Bible’s testimony was true history. Their ministry has
so many good videos addressing the very kinds of problems BJ has meddled in.
However, while BJ is constantly denying that the Scriptures are the very
breathed-out words of God, Warner shows how the Scriptures are the
authoritative word of God.
What
made me laugh is that the first words out of J. Warner’s mouth were, “When I
first started to read the Bible, I considered it more like mythology than
history, and not even original mythology at that.” From there he jumps into the
water-into-wine sign and how that seemed similar to Greek mythology. He then
addresses why there are similarities between Christianity and other religions
in what we believe about Christ. He ended up discovering 15 qualities that kept
coming up in the various belief systems
When
he questioned why Jesus would just happen to personify the same expectations as
the ancient mythologies, he discovered that none of the ancient mythological
gods had all fifteen attributes, but Jesus met them all. He even quotes C.S.
Lewis as referenced in BJ’s book (the “true myth”)! And he mentions the “types”
of Moses, Joseph, Joshua, David, and Jonah, all prefiguring the life and
ministry of Jesus, without discrediting the historical accounts!
His
conclusion in all his videos is that what we find in the Bible is true history,
which means we still need to find out what BJ and Lewis mean by “myth”, because
too many other sources demand a differentiation between real history and BJ’s
false notions of allegory.
Continuing
in Philip Ryken’s article, he explains what Lewis meant in speaking of “myth”.
What makes this aspect of Lewis’s thought so challenging is that he does not use the term myth the way most people do. He does not use it the way that Peter used it, for example, when he warned us not to follow “cleverly devised myths” (2 Peter 1:16). Nor does he use it the way people often use it today, to distinguish history from legend. He does not even use it quite the way that classicists use it to describe the mythology of ancient Greece and Rome. So how does he use it?
In the
negative, Ryken explains that Lewis is NOT using “myth” in the way BJ wants it,
as allegory. Let’s be clear on that, because it is a consistent theme in this
journey down BJ’s garden path. We keep finding that BJ makes a claim, but when
we look for ourselves, we discover that his sources aren’t saying what he wants
them to be saying. Lewis was NOT using myth as a contrast to “history”. That
puts us exactly where Ryken questions, “So how does he use it?” And that is
what I really want to know!
To
answer this, I will shorten Ryken’s description into bullet points. Feel free
to read the article under the heading, “His Use of ‘Myth’”, which looks like it
is just past halfway in the presentation. It is detailed, well-written, and
informative.
·
“For
Lewis, myths are stories that awaken the human imagination, embody universal
realities, and define the values of a culture.”
·
“myths
are ‘numinous’ (deep spiritual quality) and ‘awe-inspiring.’”
·
“They
make us feel ‘as if something of great moment had been communicated to us’”.
·
“They
bridge the gap between the world of time and space and the eternal realms that
lie beyond”.
·
“myths allow us ‘to actually experience Reality and
grasp eternal truths’”.
·
“mythology may also serve as history.”
·
“he does not mean a story that is not historically
true.”
·
“Rather, he means a story that is rooted in
ultimate reality — a story that explains the nature of things and may in fact
be true. Some myths are, and some myths are not, grounded in history.”
·
“an account of what may have
been the historical fact,” which he carefully distinguished
from “a symbolical representation of non-historical truth”.
I’m trying
to summarize this into a word or phrase that we can use to keep reminding
ourselves what “myth” meant to Lewis. I’m being tentative because I do not want
to misrepresent anyone. However, as I’m getting the sense of what he is talking
about, myth seems to speak of the spiritual realities of life, people’s
thoughts and beliefs about ultimate reality. Some of those are fanciful and
fairy tale myths like the various ancient mythologies, but some are true
historical fact, as in what we find in the Bible. Or, in shorter terms, “the
awe-inspiring nature of ultimate reality”. Yes, let’s try that one on for size.
·
“When he came to Scripture, Lewis found the main narrative
functioning as both mythical story (“the
awe-inspiring nature of ultimate reality”) and factual history.”
·
“He therefore distinguished himself from
fundamentalists, who lost the ‘myth’ (imagination), and from modern biblical
critics, who eliminate the ‘became fact’ (history)”.
This would
certainly put Lewis between BJ’s strawman of the “Literalists” on one pendulum
extreme, and BJ’s non-literal “Literal Sense” on the other pendulum extreme.
Lewis saw “true myth” as the true version of “the awe-inspiring nature of
ultimate reality”, NOT as allegory!
·
“In using the term myth,
Lewis recognized that he was susceptible to misunderstanding” (as we are seeing
with BJ’s distortions).
·
“I must either use the word myth or coin a word,” he wrote, “and I think the
former the lesser evil of the two”.
·
“He was well aware, for example, that Rudolf
Bultmann had been using the term myth to attack
almost everything in Christianity, up to and including the resurrection of
Jesus Christ” (which sounds very familiar in the scenes of BJ’s garden path
journey).
Ryken
then focuses on some of the history of how Lewis came to understand the “true
myth” element of Christianity, but I will leave it to the reader to look that
up for yourselves. For my point in my rebuttal, I continue to find BJ
misleading in his use of inflammatory words (words that don’t mean what people
think they mean), but with no evidence that his documentation supports those
meanings, and usually lacking clarifying definitions.
So is the
case here, that name-dropping Lewis as his example (instead of Warfield) and
using “myth” without explaining how different Lewis meant it from the common
meaning, is misleading, particularly since I didn’t notice the author
clarifying what he or Lewis meant.
My
conclusion is that BJ wants “myth” to support his concept of an allegorical Bible
(not just allegorical lessons in the Bible), but Lewis’s views on “true myth”
sound more contradictory than supportive. Lewis spoke of myth as “the
awe-inspiring nature of ultimate reality” (my summary statement). The ancient
mythologies tried to capture these things but only ended up with fanciful and
imaginary fairy tales. However, when the Bible spoke of them, they were both
awe-inspiring and ultimately real.
That is
enough mind/brain exercise for this Journal Journey. Next, we will see if BJ
does any better at showing evidence for his belief that John was written as
allegory rather than being a historical document that includes samples of Jesus’
allegorical illustrations.
© 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]
Inerrancy and the Patron Saint of Evangelicalism: C.S. Lewis on Holy Scripture,
Plenary 2 — 2013 National Conference, The Romantic Rationalist: God, Life, and
Imagination in the Work of C.S. Lewis
Resource by Philip Ryken: https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/inerrancy-and-the-patron-saint-of-evangelicalism-c-s-lewis-on-holy-scripture
[2]
Ibid.
[3]
Ibid.
[4]
The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible by B. B. Warfield: https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/warfield/The_Inspiration_and_Authority_o_-_B_B_Warfield.pdf
[5]
Was the Jesus story copied from ancient myths?
[6]
Is Jesus a myth?
[7]
The Bible Did NOT Copy Other Religions
No comments:
Post a Comment