This
is a long review because the author proposes a new theological
construct and I do not feel he has adequately presented his case.
There are many problems with it.
Jersak's
proposal is that, since Jesus in His incarnation was the exact
representation of God (Heb. 1:3), we are to develop our view of God,
His character, from the life, death and resurrection of Christ. God
has shown us exactly what He is like, Jersak argues, in the flesh and
blood human we call Jesus. “God is, was and always will be exactly
like Jesus.” The Old Testament and epistles are to be
reinterpreted in light of Christ's incarnation. The result is a
self-giving God of love and humility, not coercive nor controlling.
There
are a few underlying assumptions Jersak has made. “I've come to
believe that Jesus alone is perfect theology,” he writes. “...Jesus
Christ is the perfected and perfect revelation of the nature of God
because he is God. There is no revelation apart from him.”
“God is fully revealed in Jesus.” One underlying but unstated
assumption is that Jesus in His incarnation revealed all there is to
know about God. I see several problems with that. If there is no
revelation apart from Jesus, why do we have the epistles? Why did the
NT authors write anything other than the gospels? Why did Paul need
to go to the desert to receive revelation as he could have just
interviewed eye witnesses of Jesus' life? Why did John receive
revelation on Patmos? Another unstated assumption is that we have in
the gospels all that Jesus revealed about God. That is just not the
case. John 21:25 tells us that recording all Jesus said and did would
take books and books and books. What we have in the gospels is a tiny
bit of what Jesus revealed about God, what He said and did. To
establish a theology of the nature of God from a tiny bit of the
possible information is just not valid.
Another
assumption is, if Jesus is the exact representation of God's being
(Heb. 1:3) then God is exactly like Jesus. “God is like Jesus,”
Jersak writes. “Exactly like Jesus. God has always been like
Jesus.” “God is perfectly revealed in Christ.” But even
Jersak admits, “Certainly the fullness of the divine nature is
concealed in some ways in the Incarnation.” He also says,
“So, in the flesh and blood person of Jesus, we have the only life
ever lived that perfectly reveals the true nature of God, as
far as it can be revealed in a human being.” By Jersak's own words,
some of what we could know about God was not revealed by
Jesus. God is not exactly like Jesus because there are aspects
of God not revealed by Jesus. Something else to consider about
Jersak's assumption is that Phil. 2:7 tells us Jesus took on a form
(or nature) of a servant. One needs to address the “form” or
“nature” Jesus took on while in a human body and how that relates
to God's nature. A statue might be the exact representation of
a man, but it is a representation, not the man. Jersak says the
incarnation reveals self-emptying, self-sacrifice and servanthood as
who God really is. Yet Phil. 2:7 says Jesus took on the form or
nature of a servant. If servanthood is a character trait of God, why
did Jesus have to take on the form of it? Jersak also says “Humility
is an eternal attribute of God...” Yet Phil. 2:8 says Jesus humbled
Himself. Why would He need to do that if humility was already a
trait?
One
other issue. Jersak does not look at all the acts of Jesus as
recorded in the gospels and what they reveal about God. “God is
neither coercive nor controlling,” he writes. So
Jersak does not address Jesus cleansing the temple. Jesus made a whip
and drove people out (John 2:15). Is that an exhibition of not
being coercive? (And does that not tell us something about God's
holiness and sin?) Jersak does not look at Jesus rebuking the storm
(Mark 4:39), resulting in the wind stopping and it becoming calm.
Isn't that an example of Jesus controlling nature?
There
are a few more issues in the book that have problems.
Developing
a theodicy, Jersak writes, “...when God through the Logos (John 1)
created the universe, he relinquished control to natural law.” If
that is the case, how did God produce the Egyptian plagues, divide
the Red Sea, and make the day longer for Joshua? How did Jesus calm
the storm or even heal people? How did Jesus command demons, created
beings, to leave a person and enter animals? Don't all those examples
indicate that God and Jesus have authority over and can (and do)
control creation and created beings? (By the way, the view, that God
created the universe and then remains apart from it and lets is run
itself, is called deism.)
Here
is another issue. “God is never arbitrary about who receives his
mercy and who doesn't,” Jersak writes. Yet Paul, when explaining
Jacob and Esau, quotes Exodus, “I will have mercy on whom I have
mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” (Rom.
