Examining "A More Christlike Word"
by Brad Jersak
Day 70
“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 |
Water-to-Wine Hermeneutics (p. 148).
We are
continuing to look at how BJ is trying (and failing) to show that the gospel of
John was written as “historical allegory”. His attempt to use C.S. Lewis to
make his point failed since Lewis admitted to being no authority on the subject
of biblical genres, and his description of “true myth” did not fit “allegorical”,
but real history at the level of the awe-inspiring realities of the spiritual
and material realms.
We
have seen that “in the beginning” matches Genesis 1:1, not some allegorical
reference to principalities and powers. And we have seen that Jesus as the
Logos/Word, while richer in wonder-filled meaning than the garden path has
ventured, is expressive of the realities of his relationship to his Father that
is every bit as ultimately real as Lewis meant by his “true myth”.
BJ is presently trying to twist the miracle of Jesus
turning water into wine into an allegorical principle rather than a historical
event that revealed his glory to his disciples. However, I concluded my
previous day’s Journal Journey with a list of the fanciful things people
imagine finding in John 2:1-11 and this observation, “But all of these seem to
press the symbolism beyond the clear meaning of the text and the principle of
sanctified restraint.”[1] That is where I pick up today’s garden path journey, believing that BJ
is imagining symbolism where the Bible itself does nothing to support this. Let’s
continue into this next section and see what we find.
|
BJ’s Claim |
Monte’s Response |
|
“This water-to-wine analogy applies to Jesus’s transformation of both
the Jewish faith and of individual lives – but it also signifies the
transfiguration of our hermeneutics” (p. 148). |
First, the water-to-wine isn’t an analogy. It was a real “true myth” “ultimate
reality” event, a miracle, a sign, a wonder. Second, nothing is stated that it was teaching us about how Jesus would
fulfill the Jewish history with the realities of the kingdom of God. It was
teaching his disciples that Jesus was able to do miracles, signs, and
wonders, the things God would use to reveal Jesus’ glory to the disciples
first, and to all disciples for the rest of time. Third, nothing in this description gives us a hermeneutic that can now
apply to how we interpret the Bible. However, with good hermeneutics, like
the Historical-Grammatical Sense, we see that the turning water into wine
event was historical, and following good grammar we can see that the purpose
of the sign/miracle was for Jesus to begin revealing his glory to the
disciples. |
|
BJ’s Claim |
Monte’s Response |
|
“As Jesus’s grounding sign was water turned to wine, so also reading
by ‘the letter’ (literalism) became ‘reading by the Spirit,’ so that all
Scripture directs our eyes to Christ and his mission to make all things new”
(p. 148). |
No, it wasn’t his “grounding” sign, but his “beginning” sign. John had
introduced the theme of how the disciples had seen Jesus’ glory. For him to
show how that unfolded, something was the first step. Switching “beginning”
to “grounding” changes the meaning (which is BJ’s forte), but there is no
justification for doing so. BJ is also continuing to present a conflict between the “literal”
reading of Scripture and reading by the Spirit. He can have his two pendulum
extremes. However, reading Scripture by the Spirit does not exclude understanding
when an event is literally what the Spirit carried the writer along to write
down as the breathed-out words of God. The fact that the Scriptures lead us to Christ does not in the least
bit require allegorizing historical events. I will also state that, even though there is some truth to what it
means that Jesus will make all things new (“Behold, I am making all things
new” (Revelation 21:5), I am on guard against BJ pushing his universal
inclusion poison into the mix one seed at a time, so I reserve the right to
disagree with what BJ means without disagreeing with what the Scripture
means. |
|
BJ’s Claim |
Monte’s Response |
|
“Immediately after that story, we encounter three examples of
water-to-wine or letter-to-spirit interpretation” (p. 149). |
I’m sticking with John’s words that he is giving testimony to how Jesus
revealed his glory to them, and that all his works continued to do this. No
conflict with what the “letter” of Scripture has written, or what the Spirit
teaches and reminds when applying those Scriptures to our hearts. |
|
BJ’s Claim |
Monte’s Response |
|
About “The Temple” example, BJ speaks of the, “in three days”,
followed by “(note the symbolism again)” (p. 149). |
There is no “again”. The three days in reference to Jesus and the
disciples traveling to Cana wasn’t symbolism. It’s how long it took them to
walk that far. We know Jesus was speaking symbolically with his temple illustration
since it is clearly revealed as such. The symbolism in the temple reference
does not prove symbolism in the Cana reference. |
|
BJ’s Claim |
Monte’s Response |
|
About the “born again” reference, BJ claims that “Nicodemus needs to
overcome his literalism if he hopes to become a disciple” (p. 149). |
Again, this does not support “historical allegory”. That Jesus used
metaphors is not in question. But that John’s whole gospel is historical
allegory is misleading. Nicodemus did not need to overcome reading Scripture
as literally meaning what it says. But he did need to learn from Jesus how to
understand spiritual truth as well. |
|
BJ’s Claim |
Monte’s Response |
|
In Jesus’ visit with the Samaritan woman, BJ points out some of the
figures of speech Jesus used. However, he claims that, “And so it goes, with sign after sign, in
conversation after conversation, John replays this water-to-wine, letter-to-spirit
hermeneutic. In virtually every chapter, Jesus’s acts and speeches are
typological windows, drawn from familiar stories and images, unpacked as
types, and then applied to Christ” (p. 150). |
BJ is again speaking of Jesus using figures of speech in explaining
things to people as proof that the gospel of John is “typological”, or “historical
allegory”, which just ain’t so. Jesus included metaphors, similes, and other figures of speech (I was
so thankful to learn what hyperbole meant!) to impress spiritual truth over physical
realities. The event is true history, but the historical record includes the
figures of speech Jesus used to teach the Samaritan woman the good news of
the kingdom of God. The record of this in John 4 is history, not allegory. |
|
BJ’s Claim |
Monte’s Response |
|
“Jesus’s actual life, corroborated by eyewitness testimonies, is so
packed with meaning that the Gospels become historical allegory, and the
early church read them that way” (p. 151). |
That Jesus’ literal life is jam-packed with meaning is beyond dispute.
