Brad Jersak

A More Christlike Word is the latest book from Brad Jersak (to accompany A More Christlike God and A More Christlike Way neither of which, I confess, I have read. I picked this one up as the result of a discussion with a friend.) Up front, I appreciated the point he made at the beginning and at several points in the book. That is, “I learned to read (the Scriptures) without intimacy.” This is an important point. I understand his frustration about being forced into a wooden, academic view of Scripture that robs it of its power. I confess to being wired a little like that and must personally fight against treating it primarily as a text book instead of seeking to hear what God wants me to hear from its text. Having said that, here are several places on which I think a reader would need to wrestle with Jersak’s approach.

First, what view does he have of the nature and person of God and is it consistent with what Scripture teaches? This question raised two issues. First, his view that God’s love somehow is His preeminent attribute and all others must submit to that’s attributes sovereignty as it were: “God is love only, for every other attribute of God must ever only be a facet of that one pure diamond,” and later, “God is love. Period.” I see the subservience of all attributes of God to His love as difficult to support from Scripture and, when starting from such a point, it’s easy to get off track later. Notably, he never addresses God’s holiness at all from my reading.

This foundation leads to several other errors, in my view. He says,“a faith commitment to the goodness and love of God are (sic) required for a reading of Scripture ‘worthy’ of God’s character.” Again, notably, we evidently do not need a faith commitment to God’s holiness or any of His other attributes to properly interpret Scripture in a way “worthy” of Him. For that reason, any act or characteristic of God that doesn’t look like “goodness” and / or “love” is clearly not “worthy” of God and therefore not really God’s word. As readers continue in the book, they will see that worked out in his view of Scripture.

Other points he made in my view reflect the same off-square building from a faulty foundation: “Hosea’s schizophrenic, angry God,” and quoting St. Anthony the Great with approval, “God does not rejoice and is not angered, for joy and anger are passions.” I understand he sees anger as not “worthy” of God, but what does he do with Zephaniah 3:17, John 17:13 and the many verses like them? God rejoices over His people. Clearly. How can we read these and conclude that God has no passions?

Once the author starts down that road, he must parse Scripture very carefully to remain consistent with the foundation he laid. I’ll have more to say on this later, but related to God’s character, here’s the prime example: He emphasizes God’s mercy, and compassion and grace (which are well worth emphasizing) but the edits out the pieces of God that make him uncomfortable. He notes “The revelation of God as ‘gracious and compassionate’ comes through loud and clear early in our story with God’s preservation of Hagar and Ishmael, and in his self-disclosure to Moses (Exod 34)…(etc.).” This is quite true and a lovely thing about our God. But the passage he cites to make his point is a very familiar passage to Christians and Jews alike. And most know it continues, “…but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children’s children to the third and fourth generation.” Why would the author not wrestle with this, at least with a few sentences? Why would he just edit out that part of the same sentence he cites to make his point?

Second, if we accept his view of Scriptural interpretation, what is the point of Passover and the meaning of “atonement”? He claims, “The temple establishment of ritual slaughter was never God’s heart or God’s idea. God repeatedly asks instead for justice and mercy—he has no need for a temple or sacrifices, etc.” If we accept this view, that all the Mosaic law including the sacrifices were just part of their culture at the time, does that not empty the Passover? Did they just dream the blood over the doorposts themselves? How would they have gotten that idea even from within their culture? And I assume we also must conclude that the death of all Egyptian firstborn males was not God’s work, just a story from their culture. But if that’s true, why do they need the blood on the doorpost at all? Passover is devoid of meaning if his view is true.

In the same vein, quoting David Goa, “Jesus…allowed himself to be crucified precisely to end the cycle of mimetic contagion.” But the idea that the Passover Lamb is not a type that Christ fills undermines Scripture through the voice or pens of Isaiah (Isaiah 53), John the Baptist (John 1:29), Paul (Romans 5:9) and Peter (I Peter 1:19), among others. And if the Passover has no content, then what are we to conclude of I Corinthians 5 where Christ, the Word, is called “our Passover Lamb”? The author interprets a couple of these passages a different way in the book, but here we are interested more in the foundation of Scripture: if there is no atonement, then Passover makes no sense and you start pulling on that thread and must unwind many, many passages and themes of Scripture to remain consistent with the idea.

