Biblical Metaphysics: more free writing notes.
Biblical Metaphysics
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.
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
But Argo- why look beyond what we have defined? God gave Adam the freedom to decide what to NAME animals and so they are what they are. Words are just as real as the “fingers” (also within the constraints of the box called appendages) on my hand. Just as God created man and the world in it He allowed man the freedom to create words for what they mean.
Words, yes can convey several emotions and be similar to other words especially in the English language; but go to another country and there language is not as flavorful as ours. However, again these words have their limitations and can only be used within the constraints of what it was intended for- nothing else.
And another thing ME is expected to be conjoined with OTHERS- I in myself do not get to decide this is what something is unless all have been conjoined together to freely decide what it …..is or whether I have the expertise to create a word. An example…….we did not have a clue what a gene was 100 years ago, but now we do; because a man who was a scientist came up with that word; THAT is what it is now. Maybe to God it is something else, but He gave us the ability to create and make it be. That is all I know, so that is what it is.
I can’t go beyond that unless I become a scientist and decide that I could make up another word for gene but still does that the word “gene” not a gene anymore?
LikeLike
Right. And why name the animals with words? Because they have no metaphysical relevance unless they can be described and discussed. They are there, they just have no role in reality: what they look like, what they do, what they smell like, can they hurt you? , etc, etc, etc. Words give reality meaning. Hence, playing with the definition of words enables you to control people–they will act within the confines of what they think the reality is.
LikeLike
T4H and Paul,
Either I am not making myself clear, or you are not understanding me. I’m not entirely sure what you think my point is, but I feel we are speaking past each other. You seem to think I am declaring “words don’t mean things”, and you are implying that I am, by extension, a moral/truth relativist. That is not my position, and never has been.
I am not denying the efficacy of language (words) to organize man’s environment. On the contrary, I declare man to be an almost wholly conceptual being, which means that man’s ability to use language—that is, conceptual abstractions formed into specific acoustic system—is precisely why man is at the top of the food chain.
This would not be possible if words didn’t actually mean things.
The question is, WHO gets to decide what they mean? And their purpose, and their meanings, ultimately exist to serve WHAT?
I am not saying that words don’t mean things…I am not declaring language relative. I understand that a word associated with an idea (like “chair” means that thing with a back and four legs) cannot be changed willy nilly…for if that was the case, the whole point of language, to organize our environment, would be impossible. What I am saying is that a word cannot exist in a vacuum. Words cannot mean things if there are no actual THINGS with which man can associate the word.
So, what is the prerequisite for language then? You must have an observer who is capable of abstract thought, and you must have an observer (man). Without those two things, there can be no words. Words cannot exist in a vacuum of themselves, or as a product of themselves. By definition, without man and objects he observes, you cannot make a word, you cannot define a word; you cannot see a word…words are not material. So, man, a material being, by virtue of abstractly organizing his environment, CREATES words. Thus, MAN is the one who must give value to what he observes…he does this by using the conceptual abstraction we call language; or words. Without man, there are no words, which means it is man who is the standard of TRUTH—that is, man is the standard for why and how all words are used. Man is the TRUTH that words must serve. Any other use of words is purely tyrannical; purely Platonic.
A man looking at a fire from a distance will describe what he sees as “the fires flickered dimly on the hill”. A man looking at a fire from a few feet away will say “the fire flickered brightly in the pit”. In this example, the fire is still a fire; dim is still dim; bright is still bright. I am not declaring words/language relative (though, it can be…but that’s another argument), I am talking about TRUTH. How is TRUTH conveyed by words/language? It is conveyed by understanding that MAN is the source of TRUTH…man will use words to convey HIS particular contextual reality, which is the standard of TRUTH. To you, a tattoo may hurt. To me, a tattoo may feel good. Tattoo, feel, good, hurt…the meanings haven’t changed in either person’s case. So who is the liar? Neither. The truth is a function of the individual. This is my point.
Do either of you concede that TRUTH is outside of man? That is my question to you. What is the standard of truth? How do you decide if a word is TRUE or not? The word and the concept it describes exist to serve what?
LikeLike
And further, Paul, with respect, you are contradicting your own idea of “words mean things” when you concede that the “light and darkness” were one. If words mean things, then light must mean light, and dark must mean dark. According to the notion of “meaning” you must concede they are mutually exclusive concepts and thus, by DEFINITION (words mean things, remember) cannot be one. But you insist that, well, God said it in the Bible, so it must be true. Thus,your metaphysical assumptions to allow you to play both sides of epistemological fence at will. Words MUST mean things you declare, and yet at the same time you declare that God’s “Word” can specifically declare that, no, words may not actually mean what they mean. Light cannot mean light and dark mean dark if they can be “one”. A combination of them precludes a person from declaring unequivocally that “words mean things” because by DEFINITION light cannot be both light and dark at the same time. Why? Because “words mean things”, and if light can be both dark and light then this MUST wreck the meaning of light as far as man’s context (understanding of his epistemology) goes.
Thus, what you really seem to believe is that words mean things until you decide the Bible says otherwise…and then, conveniently, you argue that, no, actually words don’t mean the things we presume they mean. Truth is thus outside of man, and purely a function of NOT man…a function of God, or the Bible, or whatever primary consciousness happens to be in question.
This, Paul, is Platonism. The ability to switch our epistemological and metaphysical assumptions on a whim in service to some Primary Consciousness that is somehow Absolute Truth outside of man.
LikeLike
Argo,
A contradiction because you can’t explain how water, light and darkness were once the same expanse? They are “mutually exclusive” because man can’t explain it? Therefore “separate” must not really mean “separate”? You have stated a lot here, except your definition of “separate” in this sentence. Are you saying the text is in error because man can’t explain the prior sentence?
