Examining "A More Christlike Word"
by Brad Jersak
Day 74
“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 |
Introduction to Part II
(p. 168)
BJ
gets right into the fightin’ words with his very first sentence in this
section:
|
BJ’s Claim |
Monte’s Response |
|
“Whether or not you track with my journey toward a more Christlike
word, I hope you’ll see that my agenda is faithfulness to God” (p. 168). |
No, the very fact that you are determined to convince everyone that
the word, the Scriptures, are not Christlike enough, makes you totally
unfaithful to God who breathed out those Scriptures. |
Because my concern is for the readers of this book and the BJs’ other
resources, and because this flows from my grief in beginning this journey at
the cost of division among church-folk, I need to challenge things BJ presents
as “assumptions” and point out that they are not what he claims.
So,
first, let me remind everyone of the three views in conflict here:
|
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 ask those reading BJ’s book to consider that BJ is putting his non-literal Literal Sense against his strawman of Literalism (his version of what that means) and wants us to believe he has made a case for why we should trust his view and not the other. What I have shown is that the issue is whether we are “rightly handling the word of God”. Please keep in mind as BJ disses his strawman to make points for his figurative views on Scripture that he has presented his book to make himself and the BJs the authority on Scripture, rather than treating Scripture as authoritative over us all.
While I am not specifically
promoting the Historical-Grammatical sense, I am trying to show that what we
find in this mindset is the most honest way of rightly handling Scripture. So,
while BJ continues his boxing match between his “another Jesus” puppet and his
Literalism strawman, I will continue to add the referee, so to speak, the Historical-Grammatical
sense that seeks to be sure we understand the history and grammar as described
so we are living “by every word that comes from the mouth of God”, not from the
opinions of people who are promoting their own “Did God actually say…?” version
of belief.
|
BJ’s Claim |
Monte’s Response |
|
On page 168 BJ speaks of the “biblical literalist” and “the
fundamentalist wing of the Evangelical world” who would treat “these topics”
he is about to present as “generally out-of-bounds.” |
I already know that if BJ is going into territory he was warned was “out-of-bounds”
it means he is promoting the very kinds of things Jesus and the apostles
warned us to watch out for. In other words, playing a Harry Potter card is more telling of the
magic wand BJ is waving over his rabbit hat than he wants us to recognize. |
I’m
skipping comments on his summary of the “seven elements of biblical
interpretation” because I know I will need to address specific claims when we
get to them. I see he is already using triggering words like “contrary points”,
“conflicting messages”, “a conflicted community”, “the many-stranded subplots”,
“some crazy characters”, and “unreliable narrators” to continue conditioning
his audience to think that while God was “letting his children tell the story”,
we ended up with a God/man hybrid Scripture that isn’t what God meant to say,
and we need the BJ’s to change it so it is as Christlike as their “another Jesus”,
which isn’t Christlike at all in real life (p. 168).
|
BJ’s Claim |
Monte’s Response |
|
BJ introduces “rhetoric” as if “literalizing their speeches” would
bring a “gospel-denying conclusion” (p. 169). |
I would counter this with BJ shovelling his rhetoric into the mix so
that his outside-of-Scripture gospel denies the gospel we find in Scripture
(for real). My focus will be to examine the Scriptures he refers to, look up words
and meanings, read the context, and see if BJ starts to suddenly present the
real meaning of texts, or continues to twist and distort what was written to
support his “another Jesus” cause. |
|
BJ’s Claim |
Monte’s Response |
|
In reference to his determined effort to rewrite true attributes of
God into “anthropomorphisms” (I’m going to need to copy/paste that so I don’t
need to keep typing it out!) he claims, “Again, our literalism can become so
severe as to descend into idolatry or blasphemy” (p. 169). |
Again, BJ has never made his case that the people who tried to save
him from his garden path really were as his strawman Literalism described. He
has told us what these people supposedly said and taught, but did not give
any examples to show this was the case. On the other hand, taking Scripture to mean what it says as in the
Historical-Grammatical method will show that it is the BJs who have descended
“into idolatry and blasphemy” by claiming that the Yahweh of the Hebrew
Scriptures needs to be more Christlike, or that the Hebrew Scriptures were
not the breathed-out words of God that Jesus and the apostles affirmed as God’s
word. In other words, don’t limit your testing of what BJ says in the second
part of his book to whether his strawman Literalists are really idolizing and
blaspheming attributes of God, but step back and look at all three groups to
see if anyone is idolizing attributes of God (by setting them up as greater
than they really are), or blaspheming attributes of God (by dissing them as
not Christlike enough). Just be honest about who is doing what (as you
observe it, not as BJ insists you need to see it), and keep asking yourself
who is the authority for us believing whatever we are told to believe by the
BJs or the HGs (Historical-Grammatical folk, hoping to not have to keep
typing out that whole hyphenated word!). |
!!!!!!!WARNING!!!!!!!
|
BJ’s Claim |
Monte’s Response |
|
“For that chapter, we’ll need the help and authority of the great
saints of history, whom I will cite at length along with some commentary” (p.
