Examining "A More Christlike Word"
by Brad Jersak
Day 69
“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 |
What
is interesting about my extra time at the “true myth” viewpoint is that what
Lewis was saying was totally new to me and I first thought he was agreeing with
BJ. It was a good education for me to discover what Lewis meant by “true myth”,
and that I could agree with the sense of what he said, including how different “true myth”
is from mythological/fable myth. I summarized Lewis’s view about true myth as, “the
awe-inspiring nature of ultimate reality”. The fable mythologies addressed
these issues, so in that sense, they were appealing to the incredibleness of the
spiritual world, but nothing was true, so it was not actually showing ultimate
reality.
However, in the Bible, we have the “awe-inspiring” focus on the
spiritual world of God and man, but presented in the way of “ultimate reality”
so that it is “true myth”, or the true account of the awe-inspiring realities
of everything.
With
that as a segue from that day’s journal journey to today, I am forced to slog
through BJ’s claims about the gospel of John as allegory. I know John’s gospel
contains allegorical illustrations, and John’s writing is fascinating with its
beautiful imageries and revelations of God’s thoughts being so much higher than
our own.
I
actually feel like BJ is sitting me down to tell me that a good friend isn’t
who I thought he was, and that there are hidden things about him that are quite
different from what I believed I knew. Hmmm… was I just being allegorical? Or
was that just a simple simile? Or a generic word-picture? Fascinating.
John’s
Historical Allegory (p. 145).
Since
I’m examining the domino thoughts that are supposed to tell everyone that
John’s gospel was written as allegory, let’s begin with the opening claim:
|
BJ’s Claim |
Monte’s Response |
|
“The Gospel according to John is our densest biblical example of the
literal, moral, and spiritual sense on full display” (P. 146). |
No, not by BJ’s pendulum-extreme version of what those words mean. |
BJ
tackles the opening words of John’s gospel, first with “in the beginning”. His
mentor claimed that this was not a reference to time and that it really spoke
of “the guardians or magistrates of city-states such as Athens” (p. 146). I’m looking
for some sense of what that would mean, but we’ll just have to leave that here
with an open question to its definition, and how in the world the Logos would
be in the guardians!
|
BJ’s Claim |
Monte’s Response |
|
“Connected to this sense of governance, arche is not a temporal
‘beginning’ but includes the idea of ‘origin’ or ‘source’ or ‘ground of
being” (p. 146). |
This is a claim, so I will look to see what I find when I look up the
meaning of “in the beginning” in my resources. I will step outside the box so I have more room to expand my examples. |
First, the Bible Sense Lexicon defines
“arche” as, “beginning of world n. — the temporal beginning
of the universe.” Strike one against the BJs.
Second, Gerald Brochert writes, “This
statement asserts that the Logos existed before creation began. John confirms
this assertion in the two following verses.”[1] Strike two against the BJs.
Third, Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown write,
“In the beginning—of all time and created existence, for this Word gave it
being (Jn 1:3, 10); therefore, ‘before the world was’ (Jn 17:5, 24); or, from
all eternity.”[2] Strike three against the BJs.
Fourth, William Hendriksen writes, “In the
beginning—when the heavens and the earth were created (Gen. 1:1)—the Word
already existed. This is another way of saying that he existed from all
eternity. He was not what certain heretics claimed him to be, a created being.”[3] Strike four against the BJs.
Fifth, Marvin R. Vincent in his Word
Studies in the New Testament writes,
In the beginning was (ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν). With evident allusion to the first word of Genesis. But John elevates the phrase from its reference to a point of time, the beginning of creation, to the time of absolute pre-existence before any creation, which is not mentioned until ver. 3. This beginning had no beginning (compare ver. 3; 17:5; 1 Ep. 1:1; Eph. 4:4; Prov. 8:23; Ps. 90:2).[4]
Quoting Milligan and Moulton, Vincent
continues,
In Gen. 1:1, the sacred historian starts from the beginning and comes downward, thus keeping us in the course of time. Here he starts from the same point, but goes upward, thus taking us into the eternity preceding time” (Milligan and Moulton).