9:14b)
Probably
the hardest hurdle for Jersak to overcome in developing his theology
is the accounts of God's wrath in the Old Testament. In Jersak's
theology, God's wrath becomes “a metaphor for the consequences
of God's consent to our non-consent. That is, God's wrath (the
metaphor) is that he allows us to resist him, and includes our
experience of all the fall-out that ensues.” (Italics in the
original.) He summarizes, “Wrath is a metaphor for the intrinsic
consequences of our refusal to live in the mercies of God.” When
Jesus speaks of God's wrath, such as in parables, “...he uses it
ironically,” Jerask says, or he uses it as “a concession to our
conceptions of wrath...” And Paul? Jersak writes, “...wrath to
Paul is not the seething malice of an angry God, but rather, the
deadly consequences of our own sin, namely death or perishing,
whatever that includes.” (This is beginning to sound like karma.)
If
God does not exhibit wrath, then from what are we saved? Jersak
writes, “God sent Jesus into the world to announce the good news of
peace, to turn us from wickedness and save us (from ourselves).”
When Jesus talks about giving His life as a ransom, it is a metaphor.
Jersak sees no God who needs to be appeased, no wrath that needs to
be satisfied. “God did not need to be reconciled to us – he was
never our enemy.” “My own conviction,” he writes, “and that
of the historic church, is that God was not punishing Jesus on the
Cross at all.” What Christ did was unwrath us, that is, delivered
us from “the process of perishing under the curse and decay of
sin.”
Jersak
does not address the sacrifices God required in the Old Testament to
cover sins and what that implies about appeasing God when sins have
been committed. When writing about the Reformed view of God as
sovereign, Jersak writes, “It is not a fanciful interpretation of
Scripture.” “This way of seeing God really does appear plainly in
the Bible.” He admits, “Even significant swaths of biblical
literature don't line up well with the Christ of the Gospels.” So
how does Jersak deal with those passages in the Bible? We need to
read those passages “with fresh eyes and gospel lenses,” he says.
We are not to “allow literalism to corner us.” He suggests, “
our false images of God can be overcome by a shift from biblical
literalism to a return to Christ himself as our final authority...”
Sometimes
we need to be aware of whom Jersak quotes. For example, he quotes
Saint Silouan the Athonite to confirm that “The Son of Man has
taken into Himself all mankind...” It is important for
readers to know that Saint Silouan was Greek Orthodox, and therefore
believed in theosis, that is, becoming divine. He also refers
to the writings of Pastor Gregory Boyd, a proponent of open theism.
One
should also check his biblical references. Writing about the wages of
sin being death, Jersak admits, “that's ledger language, wrath
language. But Christ doesn't balance the ledger; he nails it to the
Cross (Col. 2:4)! He utterly removes it.” Actually, it's Col. 2:14
and the verse is clear, it was the charge against us that was done
away with and nailed to the cross, not the ledger itself.
Missing
from Jersak's proposed theology are character traits of God I think
are very important. One is holiness. Isaiah and Revelation both
record beings saying of God, “Holy, holy, holy.” Another is that
God is just (2 Thess. 1:6). The writers of Hebrews and Deuteronomy
say God is a consuming fire. These character traits of God have much
to tell us about how God exhibits His love and mercy and should not
be ignored.
There
is one area in the book where Jersak is spot on. He reminds us God
exists independent of our view of Him. Jersak says we tend to develop
an image of God out of our own temperament and then try to find
Scripture to verify it.
It
would be nice to believe in the God Jersak describes, only
self-sacrificing, loving, giving, consensual. But I must believe in
the God as He is revealed in the Bible, all of the Bible. He
is first of all holy, holy, holy. He is righteous. He is just. He is
a consuming fire. He is all of that while, at the same time, He is
love and merciful. It is a glorious mystery.
You
can watch a video of the author here.
I
am taking part in a blog tour of this book and you can read other
reviews here.
Brad
Jersak is an author and teacher based in Abbotsford, BC. He is on the
faculty at Westminster Theological Centre (Cheltenham, UK), where he
teaches New Testament and Patristics. He also serves as adjunct
faculty with St. Stephen's University (St. Stephen, NB). He is also
the senior editor of Christianity Without Religion Magazine
based in Pasadena, CA. You can find out more at www.bradjersak.com.
CWR
Press, 352 pages.
I
received a complimentary egalley of this book through Litfuse for an
independent and honest review.