Examining "A More Christlike Word"
by Brad Jersak
Day 90
“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 |
One of the things I have enjoyed about my journey down BJ’s garden path
has been the other path God has added to the mix. It is a combination of my
morning time with God in his word and prayer and listening to the Scriptures
read to me during my exercise ordeals. I have not had to do any real studying
of themes and topics addressed because God keeps giving me what to share
directly out of these experiences with his word.
As I am heading down the homestretch with a growing crescendo of BJ’s
suppositions demanding attention, it is completely discordant with the
orchestration God is symphonizing into my soul through the music of his word.
So it was especially significant what I heard read to me this morning during my
exercise time, and how God spoke to me through my ongoing journey through
Matthew.
For the preface, I will focus on what I heard through the last 10 chapters of Joshua and on into the first 5 chapters of Judges. I am adding this at the beginning even though it comes after just starting my point 15 below last night. Here are the highlights that relate to God’s rebuke to BJ’s claims.
1. In Joshua 22, there is this reference to Achan’s sin as real history: “Did not Achan the son of Zerah break faith in the matter of the devoted things, and wrath fell upon all the congregation of Israel? And he did not perish alone for his iniquity’” (vs 20). First, this is another repetition of something from history that is spoken of as a real historical event, rebuking BJ’s claim that Old Testament history is allegorical. Second, they identify that “wrath fell upon all the congregation of Israel” as a real event. The Hebrew word for “wrath” means “wrath n. — a feeling of intense anger that does not subside; often on an epic scale” (BSL). In Joshua 7:1 we were told of the original historical event, “And the anger of the LORD burned against the people of Israel.” The Hebrew word for “anger” means, “to become angry ⇔ hot in the nose v. — to be or become angry and feel aversion and antipathy for something, conceived of as becoming hot in the nose” (BSL), emphasized with “burned”. Note that this is “the anger OF Yahweh”, not a statement about Achan’s sin. By chapter 22 the people are recounting how “the anger of Yahweh” meant “wrath fell upon” the people first, followed by Achan being singled out for his sin. Also note that God led the people to stone Achan and his unrepentant family to death, meaning it was an objective expression of God’s judgment on Achan and his family, not a mercy-trumps-judgment allegory to show how terrible Achan had been. Achan FELT God’s judgment expressed through God’s people and the whole nation knew that justice had been meted out.
2. What stood out next was another recitation of God’s history in bringing his people into the Promised Land. Now we not only have the original extremely detailed descriptions that defy allegory, and previous equally detailed reminders of these historical events, but now another detailed reminder as further steps are taken for the people to settle in the land, all declaring history, not allegory.
3. When we come to Joshua 24, Joshua is preparing God’s people to soon carry on without him. Once again, Joshua speaks of history as history, calling the people to “Put away the gods that your fathers served beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the LORD (Yahweh)” (vs 14). This leads to that famous clarification. After urging them to serve Yahweh, he adds, “And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the LORD, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell” (vs 15). When I heard this as I huffed and puffed my way through my exercise, I could see how this was happening through my response to BJ’s “another Jesus”, “different spirit”, and “different gospel”. My response to his book is truly aimed at calling people to “put away the gods” the BJs are presenting and trust in the true Lord Jesus Christ. However, since so many are buying into what the BJs are peddling I also want to challenge them (and the friends we lost) to make a decision: “if it is evil in your eyes” to serve the true Lord Jesus Christ as revealed in the Bible, then “choose this day whom you will serve…” In other words, Joshua’s exhortation to “choose this day whom you will serve” did NOT include Yahweh! This was in the scenario that they found it “evil” to serve the Yahweh of their history. To Joshua, if they were going to reject Yahweh, or reject “the only true God”, or reject the true Lord Jesus Christ, then understand you are picking from one of the gods and idols of the world, the flesh, and the devil. And so it is with BJ’s more “Christlike” word and God. If it is evil to anyone to serve the “only true God” and “live by every word that comes from the mouth of God”, then take ownership of the “another Jesus” that is no Jesus at all.