Third, what other basics of theology are undermined by his argument and conclusions? I saw three other errors that emanate from the first two issues noted above: “In other words, God was never our enemy!”, “Estrangement from God is one-sided” (i.e., us from Him, not Him from us), and “the cross of Christ does not change anything in God’s orientation”. Of course there are countless places in Scripture that present a different view. The author deals with a few of these, but most he does not. The most obvious and again, a very familiar verse that he just leaves on the floor: “For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son…” I wish he had at least wrestled with it some, rather than just declaring, “God was never our enemy!” Likewise, “Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus,” (Hebrews 10:19 and ff): we could not enter before, but now we can. His view, it seems to me, negates the straightforward language of huge swaths of Hebrews and of many other Scriptures that we then must find some other way to explain.

Fourth, what happens to Scripture if we adopt his viewpoint? Though the author tries mightily to hold to and revere all of Scripture, he ends up, in my view, creating a revised “Thomas Jefferson” Bible—with the portions he doesn’t like or agree with just lopped out of the reading by attributing them to someone other than God. I made that point above where we cite God “gracious and compassionate” (true and inspired) and just drop the “but who will by no means clear the guilty…” (presumably a cultural add; he didn’t deal with the problem). How can we divide sentences into part a, “the inspired word of God” and part b, “Moses’s cultural view”? He makes the point by citing Philo and concluding, “we search the Scriptures for what is worthy of God and useful for us.” Are we not then using Scripture to create a God that fits our view of what He should be?

Ultimately, he creates a hermeneutic, in my view, that undermines Scripture altogether: “When you compare translations…the question is NOT which one best represents the first manuscripts, but which one best represents the gospel.” But how do we know the gospel apart from what is written in the manuscripts? Or, “The message of Jonah is true whether or not the story is.” But then wouldn’t the same logic and rule also apply to the resurrection? Scripture doesn’t allow us to hold that view of the resurrection. If the story is not true, the message is untrue and “we are of men most miserable.”

In the end, he seems blind to his own criticism of what he calls “literalism”: “Thus,” he accuses literalists, “any Scripture that does not agree with my (the literalists) system must either be ignored, twisted, or subordinated while other texts are privileged.” The very thing, it seems, he must do to remain consistent with his view of God.

Two other points in this already over-long review:

I regret the author’s unwillingness to wrestle with Scripture that doesn’t agree with his view. For instance, he accepts the LXX translation of “bruise / crush” in Isaiah 53:10 (God was pleased to crush (or bruise) Him, which he says is better translated “cleanse” or “purify”) to support his view. But the Hebrew word here is dakka, and every other place it is used in Hebrew Scripture means bruise, crush, destroy, beat, etc. If one goes to any other place where dakka is used in the Old Testament and try to substitute “cleanse” or “purify,” it becomes gibberish. These include one use of the word just 5 verses earlier in the same paragraph, Isaiah 53:5. “But he was pierced for our transgressions and purified? cleansed? for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and by his wounds we are healed.” It just doesn’t make sense and the LXX doesn’t translate the same word that way here. This is easily discoverable. Why would he not at least acknowledge and wrestle with it a little?

I regret the mocking tone the author often takes with “literalists”. For instance, the “alleged” or “hypothetical” original autographs of Scriptural books, implying they are some kind wishful thinking. But if we have a book, or letter written by an author, isn’t it quite reasonable to conclude there was an original copy of the work as the author wrote and intended it to be? Why would he imply this is all made up or otherwise imaginary?

Or, “reading the Bible as ‘the letter that kills,’ i.e, ‘biblical literalists’…” It’s OK to have a different view of what Scripture says or how to interpret it, but must the author label everyone who takes a different view as equivalent to the Pharisees of Jesus’ time?

Or, in his advocation for a liturgical approach to Scripture, he says, “it helps the pastor or congregation to avoid meandering off into the swamps of their pet doctrines and hobbyhorses (i.e., heresies).” Is he really saying that people who see the death of Christ as a substitutionary atonement to appease God’s wrath are heretics?

Or, “There is no problem until we squeeze their descriptions into a mold that demands that we believe the sun actually revolves around the earth because, ‘the Bible clearly says.’ Not that the church would ever be so daft. Oops. #Galileo.”

Or, finally, “In Part II, I invite you to seven specific elements of biblical interpretation. These are areas that might have been marked ‘restricted section’ of the library at Hogwarts carried books on hermeneutics, and the librarian was a biblical literalist. I’m only partly joking because in the fundamentalist wing of the Evangelical world, these topics are generally out of bounds.” I am, I suppose, what the author would call in the “fundamentalist wing” of the Evangelical world since I hold to the Bible as being inerrant and infallible. Yet I read his entire book and have tried to be respectful in my criticism. I have many friends who share my view of the Bible and don’t know a single one who wouldn’t be willing to consider what this author has to say.

