Biblical Metaphysics: more free writing notes.
It is indeed a strange reality that the best contemporary definition of biblical metaphysics comes from the political guru Rush Limbaugh: “Words mean things.” The next sentence threatens to steal the fire from all debates on Calvinism with crass simplicity: Words in heaven mean the same thing as they do on earth.
According to Matthew 4:4, Christ said, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.” Christ either said that or he didn’t, and Moses is now central in this discussion once again. Remember our discussion of him in chapter three? He told Israel to not ask who would bring the word down to earth from heaven; there is no such need, the word is near, and in us. Nor is it too difficult for us.
Most of religious history is like political media. We listen to a political speech on TV, and then a commentator or “political expert” tells us what they said. The serpent came to Eve like a political commentator; he also came to Christ in the wilderness the same way. The great unwashed masses need to be told what God said to us by elite mortals. When Christ came, He turned that construct completely upside down. Christ was God in the flesh speaking directly to the people. In regard to the Sermon on the Mount, Scripture states that Christ “taught” them (Matthew 5:2). When you are “taught,” it assumes you have learned something. The crowd learned something that day directly from God, and without an expert commentator to interpret it for them. Not only that, these were the commoners of that day. The commoners were obviously Christ’s target ministry.
Christ not only spoke with authority,* but He rebutted the “experts” of that day through a series of, “You have heard that it was said, but I say to you that….” The Sermon on the Mount is also prefaced with a hermeneutic: it begins with the statement that the people were taught, and ends with a promise of a life built upon a rock if one “hears” the words and “does them.” Just like Moses said: the words are near, and we are able to do them. Christ goes out of His way to emphasize the hearing and doing hermeneutic by presenting a parable-in-contrast:
Matthew 7:24 – “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. 26 And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. 27 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.”
Like most eras in religious history, the Jewish culture during the time of Christ was saturated with religious experts who used caste to oppress the people. Christ never checked in with the religious academia of that day, He virtually ignored them and took the gospel of the kingdom directly to the common people. They had not been taught they were merely controlled:
Matthew 9:35 – And Jesus went throughout all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every affliction. 36 When he saw the crowds, he had compassion for them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd. 37 Then he said to his disciples, “The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few; 38 therefore pray earnestly to the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest.”
The religious hierarchy often confronted Christ accordingly in regard to His “authority”:
Matthew 21:23 – And when he entered the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came up to him as he was teaching, and said, “By what authority are you doing these things, and who gave you this authority?”
______________________________________________________________________
*In other words, He spoke on His own authority and not the religious experts of the day. The fact that He did so “astonished” the crowds (Matthew 7:28, 29).
24 Jesus answered them, “I also will ask you one question, and if you tell me the answer, then I also will tell you by what authority I do these things. 25 The baptism of John, from where did it come? From heaven or from man?” And they discussed it among themselves, saying, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will say to us, ‘Why then did you not believe him?’ 26 But if we say, ‘From man,’ we are afraid of the crowd, for they all hold that John was a prophet.” 27 So they answered Jesus, “We do not know.” And he said to them, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things.
John the Baptist was hardly part of the formal academia of that day. Yet, his authority came directly from heaven. The religious elite of that day were expected to “believe him” because of the truth he spoke. Truth is the authority. Even though that culture was functioning on the authority of men, it is interesting that the religious leaders dared not to admit it and accuse John the Baptist of such.
