Examining "A More Christlike Word"
by Brad Jersak
“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 |
Chapter 20 – Outro: Too Good
to be True?
I’m going to begin with a list of things I am excited about:
1. I am so excited to be in the last chapter of the book!
2. I am so excited that it is a short chapter!
3. And I am elated with how God spoke to me this morning through his word to (once again) give me the exact message that is needed for this final leg of BJ’s garden path!
First,
the essence of BJ’s closing chapter is to tell us once again what it sounds
like when you first misrepresent the attributes of God, then misrepresent the
Scriptures about those attributes, and then present “another Jesus” who can’t
be found IN Scripture, talking about him like he is found outside Scripture,
and then explaining away everything God said about himself by telling people
anything we don’t like in the Bible is “figurative” and Jesus isn’t like that.
Second, because BJ is continuing the serpent’s question from the garden,
“Did God actually say…?”, it grieves me to see correspondence between Brad and
people who could see the flaws in his teaching. While they point out what God’s
word says, they somehow believe Brad is an authority who can tell them that
what they can plainly read for themselves is nothing more than figurative
language that, even when it is specifically talking about God, really is only
describing us poor humble sinners. And people are falling for it!!!
Third,
I was shocked to discover that BJ has actually succeeded in publishing a
TRILOGY of books with the same admission that he is changing God, the word, and
the Way, and people are paying for him to do it! I’ll see what I need to
address directly before sharing how God ministered to me this morning with the
exact thing everyone needs to hear alongside the garden path of this closing
chapter.
|
BJ’s Claim |
Monte’s Response |
|
“‘wrath’ (orge) is a metaphor for the self-inflicted consequences of
defying God’” (p. 273). |
Bogus. When the grammar clearly speaks of “the wrath OF God”, it means it is
his. It is actively his, not some passive thing that happens to us when we’re
naughty. There are far too many examples of a historical nature showing God
pouring out his wrath on sinners to write this off as a metaphor. God has
deliberately woven his word with generation after generation of examples of
his wrath, prophecies about his wrath, teachings about his wrath, so BJ is
lying to claim a metaphor where God himself presents this as an attribute of
the divine nature. And that means that Jesus and the Holy Spirit have the
same attribute of wrath as the Father and are as fully engaged in expressing
that wrath as is the Father. |
Here are some questions for anyone who still believes Brad instead of the Bible.
1. What “authority” has Brad used to convince you to reject the authority of the Bible in what it describes of God’s wrath (I’m only referring to this attribute because it is the one BJ is talking about)?
2. What have you done with all the examples I have shared of looking at the cherry-picked partial-Scriptures BJ has presented in context and finding that none of them support his claims? In fact, I think most of them totally contradicted his claims!
3. What have you done with the discovery that there is not one reference in the New Testament of Jesus or the apostles correcting ANYTHING from the Hebrew Scriptures, but they quote them as Scripture? (Note: the one time BJ claimed Jesus was correcting Yahweh of the Hebrew Scriptures was false. In the Sermon on the Mount, when Jesus said, “You have heard it said… but I say to you…” he was clearly describing the difference between the righteousness of the religious elite in contrast to the righteousness of the kingdom of heaven. Not one of the examples was a correction to Scripture, but only to what the people were being taught from Scripture by the religious elite).
4. What have you done with the discovery that the book of Hebrews tells us the kinds of things from the Scriptures Jesus would have explained to the two men on the Road to Emmaus, and none of them support BJ’s view that any of it was allegorical, or that Jesus did not die as a substitute sacrifice who made atonement for our sins?
|
BJ’s Claim |
Monte’s Response |
|
“So then, in what sense is the wrath ‘of God’? The church fathers say,
‘Only figuratively’” (p. 273). |
False. The Bible says that the wrath “of God” means the wrath belonging to
God. It is simple. BJ wants you to think it is complicated. And BJ did not show that the “church fathers” unanimously said that
God’s wrath was “only figurative”. Neither did he show that there was even a
consensus on the matter. And he cherry-picked Origen who was known to be
loosey-goosey in his handling of Scripture. Beyond that, I simply haven’t the
time to check out the ones he claimed as authorities, nor to find out what
all the others claimed. Conclusion: it is enough that the Scriptures from beginning to end
speak of God’s wrath as real (even in the allegorical illustrations of that
wrath). |
Note: This reasoning that when dealing with what might be considered a “negative” attribute of God, the “of God” part doesn’t mean of God, what do we do when we read of the love “of God”? Is this also figurative? Does God not have love as an attribute? And if he does, how could “of God” with wrath not also mean it is “of God”?