However, that does NOT lead to the conclusion that “the Gospels become
historical allegory”. Just as having a car in the garage does not make the
garage a car, so having allegory and other figures of speech in the gospels
does not make the gospels allegory. |
|
BJ’s Claim |
Monte’s Response |
|
“This dual reality of history and allegory is what Lewis meant by ‘true
myth’” (p. 151). |
All I can say to that is, that’s not what I got from Lewis’s own
explanation of true myth. “Myth” did not refer to allegory, but to the
awe-inspiring focus of belief. As action hero movies of our day portray
awe-inspiring feats on the part of the heroes and villains, so the gods of
mythologies portrayed awe-inspiring acts on the parts of their friends and
foes. It was that aspect of dealing with great and wonderful themes of life
that Lewis labelled as myth. And that is why he could say that all the world’s
myths were not true, but what we have in the Bible is true myth, or the genuine
article in dealing with all the grand and glorious realities of the spiritual
and material words with all the spiritual and human beings interacting on the
stage of history. And, even if I missed something regarding Lewis’s understanding of
myth, he admitted that he was not well-read regarding the genres of the
Bible, so he isn’t an authority on these matters anyway. |
Because BJ has already shown us a propensity to mishandle Scripture, and
he has already distorted what Paul meant by all Scripture being breathed-out by
God, I must distinguish between his claim that the whole of John’s gospel account
is “historical allegory”, and the sense that John gospel account is history
which includes many examples of figures of speech including allegory.
Why deny
that the whole of John’s gospel is “historical allegory” and emphasize that
John’s gospel is history that includes Jesus’ use of allegory?
Answer:
because when the whole of John’s gospel is treated as “historical allegory”, it
means every part of it can be taken to have a different meaning than what is
written. It can also set the stage for saying that something doesn’t really
mean what the words say. This is why BJ has dissed the “plain reading” of
Scripture. Not because the plain reading is unbiblical, but because it doesn’t
allow for twisting things into whatever the BJs want Scripture to say.
However, when the whole of John’s gospel is treated as history with various
figures of speech and word pictures used to illustrate spiritual points, we can
then accept what John is writing of what Jesus did and taught, and delight in
the wonders of the word pictures and figures of speech as gifts of God to help
us understand complex spiritual truths in simpler ways.
The
bottom line for me is that all four gospels are real descriptions of the
history of Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, and teaching. We take them as
written, believe Jesus did what God’s word says he did and taught what he
taught. But we are mindful to not go beyond what is written, so we do not turn
something into any kind of figure of speech without some indication that one is
being used.
I will
again refer readers to better resources than BJ’s books. I say better because
they show integrity in representing Scripture the way God presented it to us,
not twisted into every pretzel collection of words that can be peddled along
the garden path. Here are some glimpses into a handful of articles (that was a
metaphor) that are all reasonably short and to the point.
In the
article, Does the Bible contain allegory?, Got Questions concludes,
Allegory is a beautifully artistic way of explaining spiritual matters in easily understood terms. Through the Bible’s allegories, God helps us understand difficult concepts through a more relatable context. He also reveals Himself as the Great Storyteller, working through history to foreshadow and carry out His plan. We can rejoice that we have a God who addresses us in ways we can understand and who has given us symbols and allegories to remind us of Himself.[2]
I
smiled when I saw that the suggested links to other articles included this one,
What is biblical literalism?[3] This is significant because BJ has totally strawmanned the word “literalism”
to mean the pendulum-extreme of people holding so “literally” to the words of
Scripture that they do not let the Spirit do his work. However, true “biblical
literalism” accepts everything the Bible says, including the genres used to say
it, and what it teaches of the necessity of the Spirit to teach us and remind
us of all things. I much prefer the honest description of biblical literalism
to the dishonest view of BJ’s lying!