Power Over the Laity
This book will stay clear of an in-depth evaluation of the Gnostics because they were philosophical decedents of Plato, and a rudimentary knowledge of Platonism is all that is necessary to understand Calvinism. Gnosticism had infiltrated Judaism and saturated the culture of that time and place. The apostolic pushback against their Platonist dualism can be seen throughout the New Testament. But most interesting is the fact that the sect known as the Nicolaitans were the embodiment of first century Gnosticism, and the name “is derived from the Greek word nikolaos, a compound of the words nikos and laos. The word nikos is the Greek word that means to conquer or to subdue. The word laos is the Greek word for the people. It is also where we get the word laity. When these two words are compounded into one, they form the name Nicolas, which literally means one who conquers and subdues the people. It seems to suggest that the Nicolaitans were somehow conquering and subduing the people.”[50]
Not only did Christ mention the Nicolaitans as recorded in Revelation 2:6, but He had a discourse with a Jewish leader, actually, “the” teacher of Israel, denoting very high status, named Nicodemus. This is also a name that means, “victory over the people.”* The conversation is recorded in John 3:1-21, and is the only recorded event where Christ used the new birth in a presentation of the gospel. This is significant.
But we can go back earlier in history to see the Greek/Jewish combination of philosophy and religion with Philo of Alexandria (20 BCE – 50 CE). Philo was a Hellenistic Jewish (Neo-Platonist) who fused Greek philosophy with Judaism. Philo read the Bible as allegorical, for it was through allegorical interpretation you would gain the true knowledge. This is the case with the later development of Kabbalah that the symbolic and not the literal meaning of the bible is where the real meaning is found.[51]
______________________________________________________________________
*From the Greek name Νικοδημος (Nikodemos) which meant “victory of the people” from Greek νικη (nike) “victory” and δημος (demos) “the people”.
The Jewish leaders during the time of Christ were heavily influenced by Platonism, and their government of faith and force had the authority to enforce all Jewish laws on the populous except capital punishment.[52] It was very similar to Plato’s political construct; i.e., the religious edicts and civil laws of the leaders were enforced by the Temple Guard. But the main point I want to make here is the reoccurring theme of the word being close. Once again, we see Moses being brought to bear, this time, in the conversation between Christ and Nicodemus:
John 3:13 – No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man. 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.
Christ was refuting elitist orthodoxy. Nicodemus and the other religious leaders of that day were not mediators between God and the commoners. They did not bring down the word to earth. The word is already near, and in us, through the new birth. All must be born again form above. Truth and salvation doesn’t originate in the flesh of men, it comes down from above. This is the melding of heaven and earth. This is the melding of spirit and material. In essence, this serves as a refutation of Plato’s metaphysical dichotomy of the material and invisible.
Nicodemus was not even familiar with this basic spiritual truth of the new birth though he was “the” teacher in Israel. Salvation comes directly to those who believe in Christ, not through elitist orthodoxy. The following confused Nicodemus: the power Christ was able to display apart from the blessings and authority of the religious leadership:
John 3:2 – This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.” 3 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
Christ cut right to the point—salvation is imparted directly to the believer and Christ is the only mediator. This turned Nicodemus’ religious hierarchy completely upside down. This is a major point of contention throughout the New Testament:
1John – 2:26 I write these things to you about those who are trying to deceive you. 27 But the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie—just as it has taught you, abide in him.
We have no need for anyone to teach us—we should rather “abide in him,” not some spiritual elitist ruler. There are those gifted to encourage and equip us in abiding, but they are not mediators.
Words
The Bible is God’s full-orbed philosophical statement to every individual. The first two chapters are His metaphysics, epistemology, and ethic. But for our purposes concerning the point at hand, we want to focus on God’s epistemology of words. Our world and reality is interpreted grammatically. God spoke the world into existence with words, but the power of His words is not the only consideration, we must also consider the fact that words enable us to interpret reality. Word identification makes what is relevant. Even UFO’s are significant because they are explained as unidentified, and they fly. Light is light because God identified it with the word, “light.” This gives light meaning, and its meaning becomes reality in the words, “bright,” “warm,” etc. Certainly things can exist without words, but they have no relevance. What was it, before God “separated” light and darkness as recorded in Genesis 1:4? We don’t know, it wasn’t named with a word. But light and darkness as one would be interesting to see and experience. But would there be words to give that phenomenon relevance? I suppose so; it would simply be a “phenomenon.”