169). |
Okay, this is what BJ wrote the whole first part for, to have readers
convinced that when he started quoting sources outside of Scripture, we would
believe that Scripture was deficient (as a God/man hybrid) and it was the
authorities outside of Scripture who would need to correct us. Not only that, but we would need to trust the BJs as the mediators
between us and those sources (which most of us wouldn’t have studied in-depth
enough to know who really said what and how that compared/contrasted to what
God breathed out into his word) with the result that it is really BJ and his
clan who are the authorities in telling us who their authorities are for
dissing the authority of the Scriptures (yes, I am deliberately using repetition
as a style option for emphasis on the fact that this is all about who is the
AUTHORITY over what we believe). To clarify, there are NO “great saints of history” who have “authority”
over what we believe about the Bible! We only have people throughout the
history between Christ’s first and second comings who were commentators on
what they believed about the Bible. The only men who had “authority” were the
ones God carried along by his Holy Spirit to write down the words he breathed
out onto the pages of Scripture through their faithful witness. No matter who
BJ presents from outside the Bible, they are outside Scripture, and so we
test them by Scripture, not the other way around. |
Chapter
13 – A Text in Travail: Tim Talks (p. 170)
To
(hopefully) avoid typing so many comments that need testing, I will simply
identify that BJ’s use of the phrase, “a ‘text in travail’” is the defendant.
BJ is the defense attorney claiming this phrase is innocent of
misrepresentation, deception, and leading people away from the narrow path of
the kingdom of heaven. You are the judge. Go ahead and begin with “innocent
until proven guilty”, but test your heart to make sure that you are not partial
to the defense but impartial and able to truly hear evidence from both sides
before judging whether his “text in travail” story is valid, or whether it is
one more misrepresentation of God’s breathed-out words. I will serve as the
prosecution who has worked with the defense attorney in enough cases that I
know he is as crooked as… well… that would require a figure of speech within my
figure of speech, so I will just say that I have very good reason to test whatever
the defense claims because I have seen too many judges mysteriously die of
poison-in-the-pudding and I hope to put an end to the killing-spree happening right
before our eyes.
Okay,
editor’s note: that was fun, and I hadn’t even thought of the imagery until I
started typing it, which does not mean I was just inspired, but now I see,
through figurative language, the real-life “steal, kill, and destroy” that has
Satan’s fingerprints all over it.
|
BJ’s Claim |
Monte’s Response |
|
After introducing the “text in travail” imagery, BJ asks as though rhetorical,
“Isn’t it appropriate, then, that the story of divine travail be reflected by
a text in travail?” (p. 170). |
Absolutely not! Because I’m suspicious that the defense attorney is making false
equivocations (associating any “travail” in Scripture with his God/man “text
in travail” hybrid Scriptures), then I add my objection that this assumes
facts not in evidence (I love saying that). We will see if he has any
witnesses who explain this phrase in a way that can be tested by Scripture. |
|
BJ’s Claim |
Monte’s Response |
|
“What Girard describes is how the story is told, and I will
add, how the story is read” (p. 170). |
I will not be examining each of the “authorities” BJ uses. In this
case, I simply point out that BJ has twisted what the apostle Paul wrote
about Scripture as “the breathed out words of God”, putting “inspiration”
between God and the Scriptures, and moved “inspiration” to what happens
between Scripture and the reader. We are being asked to treat BJ as a greater
authority than the apostle Paul. No one should be okay with that. However, I’m pointing out that when we read Scripture, there is a HUGE
impact on us treating the breathed-out words of God as the story GOD has
told, and reading it accordingly. This is in contrast to the BJs who want us
to believe there is something wrong with the way the story was told (written
into Scripture), so they can condition how we read Scripture (continuing the “Did
God actually say…?” deception). |
Sigh…
so many fightin’ words to type out! Not to be mistaken for “typological
allegoricalness”.