This is the illogical reasoning that flows through this book that is
duping people to give up the plain reasoning of Scripture, and the unanimous
testimony of the whole Bible, that God’s wrath is as real as his love, his
judgment is friends with his mercy, and he relates to different people differently
based on how differently they relate to him!
|
BJ’s Claim |
Monte’s Response |
|
That the prodigal son parable presents the “pigpen” consequences as
simply the natural outflow of the young man’s choices as if this proves that
is the case with “the wrath of God” (p. 274). |
IT'S… A… PARABLE!!!!!!! Its focus is on how God feels about the prostitutes, tax-collectors,
and other sinners coming into the kingdom. It is NOT a treatise on the wrath
of God, neither is it a statement against it. Rather, we are given a very
simple stage on which an arrogant youth goes off to live in sin (as did the
prostitutes, tax-collectors, sinners), experienced the consequences, came to
his senses, went home, and the spotlight shines on the Father who welcomes
him home with joy. This was to tell the religious hypocrites that our Father
in heaven was welcoming sinners with joy because they were repenting and
coming home. It is NOT a statement on God’s attributes as a whole, but on his
joy when sinners repent and come home to him. |
Okay,
so BJ’s first explanation for why we deny what Scripture says is that anything
we don’t like is figurative. He hasn’t come close to showing where he gets the
authority for this that not only trumps all the scholars, pastors, and preachers who hold to the whole counsel of God on the matter, but he definitely has not
shown an external authority that authorizes us to treat such clear history, and
such clear descriptions of God’s nature, as figurative.
Now he moves to his second “dynamic” which is a return to “rhetoric” (p. 274).
Ah, rhetoric,
rhetoric, device though thou art,
How
clever your entrance, how devious your part.
For
just when we think we have God understood,
Along
comes rhetoric to confuse us for good!
How clever your entrance, how devious your part.
For just when we think we have God understood,
Along comes rhetoric to confuse us for good!
(Insert Elvis intonation here) “Thank you, thank you very much!”
Annn-yyyy-waaayyy!
|
BJ’s Claim |
Monte’s Response |
|
That all the texts shared in the correspondence were rhetoric (p. 274). |
BJ Bogusness! His comments prove my contention that if you step back and look at why
anyone believes anything BJ claims in his trilogy of deception, it is only
because they view BJ as THE authority! In fact, why someone would present all those verses from THE BIBLE, and then disbelieve all of them? Trilogy answer: because BJ says so! NO, BJ has NOT made his case that references to the wrath “of God” are
rhetorical devices that mean the exact opposite of what is stated. |
Now,
sad as it is for me to do this (only because this is taking longer than I anticipated), I am going to present each of the verses BJ
presented and we’re going to look for clues that would tell us that the writers
of Scripture were indeed using a rhetorical device.
HOWEVER!!!!!!!
It is only BJ’s OPINION that if someone used a rhetorical device it would mean the OPPOSITE of what they say. Rhetorical devices are typically used to ILLUSTRATE the same thing as what is being said.
For example, parables are not what really is happening, but they tell us the same thing that is happening. The shepherd finding his lost sheep is exactly what was happening with Jesus finding lost people. The woman finding her lost coin is exactly illustrative of Jesus finding lost people. The father finding his lost son was just a parable, but it precisely illustrates the Father’s joy in finding sinners and bringing them home to his kingdom. In other words, figures of speech in the Bible, metaphors and similes, allegories and apocalypse, are all saying the same thing in illustrative form as we are meant to believe is the story in real life.
In a sense, the illustrations enhance the literal meaning of a truth with their figurative descriptions that help us understand it more clearly! You know, the way harmony isn't playing the exact notes of the melody but helps us tune to the melody all the more easily.