Next, Vincent explains “in the beginning” in
reference to “the word”,
This notion of “beginning” is still further heightened by the subsequent statement of the relation of the Logos to the eternal God. The ἀρχή must refer to the creation—the primal beginning of things; but if, in this beginning, the Logos already was, then he belonged to the order of eternity.
This clearly continues the theme of “in the
beginning” meaning “from all eternity”, the Logos existing before the beginning
of space, time, matter, and energy. Strike five for the BJs.
Sixth, Bryant and Krause in their commentary
on John write,
The words “In the beginning” echo Genesis 1:1, especially to Jewish Christians; however, these words in John 1:1 do not refer to the act of creating but to the one who existed and who was present when creation took place, that is, the Word.[5]
Again, the
“beginning” is understood as creation, but the Word existed in eternity because
he was already there in the beginning of creation, and, as we see in the next
few verses, is the one who brought the beginning to its beginning! Strike six
for the BJs.
Seventh, in the commentary on John 1:1 with www.preceptsaustin.org,
we read,
In the beginning (en arche) - What beginning? When is the beginning? Does he mean the beginning of eternity? Of course not, as eternity by its very nature has no beginning and no end, a truth no finite mind can fully grasp. What John is saying could be paraphrased "Before even time began was the Word." And so beginning refers to the inception of creation. When the creation came into existent, Jesus was already there. No matter how far back we believe the beginning to be, we will find Jesus, the pre-existent Word.[6]
This makes it clear
that John’s focus was not on some allegorical illustration, but on the fact of
history that before the beginning of history was eternity, and in that eternity
was the Word, and the Word brought history to its beginning in creation. Strike
seven against the BJs view on the matter.
Eighth, our Got Questions ministry adds
this,
John 1:1 says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” The Gospel of John begins much like Genesis, the “book of beginnings.” The account of creation in Genesis begins with the phrase In the beginning (Genesis 1:1), which is translated from the Hebrew word bereshit. In the Septuagint (the Greek Old Testament), which shares the same language as the Gospel of John, the words used in Genesis 1:1a are identical with John 1:1a: en arche, or “in the beginning.”[7]
How interesting that BJ does not refer to
the Septuagint for this one! The Septuagint treats Genesis 1:1 to mean the same
thing as John 1:1, clearly speaking of something that happened “in the
beginning”. Which would make this a resounding strike eight for the BJs!
Ninth, Matthew Henry explains “the
beginning” like this,
1. His existence in the beginning: In the beginning was the Word. This bespeaks his existence, not only before his incarnation, but before all time. The beginning of time, in which all creatures were produced and brought into being, found this eternal Word in being. The world was from the beginning, but the Word was in the beginning.[8]
Again, the meaning
of the beginning refers to creation. The world began from there, the Word was
already there. Real history, not allegory.
I will go for a tenth example here (as I’m
finding them on my Logos Bible Systems software). This is from the New Bible
Commentary: 21st Century Edition. The simple statement is, “The Word
that now is was in existence before the world began.”[9]
That is the tenth strike for the BJs. Every
commentary I have looked at speaks of “the beginning” as referencing creation,
the very next thing John speaks about in his gospel. First, he speaks of the
Word who existed in eternity “prior” to the beginning. Then he shows the Word creating
the beginning. And then he shows the Word becoming flesh and entering the
creation.
While the concept of “the Word” is saturated
with meaning, nothing John describes here is allegorical. The beginning of
creation was as concrete as we can get as the very substance, time, space, and
energy of the material realm was spoken into existence by Jesus Christ our
Lord. As usual, BJ has given us no reason to believe his claim that John was
referring to some kind of guardians or gatekeepers in writing about “the
beginning”.
So, with that lesson in “the beginning”
contradicting BJ’s claim, let’s see how he handles “the Logos” as “the Word”.
I tried
letting BJ explain what he learned, but I’m not yet sure where he’s taking
things so I will step in where he makes this false statement about the logos,
or “Word” in the first verses of John’s gospel:
|
BJ’s Claim |
Monte’s Response |
|
“This logos is also present before God and is God” (p. 147). |
That’s not what the text says even if you’re trying to make logos fit
the non-literal Literal Sense as mentioned earlier. There is nothing that was
present before God because God always existed. Plus, that is not what John
wrote! |
The
Beginning of Signs (p. 147)
The
first thing I see is so many claims to “metaphors”. And when BJ does that, we
know he has an agenda. It is not to show how one real historical event in the
Scriptures can be interpreted allegorically as an illustration of something
else, but to claim that the original pictures themselves were allegorical, not
real.