Got
Questions begins,
Biblical literalism is the method of interpreting Scripture that holds that, except in places where the text is obviously allegorical, poetic, or figurative, it should be taken literally. Biblical literalism is the position of most evangelicals and Christian fundamentalists. It is the position of Got Questions Ministries as well. (See “Can/Should we interpret the Bible as literal?”)
They
explain the sense of literalism in everyday usage,
Biblical literalism is an extension of the literalism that we all use in everyday communication. If someone enters a room and says, “The building is on fire,” we don’t start searching for figurative meanings; we start evacuating. No one stops to ponder whether the reference to “fire” is metaphorical or if the “building” is an oblique reference to 21st-century socio-economic theories. Similarly, when we open the Bible and read, “The Israelites went through the sea on dry ground, with a wall of water on their right and on their left” (Exodus 14:22), we shouldn’t look for figurative meanings for sea, dry ground, or wall of water; we should believe the miracle.
That
should be a point very well taken, that we distinguish between the literal and
metaphorical meanings of words all the time, and we don’t need the BJs telling
us that parts of the Bible are allegorical when our own reading of them has
them sounding very much like literal descriptions of historical events.
I like
the very real questions the article asks because they are the same ones I have
about BJ’s push to treat him as the authority on what in the Bible is
allegorical. “If we deny biblical literalism and try to interpret Scripture
figuratively, how are the figures to be interpreted? And who decides what is
and is not a figure?” Of course, it is clear that the BJs want to be the ones
who decide since it isn’t the Bible saying what BJ has been writing in his
book!
Continuing, “If biblical literalism is discarded, language becomes
meaningless.” And, “More importantly, if words can mean anything we assign to
them, there are no genuine promises in the Bible.” The article explains this in
more detail, but that is the sense of buying into what the BJs are peddling,
that words have no meanings since the readers assign whatever meanings they
prefer rather than seeking to understand what God really said and meant.
Their
conclusion is,
“We follow the rules of language. We are alert to metaphors and the signals of similes, like and as. But unless a text is clearly intended to be figurative, we take it literally. God’s Word was designed to communicate, and communication requires a literal understanding of the words used.”
The
next one that came up was, “How can I recognize and understand biblical
symbolism?”[4] I like this clarification,
Note that a literal interpretation of the Bible allows for figurative language. Here’s a simple rule: if the literal meaning of a passage leads to obvious absurdity, but a figurative meaning yields clarity, then the passage is probably using symbols. For example, in Exodus 19:4, God tells Israel, “I carried you on eagles’ wings.” A literal reading of this statement would lead to absurdity—God did not use real eagles to airlift His people out of Egypt. The statement is obviously symbolic; God is emphasizing the speed and strength with which He delivered Israel. This leads to another rule of biblical interpretation: a symbol will have a non-symbolic meaning. In other words, there is something real (a real person, a real historical event, a real trait) behind every figure of speech.
After
giving many examples of symbols in the Bible, they conclude,
We interpret the Bible literally, but this does not mean we ignore symbols and metaphorical language. God’s written communication to the world is a richly textured literary masterpiece and makes full use of the tools of language, including symbolism, metaphor, simile, and motif.
In, “How
should the different genres of the Bible impact how we interpret the Bible?”[5], Got Questions explains the different genres. Their conclusion is
another breath of fresh air to the toxic verbiage of BJ’s garden path.
An understanding of the genres of Scripture is vital to the Bible student. If the wrong genre is assumed for a passage, it can easily be misunderstood or misconstrued, leading to an incomplete and fallacious understanding of what God desires to communicate. God is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33), and He wants us to “correctly [handle] the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15). Also, God wants us to know His plan for the world and for us as individuals. How fulfilling it is to come to “grasp how wide and long and high and deep” (Ephesians 3:18) is the love of God for us!
I will
conclude with this one because it addresses directly “What is wrong with the
allegorical interpretation method?”[6] They even address Origen’s fanciful explanation of the Good Samaritan!
I will let their conclusion be mine as well:
There will always be some disagreement about whether certain texts are to be taken literally or figuratively and to what degree, as evidenced by disagreements over the book of Revelation, even among those who have high regard for Scripture. For a text to be interpreted allegorically or figuratively, there needs to be justification in the text itself or something in the cultural background of the original readers that would have led them to understand the text symbolically. The goal of every interpreter who has a high view of Scripture is to discover the intended meaning of the text. If the intended meaning is simply the literal communication of a historical fact or the straightforward explanation of a theological truth, then that is the inspired meaning. If the intended meaning is allegorical/typological/symbolic/figurative, then the interpreter should find some justification for it in the text and in the culture of the original hearers/readers.
© 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