Therefore, before looking at these
Scriptures, two things must be understood. First, there must be evidence that
there is some kind of rhetorical language being used that is non-literal. Don’t
forget, rhetorical language is about the way to organize a message to persuade
others, it does NOT necessitate that any part of it is non-literal, figurative,
allegorical, or any of BJ’s claims. Rhetorical just means it is a strategic way
of organizing thoughts to lead people to believe the conclusion. BJ has used
rhetorical speech galore to convince people of his “another Jesus”, “different
spirit”, and “different gospel”, but any rhetorical speech in the Bible (and I’m
not saying it is certain if or where it is) would still be telling the truth about
whatever topic it is addressing.
Second, there must also be some evidence
that a rhetorical device indicates that something is the opposite of what the
words say. If God’s word says that God’s word is breathed out by God, and BJ
says that those words can be twisted back to front, where in the world is the
authority for us to believe BJ instead of the words of men who were carried
along by the Holy Spirit to write down what they were given to say in the
genius of an intimate fellowship between them and the Holy Spirit that affirms
the glory of God in breathing out his words into Scripture!
So, with the onus on BJ to prove that the breathed-out words of God do not mean what is plainly stated, let’s take a jaunt down this wonderful viewpoint of God’s word, and see if we can wrestle it off of BJ’s garden path and back onto the narrow way. Metaphorically speaking, I mean (but still literally for real 😊).
Okay,
I think I blew it here. I had this silly idea that I should type “of God” into
my www.biblegateway search bar and see how many times
that exact pairing of words came up. Guess what?! "Of God" comes up Eight… Hundred… and… Seventeen… Times!!!
Conclusion: I do NOT have time to assess how many speak of things so
objectively belonging to God that they can’t possibly refer to non-literal
figurative language. Sigh.
Which
means we will have to just look at these eight and see if BJ can convince us
that these are figures of speech, or rhetorical devices, or non-literal, or somehow
talking about us when they say they are talking about God.
However, please let me remind you that when BJ speaks of God’s wrath, he
is misrepresenting it in a strawman god-in-man’s-image kind of way, and then representing
his counter to this strawman in a totally god-of-rhetoric-and-allegory who
doesn’t even add up.
CLARIFICATION: I am NOT ascribing to EITHER of BJ’s pendulum-extreme misrepresentations!
|
BJ’s Literal Sense |
The Historical-Grammatical Sense |
BJ’s Literalism |
|
A
god-of-rhetoric-and-allegory-who-doesn’t-even-add-up. |
|
A god-in-man’s-image-who-is-just-as-trigger-happy-angry-as-too-many-fathers. |
I am seeking the plumbline of “truth in love”,
trusting the breathed-out words of God, living by every word that comes from
the mouth of God, with my best and most sincere effort to be true to what God
says in his word, avoiding anything I might tend to read in (including that
things are figurative when they are not).
|
BJ’s Literal Sense |
The Historical-Grammatical
Sense |
BJ’s Literalism |
|
A god-of-rhetoric-and-allegory-who-doesn’t-even-add-up. |
Taking what the words mean
in the context they are presented and tested by anything else in God’s word
that helps us understand what God said and what he meant. |
A god-in-man’s-image-who-is-just-as-trigger-happy-angry-as-too-many-fathers. |
In other words, when I am defending a biblical
view of “wrath” and all its synonyms, I’m NOT endorsing the other extreme of BJ’s
extreme. I’m calling everyone to sit down with God’s word and humbly seek to
know the mind of Christ as it is IN Scripture, not as we are told it is by someone
OUTSIDE of Scripture.