Why does
BJ keep doing this? Because he wants to steal, kill, and destroy our faith in
the authority of what God has written in his word. As the serpent asked, “Did
God actually say…?”, the BJs want us to doubt that what is written has the
authority of the words that God himself breathed out. I’m not sure I can
address every claim to a metaphor, but I would challenge the reader to ask and
answer honestly whether BJ’s claim that something is a metaphor because the
Bible treats it like a metaphor, or because BJ is again acting like the
authority who can tell us what the Bible says and means.
|
BJ’s Claim |
Monte’s Response |
|
“Do the details of the story mean something more-than-literal to John?”
(p. 147). |
This is simple: does the Bible treat any given text as having a
meaning beyond the literal description at hand? For example, the wedding at Cana is described as a real event. It is
given in details of what took place. It is not a metaphor, or an allegory, or
a parable. It is one of the many scenes of history in the gospels. Now, since BJ is weaving words together to make it sound like John was
written as an allegory, let’s step outside the box and consider what we see
here for real. |
The
miracle at Cana is described as “the first of
his signs,” whereby Jesus “manifested his glory”, with the result that “his
disciples believed in him” (John 2:11). This means that the event was real, not
metaphorical or allegorical. It is now (in the breathed-out words of God in
John’s gospel) identified as a “sign”. It was clearly the first miracle Jesus did
to manifest the glory John already introduced in 1:14 when he declared, “And
the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as
of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.” John is now
recounting (while being carried along by the Holy Spirit to write what he was
given by God, not what he determined by his own will) the ways that Jesus showed
his glory so that John could say that the disciples saw it.
This
is rather magnificent, actually. We have BJ exposing himself as a fraud in
trying to downplay John’s gospel into allegory (I know, I know, while trying to
convince us that allegorical means better than real), while John is using the real-life
events of the life of Jesus Christ to show how Jesus showed his glory to everyone
at a wedding, but especially to his new disciples who were trying to understand
who he was.
BJ
wants us to start imagining metaphorical/allegorical meanings in the text where
none are stated. My response is simple: if the Bible presents an allegorical
interpretation (as Paul did in Galatians) then we can treat a genuinely
historical event as an illustration of greater things.
HOWEVER!!!
Here’s
a different side to the “third day” reference: that it is one of the details in
this account that shows it was NOT allegorical, but was identified in one
reference after another that meant one thing and not another. For example, “on
the third day” references when it was. “A wedding” references what it was. “At
Cana in Galilee” references where it was. “The mother of Jesus was there”
references who it was. “They have no wine” identifies the problem that came up.
Identifying that Jesus’ mother was in focus only means that she was involved as
his mother telling her son to help solve the problem.
Everything else is one literal (real) detail after another. And by the
time we get to “This, the first of his signs”, and that this “manifested his
glory”, it is clear that it was the miracle of turning water into the best of
wine that gave the disciples their first manifestation of his glory so that
they believed in him.
This
would be a good time to include this reminder: “I have applied all these things
to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not
to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one
against another” (I Corinthians 4:6). Paul was warning about people claiming to
find things in Scripture that aren’t stated. They go beyond what is written with
their ideas. Because they are making up their own additions, it requires people
to take their word for it that it is there since it is not clearly stated. This
makes people choose between speakers/authors they prefer rather than honoring
all the men who proclaim the whole counsel of God without going beyond what is
written.
My
point is that, unless it is written that the miracle at Cana meant something
more than what John wrote, it means what John wrote, not what BJ claims. Anything
else we get from this in a metaphorical way is without authority.
|
BJ’s Claim |
Monte’s Response |
|
In reference to “the third day”, BJ claims, “For John, it’s an all-too-obvious
pointer to the resurrection ‘on the third day.’” |
No, this is not “for John”, but “for BJ”. And saying the words “it’s an all-too-obvious” pointer to the
resurrection doesn’t put clothes on the Emperor, if you know what I mean. |
Okay,
so we are coming into another one of those viewpoints on the trail where BJ
puts up the signpost of something that is there and… well… it ISN’T!