|
BJ’s Claim |
Monte’s Response |
|
On page 170, BJ states in mid-paragraph, “They (biblical writers)
strove with themselves, with each other, and with God over what to say and
how to say it.” |
I think one of my most repetitive comments is going to be, “Says who?!” Really, this assumes facts not in evidence. Can you think of one example
in the Bible where the biblical writers “strove with themselves” over what to
write down into Scripture? What about biblical writers “strove… with each
other” over what they should write into Scripture? Or where do we see writers
who “strove… with God over what to say and how to say it”? What I mean is, these statements are assuming there are facts to
support them, or at least wanting us to assume there must be facts to support
them since BJ is clearly the expert in what the Bible says. But where do we
find anything that relates to what happened between God and the writers that
indicated they did not know precisely what to write down as what the BIBLE
(not BJ) calls “the breathed-out words of God”? And, if Peter says that Scripture was NOT written down by the will of
man (that is SCRIPTURE!), but it was written down by men carried along by the
Holy Spirit, then why would we believe BJ telling us that the writers had
struggles with themselves, each other, and even God, trying to figure out
what they were to say resulting in the God/man hybrid BJ has hypothesized
directly contradicting even Jesus who spoke of the Scriptures as the word of
God they claimed to be? If you are the judge, you cannot let your mind believe what BJ says
here when he hasn’t even presented any evidence that this happened at all. |
|
BJ’s Claim |
Monte’s Response |
|
“The text features the groans of labor and the laughter of new birth,
divergent strands meeting in the gospel finale” (p. 170). |
OBJECTION!!! I’m not disputing that Scripture speaks of God’s servants struggling
through things God told them to say and do. HOWEVER!!! That is NOT the same as saying they then struggled and strove to know
what to write down when God breathed out how to record the history of an
event. Also, “divergent strands” suggests contradictory teachings, which is a
prejudicial expression. Instead, God’s word, Scripture, the Bible states it like this, “Long
ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the
prophets,” (Hebrews 1:1). God himself did NOT breathe out words suggesting “divergent
strands”. The Scriptures we know as the Old Testament record “many times” and
“many ways” that God spoke to his people, but these are not like conflicting
messages, but a harmonious symphony of music with different instruments
(messengers) playing in harmony (including all the genres) to give us a
unified orchestration of the work of God to make for himself a people in the
image and likeness of his Son. So Scripture continues, “but in these last days he has spoken to us by
his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he
created the world” (Hebrews 1:2). The contrast is NOT between “divergent strands” that “finally” meet in
Christ, but that God himself is the unifying voice that spoke at many times
and in many ways up to Jesus’ first coming, and then spoke directly through
his Son as we now have in the rest of the Bible. |
|
BJ’s Claim |
Monte’s Response |
|
“I also see how reading the Bible faithfully involves the same process”
(p. 170). |
The process BJ described was bogus, so we either need to separate that
from how we read the Bible, or we need to say that what he says here is just
as bogus about people reading the Bible as his claims about God writing the
Bible. There is NO WHERE in Scripture that says that when we read the Bible
we experience an “inspired” event where God breathes out his words into our
hearts so each of us reading the Bible knows exactly what he says and means. What I mean is that, the writing of the Bible is described as men who
were carried along by the Holy Spirit writing the breathed-out words of God
without messing with it by their own wills. Yes, that is what SCRIPTURE says,
and that is what BJ insists we must reject to see it his way instead of God’s.
On the other hand, there is no conflict with Scripture for people to give testimony of how they travailed/struggled/strove within themselves, maybe with the biblical authors, and even with God himself, as they tried to understand what God said in his word, and as they humbled themselves to accept that the Lord has spoken and we are his servants who live to do his will. So, no, there is no “also” between the way Scripture was given through
men carried along by the Holy Spirit to write down the breathed-out words of
God and what happens when we read the Scriptures and get honest with God
about what happens within us as the newbirth goes into labor to bring us to
life in Jesus Christ our Lord. |
|
BJ’s Claim |
Monte’s Response |
|
“When taken seriously, reading the Bible can become traumatic” (p.
171). |
Yes, of course it can. For people who have loved darkness because
their deeds are evil to suddenly have their eyes opened to the Bible’s
complete contradiction of the world, the flesh, and the devil, will be
traumatic. I put into evidence prosecution exhibit A, Paul of Tarsus. The trauma
he went through discovering that he didn’t even understand the Scriptures he
had grown up with, even studied at the doctorate level, and that the Jesus of
Nazareth he was persecuting perfectly fit all the prophecies of the coming
Messiah. And that three years of discipleship he got from Jesus after the
cross that matched what the other apostles got prior to the cross would have
been an incredible journey of considering everything he had understood to be
a loss for the gain of knowing Christ Jesus his Lord. |
At
this point, let me step outside the box and give a reminder.
BJ,
and at least some of the men who endorse him, all describe a similar experience
of trying to deal with people who struggled to accept the way God is revealed
in Scripture. My contention is that these men, instead of helping the people
make sure they understood what God said and meant, all decided to rewrite
Scripture to make a god that was more palatable to the unspiritual appetites of
their people.
Contrary to what BJ claims about helping us young mothers in Scripture
to travail through the mindboggling difficulties of having children to care for
(using his analogy on p. 170), changing scripture to make it more palatable is
not how you help people live by every word that comes from the mouth of God.
Now I
see that BJ is about to begin another heading with a conversation between him
and a friend. I also see how far I have travelled along the garden path today,
so I will end here, set up camp, get some rest, and prepare for the next day’s
journal journey. I already know his story is going to include the fightin’
words of his beloved “so-called toxic texts” (p. 171), so I guess I’ll see you
in court and see what happens next.
© 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