|
Scripture |
Conclusion |
|
Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey
the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him. (John 3:36) |
First question: what did the Jews understand by “the wrath of God”
since Jesus is speaking in their culture and understanding? I will just summarize that I have given ample evidence from the Old
Testament that the judgment, wrath, anger, fury, and indignation of God were all
woven into real-life events of history that were not only told in their
initial expressions, but were retold in exhortations and rebukes, even in
songs, so people would be aware that the same things could just as well
happen to them as what happened to others. Wrath: “wrath n. — a feeling of intense anger that does not subside;
often on an epic scale” (BSL). So far, the word “wrath” is a thing. If we were talking about people,
we would understand it as a real thing. For some reason, talking about God,
it can’t be a real thing (I mean, Jersakily speaking). Clue: the rhyming thought about those who believe in Jesus is that they
have “eternal life”. That is a real thing. It is called “the gift of God”[1]. That would suggest that if the gift “of God” is really the gift
belonging to God and/or coming from God, that the wrath “of God” would be the
wrath belonging to God and/or coming from God. CONCLUSION: nothing in this text or context suggests that God’s wrath
is “non-literal” when his “eternal life” is real. BJ is BSing, and how I wish
whoever wrote him that letter would return to their first love and humble
themselves under God’s mighty hand in Scripture so they can be lifted up to
delight in every word that comes from the mouth of God! |
|
but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey
unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. (Romans 2:8) |
The persons in question are those who “obey unrighteousness”. This is
in contrast to those who “obey the truth”. This says that the “obey unrighteousness” people are destined for “wrath
and fury”. It says that. Wrath: “wrath (punishment) n. — the punitive outworking of God’s
righteous indignation at sin; perhaps describing an anger long-building” (BSL) Fury: “punishment ⇔ fury n. — the punitive outworking of God’s righteous indignation at sin;
perhaps describing an anger quickly kindled” (BSL). Once again, these are real things. If we were talking people, we would
have no problem “getting it” that this is someone we would not want to meet
in a dark alley because they are describing objectively painful things we
would want to avoid. So where is the evidence that this is a rhetorical
device that makes it non-literal? Clue: once again, the “wrath” rhymes with “eternal life”. So, is
eternal life real or non-literal? If it is real and literal, then so is the
wrath. We’re not cherry-pickers here. CONCLUSION: because Paul talked about “the day of wrath when GOD’s
righteous judgment will be revealed” a few verses earlier, and he speaks of
the “tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil” right
after, the context cries out to take this as a serious and real warning of
the very real judgment for the wicked that will match the very real
blessedness for the saints. And BJ’s determination to convince people this is
not real has no authority over any of us. |
|
Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things
the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. (Ephesians 5:6) |
Wow! This is talking about BJ! Dear people, Paul is telling us not to let people like BJ deceive us with their “empty words”! How do I know BJ is using empty words? Because whenever he claimed a Scripture supported his view, I went and looked up the Scripture and found that it either did not support his view or outrightly contradicted it. His words were empty because they never added up to what the words claimed. And, when I listened to all his rationales for believing what
he said, he simply quoted people from the past who were not apostles are prophets
of our Lord Jesus Christ, and were only giving their opinions about Scripture
as BJ is. So, yes, BJ’s EMPTY WORDS! Now look at this: Wrath means, “wrath (punishment) n. — the punitive
outworking of God’s righteous indignation at sin; perhaps describing an anger
long-building” (BSL). (I’m almost trembling with how this stands out!). We
have in the left column the breathed-out words of God. Serious business. FULL
words. Every word breathed out by God. Each word written down by a man
carried along by the Holy Spirit. Can you feel it? Can you feel how FULL that
is? And then I read in BJ’s book how he explains these words away and I’m
left with “empty words”. Like really. I’m looking around the pages to find
out why I should believe him and I can’t find anything. The pages are empty
of authority. They are empty of reason. Even the most clever of his
rhetorical devices can’t persuade me to believe what he says because the
words are empty. They are as empty as the serpent’s “Did God actually say…?”