God created words to communicate with mankind, and they mean things, and they mean what God says they mean. This is extremely relevant to our conversation for the Reformers claimed, and still claim to be the masters of words. And be sure of this: those who interpret words interpret realty. As we will see in chapter five, Martin Luther hijacked God’s epistemology with his theology of the cross. Calvinism is not a doctrine of any sort, it is a philosophy that posits a Reformed interpretation of reality itself. The question before us in not whether or not we believe in election; at stake is the very interpretation of reality itself.


Well that is right Paul, because what I needed was that my heart needed to be more in line with Christs which is of love. Selfish anger has no place within Christs body. This therefore is TRUTH and I knew it was from the Holy Spirit because it aligned with Scripture. Now if the Holy Spirit was telling me to go out and take marijuana to placate and soothe my anger, then one would have to wonder whether that was of Him.
Whew John you put out a “boatload” my poor little brain will have to sift through……… 😦 I am getting pieces of it and understand a smidget. A question though – Is there not both concrete and abstract?
I mean I get it – Love is a big, big word and i will admit I did not get much of the understanding of it when I was younger as I do now; but what I do get now I feel is coming in line with what Christ means by love. And yes I get it that there are many different types of “love”- phileo, romantic, etc. But that is what it is, and that is what and how we define it. I can’t go around then and say ok, I now state love is hate and then it be so. However, then love stays within its own construct; it can’t go beyond the confines of that box. It has space to move and be interpreted within its own kind, but can it move beyond that? I do not think so. The same as with the human species cannot mate with another kind of species. I happen to think there is a balance of abstract and concrete because I believe that God is of order and balance. I believe that way with God’s Word- it has space to move and be interpreted within its own space, but cannot move beyond that. If so, we then are all over the place never reaching understanding if only interpreted through abstract eyes. I do believe we then can have understanding just as you have understanding of what Aristotle was trying to say. So then would you not say you have a clear understanding of what abstract is?
Ok I may all over the place with this so just bear with me- you put my mom brain of three kids to work. 🙂
LikeLike
One thing I know is music- I sing. When I hit the note D, it will always be a D. It might be a different pitch, but it will always be a D- this is the reality, truth and concreteness of it. So knowing this we see that it can never be anything else but a D.
LikeLike
But Argo that is the only construct that we have to go by and so it sticks that it is a dog- so it cannot be anything else but a dog. We won’t call it a cat and think that is going to fly. “Dog” then becomes the reality, beyond that man cannot go. That is ALL we know. Maybe when we see God one day we will be blown away by how abstract everything is, but what I know is only what I know….and a dog is a dog. Just as love can be defined in many different ways, but only within the constraints of that box- it cannot fit as an abstract within the box of hate.
If we started looking at everything in this way then sin has no concrete meaning, but only in abstract terms.
LikeLike
“Study to show YOURSELF approved” indicates inner ability to understand realty, but questions on the test can have a wrong answer.
LikeLike
well thats all I am going to post for now- ohhh….I have brain freeze.
LikeLike
Paul that is sure the truth- the Bible does say we can know. So if we can know, then reality is applicable.
LikeLike
The wrong answer according to what standard though?
LikeLike
Here is a verse based on reality and concrete concepts of light and darkness.
In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. 5The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. John 1:5
LikeLike
T4H,
Was a D a D before someONE decided to give it that definition? Before man existed, there was no such thing as the note D.
Here’s an even trickier question: was there a note D before YOU existed? The answer may surprise you. The answer is no. Everything you know is a direct function of YOU. Without YOU being FIRST, there is nothing you can know to declare truth.
Sin is not abstract if the action violates the objective standard of GOOD, or truth: human beings. You are thinking I am preaching moral relativism…of course I have considered this knee jerk response to my position. It is not about me substituting one abstract standard of truth with the law of “do whatever you want to do”…this is the same Platonist argument just redefined. It is about me defining morality as a function of something REAL, like human life individually.
LikeLike
On the importance of words, especially the words of scripture, see 1Cr 2:13
These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
LikeLike