In this
case, his signpost on the viewpoint is that John is writing in “historical
allegory”. But that is clearly not what we see when we look at the view!
To
preface BJ’s next claim, he uses the NASB translation to make sure something
stands out: “This beginning of His signs Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and
manifested His glory, and His disciples believed in Him” (p. 148). Now, here’s
the point:
|
BJ’s Claim |
Monte’s Response |
|
“John says this is the arche – the beginning, the ground – of the
semeion (signs) that Jesus produced to reveal his glory” (p. 148). |
Here we see why it is necessary to take our time exploring the words
BJ is using (myth, guardians, etc) because once he sells a wrong definition,
he can keep pulling up those words and reusing them with people believing
they mean what he says they mean. In this case, we saw that “arche” referred to the beginning of time.
When time began, the Word was already there. Existing in eternity. What we have here is the same word now speaking of “the beginning” of
something else, in this case, the time when Jesus began to reveal his glory
through signs. In one case, the Word existed before the beginning. In this
case, turning water into wine was the beginning of Jesus revealing himself through
signs. No guardians. No fanfare. Just a time indicator of the first of
others, which we know is seven in total in John’s gospel. |
|
BJ’s Claim |
Monte’s Response |
|
“So rather than reading this as ‘Jesus’s first miracle,’ we have Jesus
grounding all his signs in this sign – third day, water-to-wine,
transformation – and in this way” (p. 148). |
If BJ was indeed the authority he makes himself out to be, that’s
clearly the point he wants us to believe. However, that’s not what the text says. The text says this was the
first of Jesus' signs, the beginning of him revealing himself through signs,
and it is not given any special status besides that. No “historical allegory”.
Just a very real sign of very real glory. |
|
BJ’s Claim |
Monte’s Response |
|
“In effect, John identifies his guiding hermeneutic from this point as
historical allegory” (p. 148). |
Nope. He does not. Rather, John identifies a theme in his gospel account, that Jesus revealed
himself to his disciples with these signs. This was the beginning of that
series. Historical? Yes. Allegory? No. |
|
BJ’s Claim |
Monte’s Response |
|
“That is, the ‘signs’ of John are unlike the ‘miracles’ of the
Synoptic Gospels” (p. 148). |
They might have a slightly different nuance in emphasizing sign instead
of miracle, but no, they are not unlike the miracles, and the word is
translated as both signs and miracles. Sign: “miracle ⇔ sign n. — a marvelous event manifesting a supernatural act of a divine agent;
often with an emphasis on communicating a message” (Bible Sense Lexicon). “The term is used more often by John than by the other Gospel-writers.
It indicates a miracle viewed as a proof of divine authority and majesty.”[10] So, no, there is no need to make a big distinction between signs and
miracles since the Bible does not. |
|
BJ’s Claim |
Monte’s Response |
|
“Whereas the Synoptic miracles were performed by Jesus of Nazareth
(and his apostles) as a human dependent on and anointed with the power of the
Spirit, John’s ‘signs’ are manifestations of Christ’s glory” (p. 148). |
Again, says who? Question, is there any commentary on this in the Bible that denies any
distinction between Jesus as revealed in each of the four gospel
accounts? Yes, it is this: “Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with
mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as
you yourselves know—” (Acts 2:22). Peter did not differentiate. Jesus was “attested” to everyone “by God” with all the “mighty works and wonders and signs”, with that understanding “that God did (these) through him (through Jesus)”. There is nothing in the Bible that claims that Jesus did his miracles one way in three accounts and in a different way in John. All of them were the same God working through the same Son in the same power of God to make the glory of the Son known so the Son could give glory to the Father in all he did. |
|
BJ’s Claim |
Monte’s Response |
|
“Or, as Ron put it, ‘the signs’ are portals to a typological reading”
(p. 148). |
No, the signs are historical events revealing concrete realities of
the glory of Jesus Christ. I should also not that BJ has twisted the meaning of “typological”
from its original sense of some earlier events of history being a “type” of