that were also full of the bitter poison of idolatry as hearts were persuaded
away from the only true God for idols and gods in the image of man. CONCLUSION: not only does this NOT sound non-literal in any way, but
it exposes BJ’s “empty words” along with an apostolic exhortation to “let NO
ONE deceive you”, and BJ is a “NO ONE” trying to DECEIVE YOU! Don’t… let… it…
happen!!!!!!! |
|
Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality,
impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. On
account of these the wrath of God is coming. (Colossians 3:5-6) |
Question: if the “on account of these” are all real, literal things,
why would “the wrath of God is coming” be non-literal? Where do these amazing
rhetorical devices squeeze into just half-sentences? Wrath means, “wrath (punishment) n. — the punitive outworking of God’s
righteous indignation at sin; perhaps describing an anger long-building”
(BSL). Question: if even something like “covetousness” is listed as “idolatry”,
and every instance of idolatry in the Hebrew Scriptures received literal
expressions of God’s wrath, hot anger, judgment, and indignation, why would
an apostle use the same terminology as people were familiar with from the
Scriptures and mean something opposite to the words God breathed out? I mean, don’t forget that the apostles preached “the word of God” as a
mix of what the Hebrew Scriptures said about the Christ (Hebrews shows us
what that would have sounded/looked like) plus their application of those
Scriptures to “the gospel of the kingdom” of our Lord Jesus Christ. So where
do the apostles say that what they quote from the Scriptures was as real as
everyone understood, but speaking of the day of wrath to come is not only
non-literal, but somehow means the opposite of what the words say? CONCLUSION: the sins Paul tells us to put to death are real sins.
Literally. The things he tells us to “put them all away” immediately after
include “anger, wrath, malice, slander, and obscene talk”, all of which are
real and literal. If we continue into the positive qualities we are to “put
on then” (vs 12ff), they are also real and literal. There is absolutely no
reason to pull “wrath” out of the puzzle picture and say IT is so
rhetorically figurative that it doesn’t mean what it means like EVERY OTHER
WORD IN THE CONTEXT DOES!!! More of BJ’s BSin’. I mean… “empty wordin’”! |
|
by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles that they might be
saved—so as always to fill up the measure of their sins. But wrath has come
upon them at last! (1 Thessalonians 2:16) |
Once again, wrath is, “wrath (punishment) n. — the punitive outworking
of God’s righteous indignation at sin; perhaps describing an anger
long-building” (BSL). The context again shows one real and literal expression after another.
Paul really thanked God. The Thessalonians really received the “word OF God”.
The believers literally became “imitators of the church of God in Christ Jesus
in Judea”. And, what Paul is getting to now, the believers literally “suffered
the same things from your own countrymen as they did from the Jews”. The Jews
literally “killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets”. They literally “drove
us out”. They literally “displease God and oppose all mankind by hindering us
from speaking to the Gentiles that they might be saved”. They are literally filling
up “the measure of their sins”. CONCLUSION: the “wrath” is as real as the wrath that had already come
on criminal nations and idolatrous children all through the Hebrew Scriptures
with not one hint those were allegorical descriptions! And it is as real as
every other part of the context surrounding the word “wrath”! |
|
where your fathers put me to the test and saw my works for forty
years. Therefore I was provoked with that generation, and said, ‘They always go astray in their heart; they have not known my
ways.’ As I swore in my wrath, ‘They shall not enter my
rest.’” (Hebrews 3:9-11) |
Okay, this makes me smile because we are now in the book of Hebrews
which tells us what Jesus said to the two men on the road to Emmaus. Yes,
Hebrews shows how the Hebrew Scriptures tell us the whole story of Jesus Christ!