4. I found it interesting that the first historical description of the book of Judges included cutting off the thumbs and big toes of the defeated king. His testimony was, “Seventy kings with their thumbs and their big toes cut off used to pick up scraps under my table. As I have done, so God has repaid me.” Real history. Real judgment. God “repaid” him through the justice of God’s people. That doesn’t clash one little bit with all the references to God’s vengeance and repayment of enemies.
5. In the next couple of chapters (Judges 2&3), it really stood out what it said about God’s anger against his people when they turned to idols, and his actions in judging them. It all sounds like history, not allegory. It is a repeated pattern that heads all through Judges as the nation experienced God’s judgment when they turned to idols, and his deliverance through Judges when they repented and reconciled. So much history showing how God’s judgment and mercy were always working together to respond to everyone however they were relating to him. Here are some samples:
a.
The
people did evil (2:11), they “abandoned” Yahweh and “went after other gods”
(2:12). This “provoked the LORD to anger” (2:12). “Provoked” means “to provoke
to anger v. — to call forth a feeling of anger” (BSL). The wording is so clear
that this is what happened in Yahweh, not what it was saying about the people
as BJ claims.
b.
“So
the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he gave them over to
plunderers, who plundered them. And he sold them into the hand of their
surrounding enemies, so that they could no longer withstand their enemies”
(2:14). The “anger” is more of that “hot in the nose” kind, and it was again “kindled”
emphasizing the intensity of God’s response. What is so clear is that God did
not trump judgment with mercy, but increased the judgment corresponding to the
stubbornness of the rebellion.
c.
“Whenever
they marched out, the hand of the LORD was against them for harm, as the LORD
had warned, and as the LORD had sworn to them. And they were in terrible
distress” (2:15). “Harm” means “calamity (event) n. — an event resulting in
great loss and misfortune” (BSL). And Yahweh’s response to them was exactly as
he had warned, which goes all the way back to Moses before they entered the
land, and to Joshua all the way back to when they had first settled the land.
History. Judgment. Covenant relationship.
d.
“Then
the LORD raised up judges, who saved them out of the hand of those who
plundered them” (2:16). THERE is God’s mercy. After he judged them, his mercy
came to restore them. HOWEVER…
e.
“Yet
they did not listen to their judges, for they whored after other gods and bowed
down to them” (2:17). HOWEVER…
f.
“Whenever
the LORD raised up judges for them, the LORD was with the judge, and he saved
them from the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge. For the LORD was
moved to pity by their groaning because of those who afflicted and oppressed
them” (2:18). Note: “moved to pity” means “to be grieved v. — to be caused to
feel sorrow” (BSL). This is parallel to being moved to anger. Judgment and mercy.
g.
After
repeating how this pattern kept repeating itself (a Judge died and they turned
back to idols; a Judge was given and they followed Yahweh) it concludes, “They
did not drop any of their practices or their stubborn ways. So the anger of the
LORD was kindled against Israel” (2:19-20). Yahweh was “moved to pity” and it
was his “anger” that “was kindled”. All of it emphasizing how either his
judgment or his mercy responded to whichever stage the people were in.
h.
The
next description is of how Yahweh stopped driving out the nations because his
people kept turning to idols. 3:7 says the people did evil; 3:8 says God’s
anger was kindled. 3:9 says the people cried out to Yahweh and he again “saved
them” by sending a deliverer. And so we begin the lists and descriptions of the
Judges God sent. However, what stands out is that the hand of the LORD on all
the Judges makes God the one who was showing them mercy.
i. This really stood out to me as chapter 4 began because it said, “And the people of Israel again did what was evil in the sight of the LORD after Ehud died. And the LORD sold them into the hand of Jabin king of Canaan, who reigned in Hazor” (4:1-2). “Sold” means “to hand over ⇔ sell v. — to surrender someone or something to another, conceived of as selling a thing” (BSL). The people did evil towards Yahweh; Yahweh actively handed them over to their enemies. It cannot mean that this describes an anthropomorphism of God that really only means he had bad kids.