something that was fulfilled in Christ to treating the original events as
allegorical instead of real. His wording is deceptive, but there is nothing
about recognizing the “types” of the Old Testament that requires treating
history as allegory. |
However, BJ tries to clarify:
|
BJ’s Claim |
Monte’s Response |
|
“They actually occur, but they also mean something. They act as
allegories in time” (p. 148). |
If it wasn’t for the fact that BJ has already written off significant
parts of the Scriptures as allegories that did NOT “actually occur”, we might
be okay with what he is saying here. I would simply leave this with the sense
that an allegorical meaning would have to be true to the context, and BJ has
a really bad track record of that not being the case! And because he is
trying to use this to prove that John was written as “historical allegory”, I
am on guard against this point being used to support that when it does not. |
As we
have reached a break in the narrative, I will conclude with a clarification
from outside the BJ’s group of peddlers. G.L. Borchert in his commentary on
John 1-11 writes,
Some have thought that the jars represented for the evangelist the Jewish religion and that John was signaling by this story a transition, the abandoning of Jewish rituals. Some have viewed the wedding celebration as a prediction of the marriage feast of the Lamb. Some have seen in the abundance of the wine an indication of the overflowing abundance expected in the messianic Year of Jubilee and the lack of wine before the act of Jesus as a commentary on the empty state of Jewish worship. Some have seen in the linking of this Cana story and the sign of bread in chap. 6 a symbol of the Eucharist or Lord’s Supper. But all of these seem to press the symbolism beyond the clear meaning of the text and the principle of sanctified restraint.[11]
We
could definitely use some sanctified restraint in the BJs’ circle. The unsanctified
imagination is deadly. However, I will close with this Christ-exalting
spotlight on our Savior:
Whether in any particular passage the term sign has this deep meaning—namely, a physical illustration of a spiritual principle—will have to be determined by the context. One thing, however, is certain: the sign points away from itself to the One who performed it.[12]
And,
since the context of John’s gospel does not present any of the signs as “historical
allegory”, or “allegorical history”, or anything resembling turning real
history into whatever lessons people want to imagine, we will keep the focus on
what the texts tell us in God’s own words.
|
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.
|
I’m
just pointing out that BJ’s non-literal Literal Sense is not getting any
support from what we have looked at thus far in this chapter. His strawman of
Literalism obviously isn’t even part of the picture. But the Historical-Grammatical
sense is clearly doing its work as the grammar of the passage and the history
it describes taken in the context of the chapter and the gospel point to real
events that continue to manifest Jesus’ real glory to us today as clearly as they
did in… well… the BEGINNING!
© 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]
Borchert, G. L. (1996). John 1–11 (Vol. 25A, p. 102). Broadman & Holman
Publishers.
[2]
Jamieson, R., Fausset, A. R., & Brown, D. (1997). Commentary Critical and
Explanatory on the Whole Bible (Vol. 2, p. 127). Logos Research Systems, Inc.
[3]
Hendriksen, W., & Kistemaker, S. J. (1953–2001). Exposition of the Gospel
According to John (Vol. 1, pp. 68–69). Baker Book House.
[4]
Vincent, M. R. (1887). Word studies in the New Testament (Vol. 2, pp. 24–25).
Charles Scribner’s Sons.
[5]
Bryant, B. H., & Krause, M. S. (1998). John (Jn 1:1). College Press Pub.
Co.
[8]
Henry, M. (1994). Matthew Henry’s commentary on the whole Bible: complete and
unabridged in one volume (p. 1915). Hendrickson.
[9]
Guthrie, D. (1994). John. In D. A. Carson, R. T. France, J. A. Motyer, & G.
J. Wenham (Eds.), New Bible commentary: 21st century edition (4th ed., p.
1025). Inter-Varsity Press.
[10]
Hendriksen, W., &
Kistemaker, S. J. (1953–2001). Exposition of the Gospel According to John (Vol.
1, p. 117). Baker Book House.
[11]
Borchert, G. L. (1996). John
1–11 (Vol. 25A, pp. 158–159). Broadman & Holman Publishers.
[12]
Hendriksen, W., &
Kistemaker, S. J. (1953–2001). Exposition of the Gospel According to John (Vol.
1, p. 117). Baker Book House.
No comments:
Post a Comment