I very much regret that we Christ-followers, who are supposed to be marked by love for and unity with each other can’t have a respectful conversation, even over our differences. It’s always been this way (sigh) but it also seems that the world of social media has magnified this tendency in us to mock, characterize, impute motives or otherwise belittle those with whom we disagree. It’s not just the author, of course. I’m sure he will be mocked his detractors. (Double sigh).… (altro)

As with any Biblical book concentrating on theological ideas, I found my mind wandering away from the topics being discussed. I believe the author possesses a wealth of knowledge, as seen in this book, but I feel like his words may go over many people’s heads as far as understanding goes.

The author divides the book into two sections – the first section entitled Jesus is the Word of God, drives home in my mind the idea that the words in the Bible came directly from God. The second section, entitled Scripture as an Epic Saga, also appears to be written to cause confusion for many people. I appreciate his knowledge of the subject, however.

I feel those with a high level of theological expertise will appreciate this book more than those who are just beginning their walk with God. I also feel studying this book in-depth rather than reading it casually will create greater understanding. So check it out for yourself.

I received a complimentary copy of this book, but it in no way influenced my review. All opinions are my own.… (altro)

I have found as a reviewer that there are many different views on subjects which I may not always agree on. When doing a review I am honest and find something good about each book. This book was a challenge for me because it was very wordy, has some opinions I don’t agree with and it was quite confusing at times. When I read this statement from the book, “ We Baptists claim to have a “high view” of Scripture. I still do.” I became uncomfortable. That is a very bold statement to make and I was a bit offended by it. Is it possible for one belief to understand scripture better than someone else?

One thing that really stuck out to me was how the author was using scriptures and interpreting them into his own belief. I am one of those people that don’t like the Bible misquoted. In this world we have people who teach the Bible straightforward. There are also those that twist the Word ever so slightly that some may not notice it. Does Jesus correct the Bible in scripture? According to the author He does. My I am so confused the more I read this book. I appreciate that the author is adamant in his study even though I don’t agree with him.

I don’t want to go through each point where I disagree with the author. The best thing I can do as a reviewer is give you my opinion and let you decide for yourselves. Just like there are many interpretations of the Bible, there are many people who see scriptures differently. I can not recommend this book but I can suggest that if you read it, do it with eyes open and heart ready to discern what God says in His Word.

I received a copy of this book from Celebrate Lit. The review is my own opinion.… (altro)

This book challenges commonly-held notions about God by emphasizing that Jesus Christ was the full expression of God. In the course of his treatment, Jersak shares recent theological thinking about God in a casual style. The upside of this is that a reader with little or no theological training can follow his discourse (helped by sidebars in which the author explains in clear language several key terms). The downside is a tendency to verbosity. Some chapters read like transcriptions of talks. This may be related to his tendency to overuse italics.
One key concept treated by Jersak is expressed by the Greek term kenosis (used in Phil. 2:5). It literally means emptying, and, like the term incarnation, is often focused on the Nativity. Jersak extends this to apply to the entire earthly life of Jesus, culminating in the ultimate emptying on the cross.
In keeping with Trinitarian thought ancient and modern, Jersak asserts that the kenosis begins with the inner-trinitarian generation of the Son. He is also at pains to make clear that to translate kenosis as emptying might suggest that the incarnation involved laying aside divinity.
His enthusiasm for his message is plain, which leads him at times to overstate. One instance in which I found this problematic was in chapter 3, "Freedom or Love?" In it, Jersak begins by asserting a dichotomy of opposing views of God, one that emphasizes his absolute freedom (will) and one that stresses his love. But in the course of the chapter, he changes the referent of one half of the dichotomy. Opposed to the love of God as expressed in Christ he sets not divine will but human willfulness.
Jersak insists that whenever the Bible speaks of God’s wrath, it should always be taken metaphorically. Given his premise that the incarnate Christ reveals a cruciform God, this view is defensible. Less certain is his assertion that this is what the authors, specifically those of the Old Testament, meant.
I liked the way that a book on theology, written in an accessible style, engages with serious theology and philosophy. In addition to church fathers, he quotes many modern authors, including Simone Weil, Kathryn Tanner, David Bentley Hart, and George P. Grant.
Jersak’s message is radically different from much contemporary popular theology (especially the evangelical variety), but will not be as surprising to readers up to speed on modern academic thought about God. You might not agree with everything he writes. I have noted a few points for further study. But if you, whether a believer or a non-believer, think that Jesus came to save us from God (to borrow a phrase from Brian Zahnd in the foreword), you owe it to yourself to have a look.… (altro)