6. I will conclude my preface with Judges 5, “The Song of Deborah and Barak”. Here’s the cool thing that stood out: we were just given four chapters of history relating to the Judges God provided for Israel, and now Deborah and Barak sang a song all about it, and do you know what?! I could tell the difference between the historical record and the poetry of the song! Isn’t that amazing?! We can actually read and enjoy the songs of Scripture discerning the beauty of the metaphors and figurative wording while knowing it is describing the events that really did take place. I mean it even has a verse about Jael who drove a tent peg through an enemy soldier’s temple! And how does this amazing song end? “‘So may all your enemies perish, O LORD! But your friends be like the sun as he rises in his might.’ And the land had rest for forty years” (5:31).
7. And how does chapter 6 begin?! “The people of Israel did what was evil in the sight of the LORD, and the LORD gave them into the hand of Midian seven years.” The people DID; Yahweh GAVE THEM INTO. However, as the cycle continues, the people again cried out to Yahweh, God sent a prophet to rebuke them, and then he called Gideon to deliver them. Real history. Both judgment and mercy all through the generations of the Judges. And it all reveals God as an inherently just and merciful God who feels anger towards the evil of his idolatrous children, and feels pity and compassion for them even long before they repent (like the Father waiting for his prodigal to come home).
Now,
back to the garden path:
Tongue Twisters and Sunsets: Phenomenology (p. 250).
1. In the opening page of this chapter, BJ is again setting the stage (I think that’s metaphorical, not phenomenological) to show us why we cannot read Scripture “literally”, meaning, in its plain reading. Enter stage right: phenomenological. The question will NOT be whether this exists in Scripture, but whether BJ applies it honestly.
2. As to the question of God changing his mind (p. 250), here is a Got Questions’ article that clarifies this.[1] As to BJ’s focus, I’m watching where the spotlight is heading.
3. Okay, we’re up to the first bogus application (p. 252). In quoting Anthony the Great, he says “‘To say that God turns away from the wicked is the same as to say that the sun hides itself from those who lose their sight.’” Bogus. What God does is active, what the sun does is passive. Not the same thing at all.
4. His claim that “biblical literalists” (he is speaking of his strawman version of people who take God’s word to mean what it says) are not “willing to allow biblical authors to speak phenomenologically about God without taking them literally” is bogus. Cutesy. But still bogus. The issue is whether the reference in question IS phenomenological, not whether there is such a thing in Scripture.
5. Okay. A short chapter. A point with zero evidence. My conclusion is that I am not going to diss the plain reading of something God did as phenomenological without something in the context telling me to read it that way.
Thus
Quoth the Fathers: God’s “Wrath” as Anthropomorphism (p. 254).
This feels like arriving back at the starting place. This is where I lost my new friends. Claiming God’s attributes were anthropomorphisms instead of inherent realities of the divine nature. As usual, I will be looking for evidence from within Scripture, not hearsay that requires me to treat BJ as an authority over Scripture.
1. Referring to his other book offensively entitled, “A More Christlike God”, reminds me of the first pages I read of that one (by accident) where the introducer was describing people who find in Scripture the God they want to find. I smiled as he described what I was pretty sure BJ is doing. Now that I am 91% of the way through this book, that is now settled, that BJ is making good money proclaiming the “another Jesus” with the “different spirit” and the “different gospel” he wanted to find in Scripture.
2. He claims to have “showed how the Bible itself comes to view wrath as a metaphor for God’s consent to our defiance – as ‘giving us over’ to our willful ways” (p. 254). No, throughout the Scriptures, God’s wrath is his judgment against sin. And I’m not reading another one of BJ’s books to find out what he claims. If he wants to declare that point in this book, the onus is on him to give some evidence on these pages.