This one is almost too easy. First, it is speaking of an event from the past. So, did God swear in
his wrath that a generation of his people would never enter his rest? Yes, he
did swear that. Did those people ever enter his rest? No, they did not, even
when they again defied Yahweh and tried to enter without him. So if Yahweh
swearing an oath was literally what he did, and them not entering his rest
(the Promised Land) really, literally happened as described, where do we get
a rhetorical device (apparently in use at the time of the first century authors
of Scripture but exactly parallel to what God said hundreds of years
earlier?) that pops “wrath” completely out of the context and makes it
non-literal? I mean, if you can’t trust God to mean “wrath” when HE says “I
swore in MY wrath”, who can you believe? Oh I know, Brad Jersak! The man whose
words trump God’s words! Yikes!!! CONCLUSION: could I just note a clue about how bogus BJ’s philosophy
is? In the context just prior to this quote regarding “wrath”, the author of
Hebrews said, “Now Moses was faithful in all God’s house as a servant, to
testify to the things that were to be spoken later” (vs 5). Guess what that
says about everything the Hebrew Scriptures had recorded about Moses,
including that the Jews understood the first five books of the Bible to be “the
books of Moses”? It means NO God/Human HYBRID!!! The way we are to see what
is written is that it is a picture of Moses being faithful to his calling,
for real, literally. Once again, the history being spoken of is literal and real, and the
application immediately following this quote from the Hebrew Scriptures is a
literal and real exhortation to do literal and real things in literal and
real obedient faith. And the word “wrath” is just as real and literal as all
the rest, and God says it is “MY wrath” denouncing BJ’s claim that it could
not be his. |
|
For we who have believed enter that rest, as he has said, “As I swore in my wrath, ‘They shall not enter my rest,’” although his works were finished from the foundation of the world. (Hebrews
4:3) |
I can so see why BJ needs to convince his readers that the Old
Testament is allegorical! Its history absolutely refutes everything BJ
claims! Once again, we have God telling the history of his people in literal
terms. I will let you read the context to see how many things you could list
as literal and real and how not even one comes up as figurative. Paul is using a literal and real history of how that previous generation
missed out on the Promised Land as a warning to the believers to “let us fear
lest any of you should seem to have failed to reach it (“the promise of enter
his rest”)”. CONCLUSION: Because this text repeats what was stated in the previous verse, I
think enough is said that this is all real and literal, not the least bit
allegorical, figurative, or non-literal. |
|
The nations raged, but your wrath came, and the time for the dead to
be judged, and for rewarding your servants, the prophets and saints, and those who fear your
name, both small and great, and for destroying the destroyers of the earth.” (Revelation 11:18) |
First, “the nations raged” is real and literal. Raged means, “to be
angry v. — to be or become angry and feel aversion and antipathy for
something” (BSL). Second, “but your wrath came” is also a real and literal description
of what God did in response to the raging nations. NOTE: the “YOUR wrath” is synonymous with “wrath OF God”. It means
what it says because it says what it means. The wrath is the same as has been
repeated in previous verses. It IS wrath, and it is GOD’s wrath. Will the “dead” be literally “judged”? Yes, absolutely. Judged means, “to
be judged (state) v. — to be or become brought to account for ones actions
and sentenced accordingly, often in a courthouse setting and before a judge”
(BSL). Will God’s “servants, the prophets and saints” literally be “rewarded”?
Yes, absolutely. Rewarded means, “to grant a request v. — to allow someone to
have what the person has requested” plus “recompense ⇔ wage n. — a payment for worthy acts or
retribution for wrongdoing; understood as a tangible wage” (BSL). Are there literally “destroyers of the earth”? Yes, of course.
Detroyers means, “to destroy (damage) v. — to destroy completely; damage
irreparably” (BSL). Will God literally “destroy” them? Yes, he will “to
destroy (damage) v. — to destroy completely; damage irreparably”. CONCLUSION: even in the apocalyptic language of Revelation, there is literally coming the time when the dead will be judged and Jesus’ servants rewarded. For
real. Literally. It is our certain hope. |
My
concluding conclusion is that BJ is the false teacher Jesus and the apostles
warned us about. The only reason we would not take Scripture to mean what it
says is that BJ found something in his own preferences, and in other people
throughout history who held his same opinion, and he gathered all this info
together in a trilogy of books that fulfill Scripture. Yes, did you know that?
Paul
spoke of BJ as one who is “like so many, peddlers of God's word” (II Corinthians
2:17). BJ fits the description of “evil people and impostors” who “will go on
from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived” (II Timothy 3:13). BJ also
fulfills Jesus’ words, “many false prophets will arise and lead many astray”
(Matthew 24:11).
Now,
because I took the detour through God’s word to show that not one of the eight
verses BJ presented actually supports his allegorical/figurative/non-literal
view, but they are a glaring rebuke to his claims instead, I did not get to the
really exciting way God prepared me for this chapter. So, I will set up camp
for another night, get a good night’s rest, and see if the delay in completing
that sharing will add more puzzle pieces to the mix as I begin tomorrow morning
in the Word, the word, and the Spirit of 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
No comments:
Post a Comment