3. Next, he uses Psalm 7:15 to argue, “And thus, his judgments come to be seen as the natural and spiritual consequences intrinsic to our sin” (p. 254). In the context of Psalm 7, David attributes to God “your anger”. He says that Yahweh “judges the peoples”, that he “is a righteous judge, and a God who feels indignation every day”. Now here is that clarification BJ keeps missing, “If a man does not repent…” This continues the theme that we do not choose between God’s mercy and judgment as if mercy “trumps” judgment, but look at what people do and expect God to respond accordingly. If someone does NOT repent, David states that God WILL take action (vss 12-13). He then describes how the evil man’s own sins find him out (vss 14-16). BJ wants us to think that it is one or the other when it looks like David describes both, that God takes action, and the wicked man reaps what he sows as well. At the very least, he is taking another verse out of context to connect it to his claim and I don’t buy it.
4. Paul’s declaration that “the wages of sin is death” is no more a “natural and spiritual consequence intrinsic to our sin” than the other half of the verse that BJ is NOT sharing (didn’t we just read about him accusing Paul of doing this) “but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” is a natural consequence instead of a deliberate act of God’s nature. The wages of sin as “death” was promised by God in the garden, and the free gift is given by God in the gospel. Both are the active activity of God.
5. I can’t type out the paragraph on page 254 where BJ claims that the Bible “distances God” from actively judging sin, but I deny it is radical or necessary to make the leap he peddles. There is nothing radical about the serpent’s “did God actually say…?” And it certainly is NOT necessary to do something with zero evidence that we ought to.
6. We are now at the long-awaited “proof” that God’s wrath is an anthropomorphism. And who is first in line? Someone who lived over 4 centuries after Christ! First, there is reasoning that there are other anthropomorphisms so “wrath” must be one of them.
7. Second, because “wrath” is used of people it must be blasphemy to attribute it to God. More reasoning.
8. Third, there is a forced parallel between anthropomorphic metaphors in relation to the human body and how this MUST apply to God’s justice so that God does not really feel wrath against sin, but it somehow helps us picture his justice against sin. I simply state that this is Cassian’s opinion, not something that is apparent in Scripture.
9. Fourth, Cassian then (who apparently has us “on our heels”) identifies that when we read “wrath” in Scripture (even though we are reading it there because we find it there), it is “a projection of our own hearts rather than an accurate response to the character of the divine Judge” (p. 258). I’m still waiting to see evidence because everything so far is just rhetorical strategies without substance from Scripture to back it up.
10. Fifth, BJ again speaks of “we” without identifying who this is (p. 258). Why is this important? Because there are things that apply to “we” born-again Christians that cannot be said of unbelievers. For believers, the merciful children of God, mercy triumphs over judgment (not “trumps”!). But for unbelievers, BJ would need to quote verses speaking about them!
11. Sixth, BJ now does a hatchet job on I John 3:18-22 claiming that what John said about our hearts condemning or not condemning us proves his point that it is how we view God that makes him appear one way or t’other. He absolutely does NOT make his case because the two are not connected. Also, I have no problem with any Scriptures that relate to believers “renewing our minds”. But that does not support BJ’s claim that it is what is in our minds that makes God BE a God of wrath or mercy. I’m just putting this out there that he is putting the words together, but they are not the same thing.
12. The issue at hand is what God’s word SAYS. Even though we may have internal struggles in relating to God accurately, that still doesn’t mean that when God breathed out the words “wrath”, “fury”, “anger”, we can artificially tag those onto our own subjective feelings/beliefs about him. And as much as he felt writing Cassian into the script would boost his case, I still didn’t hear anything that told me to change viewing God’s choice of words as “breathed out by God” for something someone came up with four centuries after Jesus and the apostles were gone.
13. Next is “Saint Ambrose (p. 260). More claims that God’s wrath could not mean wrath. BJ reasons that God can’t be love and wrath at the same time. But Psalm 7 that he shared told us that “God is a righteous judge, and a God who feels indignation every day” (vs 11). Why shouldn’t I then believe that God being love all the time makes him express love to his children all the time, while God feeling indignation every day means he also expresses indignation to his enemies every day? I get the rhetoric of claiming that a God who loves his children can’t feel anger against their abusers, but I don’t see how it is necessary or even good. Again, I’m willing to change my views if Scripture calls me to, but I’m still just hearing hearsay. BJ’s personal parenting story doesn’t tell me anything about God in his wrath against sin.
14. Next, “Saint Isaac of Nineveh” (p. 261). I agree that what human beings do does not change the “nature” of God. However, because wrath is presented as part of God’s nature, this is no problem. I do notice BJ keeps replacing “wrath” with “angry or resentful” and synonyms. Not the same thing. However, it appears that there is a continuing rhetoric to reason that God being love cannot feel wrath against sin, and that claim has not been substantiated. God’s justice against sin in sinners is totally compatible with his love expressed to his reconciled children.
15. I will need to deal with Psalm 85:10 separately (p. 263).
Now,
because of my preface taking up a bit of time and room, I will save Psalm 85:10
for my next day’s Journal Journey. Instead, I will conclude with another
testimony of how God spoke to me through his word this morning.
EPILOGUE
My morning
time with God in his word brought me to the third “woe” Jesus pronounced on the
scribes and Pharisees.
“Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ‘If anyone swears by the temple, it is nothing, but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.’ You blind fools! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that has made the gold sacred? And you say, ‘If anyone swears by the altar, it is nothing, but if anyone swears by the gift that is on the altar, he is bound by his oath.’ You blind men! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that makes the gift sacred? So whoever swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. And whoever swears by the temple swears by it and by him who dwells in it. And whoever swears by heaven swears by the throne of God and by him who sits upon it” (Matthew 23:16-22).
Two things really stood out.
1. That Jesus called these men “blind guides… blind fools… blind men”. That is what it feels like to me reading BJ’s affront to how NOT Christlike Yahweh is and going through a book that feels like blindness. All the way through I have felt thoughts like, “Why didn’t he see the rest of that verse?!” “Why didn’t he see the verse that came right before (or after ) that?!” “Why didn’t he see these verses that contradict what he just claimed with that half-Scripture?!” In other words, I have spent all these dozens of days of Journal Journeying feeling like BJ would have to be blind to miss God’s judgment and mercy holding hands, or to miss how Jesus affirmed all the Hebrew Scriptures as true and trustworthy, or to see how Jesus said the same things as his Father. And this is all the more serious because of what James said that “Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness” (James 3:1). And so it is that Jesus’ indictment on the scribes and Pharisees (the Guardians of Scripture) applies to BJ since he is setting himself up as an authority who is telling people to believe things about Scripture quite different than what is breathed out by God in Scripture.
2. That the thing Jesus was condemning in the leaders was the way they were playing word games with God’s word. As the scribes and Pharisees had all these micro-rules that allowed them to cross their fingers so a vow was not a vow, BJ has all these “rhetorical” rules he uses to convince people that the words God breathed out don’t actually mean what they say. In essence, he is saying, “You can believe this half of that verse, but the other half doesn’t count”. “You can believe the verses about God’s mercy but you do not want to believe the verses about his judgment”. You can believe everything the Bible teaches about God’s love, but you can’t believe anything it says about God’s wrath.” “You can believe what the Bible says about the death of Jesus on the cross showing us what bad children we were and how much God loves us, but you cannot believe the verses that show he was punished (penal) as our substitute (substitutionary) for our reconciliation with God (atonement).”
Well,
that was the sense of it, anyway. It was Jesus pronouncing woes on the
Guardians of Scripture, the people who would write books to display all the
rules they came up with for why we can use cherry-pickin’ word games to
self-justify believing things contrary to the word of God, and then make money
selling books where the very titles indicate that the authors are rewriting
GOD!
Why did Jesus say these woes to “the crowds and his disciples”? To show them what he thought of them so the people would stop listening to them! And so it is with me as I seek to follow the example of the true Lord Jesus Christ. Stop listening to BJ, and get back reading your Bible and talking everything over with your Father in heaven!
© 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]
Does God change His mind?
No comments:
Post a Comment