LikeLike
Paul, (BTW…my words in caps are not shouting, but are for emphasis; I’d use italics, but I can’t when posting for some reason; its the same on my blog.)
Oh…no, no. I’m still either not being clear or you are misunderstanding me. Could be a little of both.
I define “separate” exactly the same way you do. We agree on the meaning of the word…again, my argument is not for the relative definition of words. What I am doing is trying to illustrate that there is, in fact, a distinct difference between a WORD and the OBJECT the word describes. The word is NOT the object; the word is a purely conceptually abstract TOOL man uses to organize what he observes.
Thus, I am suggesting that, where it seems you conflate these two statements, I hold them to be completely different in principle:
Words MEAN things
Words ARE things
I submit that when you say words mean things you are really saying words ARE things. This is where our disagreement lies. Words are NOT things. The word “chair” and an actual, material thing we sit on are completely different things. The object “chair” is an observable thing; the CONCEPT “chair” is not. And the object was not labeled “chair” until MAN applied the word…that is, until man abstractly defined that thing he observes and sits on as “chair”. Man USES language to organize the things he observes to promote his life…making HIM the standard of TRUTH. But man’s language is not the SAME thing as what he observes. Man’s language, his words, removed from the things he senses, is NOTHING. Language does not exist in a vacuum of itself. Man creates the meaning, through words (language), for the physical objects he observes. Thus, meaning, and by extension TRUTH, are a function of MAN. A chair is NOT a chair until man observes it and labels it “chair”. That’s how we get the CONCEPT of “chair”, or “chair-ness”.
Go outside and look at a hard round thing on the ground made of various earthen minerals. Now, give that object a label in your mind. You will think “rock”. Say it. You will say “rock”. Are the sounds you “hear” in your mind when you think “rock”, and the sounds you hear with your ears when you say “rock” the same thing as that hard round object on the ground made of various earthen minerals? No. “Rock” remains purely a concept created by your mind to give you a stable frame of reference for that particular object you are observing. The word “rock” in your mind is NOT the same thing as the object you are seeing. They are distinct.
The problem is that if we say that words are real–that is, actual, and not purely abstract–and then say “words mean things”, then this makes what is NOT accessible to man’s senses the source of TRUTH, because conceptual abstractions like “words” cannot be SENSED. And a truth beyond man’s senses is not the philosophy of Christianity.
So, of course God can take a material substance which is a combination of “light” stuff, and “dark” stuff, and “watery” stuff and separate it out. But that is because the material substance He separates is ACTUAL, and can be manipulated. God cannot take what is a wholly absolute abstraction in and of itself “light”, and a wholly absolute abstraction in and of itself “dark” and combine them. This is an epistemological contradiction in terms. Impossible, even for God.
The point is that all of what is real is ACTUAL…that is, physical. Language does not create, it organizes what IS in the interest of affirming and propagating a standard of TRUTH. That standard must be tangible and actual. That standard is man.
LikeLike
“there is, in fact, a distinct difference between a WORD and the OBJECT the word describes. The word is NOT the object; the word is a purely conceptually abstract TOOL man uses to organize what he observes.”
Right, without the word the object is an object, no doubt, but it has no meaning in reality–without the word that describes it.
The object is metaphysics. Words are the epistemology. Metaphysics can’t be understood without words.
The right word that attaches the correct meaning to the object and conveys the right idea is what we call “truth.” In that regard, words must be concrete.
LikeLike
True Paul…….this is then where we get into “no man’s land” and way out there. What is the use of an object if is not connected with a word to define it? so is it not then a relationship that is necessary to know what something is?……otherwise then we are just going to manipulate with words and use to whatever benefit I would want to be- based on ME and my definition. Communists and socialists do it- they think abstract exclusively. I believe in the balance of concrete and abstract language.
LikeLike
Now Argo this is where I would concur with you about the usefulness of abstract language that total use of concrete wording can lead to rigidness and legalistic viewpoints and this is where I believe (my perception of it and abstractness of it) that a word can have space to be malleable, but to a point- only if it is within the confines of its box or “species” (like synonyms). This is true to nature even in itself- another wolf could not mate with a giraffe and expect a baby wolfraffe. So I put wording, as a reality, in the same viewpoint.
LikeLike
Paul,
“Words must be concrete”
Not at all. It is not the words which are concrete, but the standard by which words, which are properly described as “ideas” or “concepts”, are valued which must be concrete. Only then can words lead to TRUTH.
You are arguing that without words, there can be no truth. But that equation is backwards. What is TRUTH? TRUTH is concrete; TRUTH is actual; truth is MAN’S LIFE. So the proper argument is: without man’s LIFE there can be no words. Words are a direct function of truth, not the other way around.
What does this mean. It means that all epistemology, even the bible, can only be true if it affirms man’s life as the source of truth, because mans life is the very source of epistemology, axiomatically. Without mans life first in the epistemological/metaphysical order, the bible can never be called true.
T4H,
You cannot mix actual with abstract. Only one is absolute, and one MUST be absolute. If one is absolute, the other can only exist as a DIRECT function of it.
LikeLike
Argo,
So, there wasn’t any truth before man? Is that what you are saying?
LikeLike
T4H,
All language is abstract. There is no such thing as concrete language. Language is a conceptual abstraction categorically.
LikeLike
Paul,
Let me correct myself. I will concede that words must be concrete in the sense that “cow” cannot (or rather, should not) also mean dog. But that’s isn’t the salient point. The point is: WHY must words be concrete?? What is it they violate when they are NOT concrete.
LikeLike
Truth is violated. If it’s called a dog and its really a cow, that’s a lie. This is the chapter I am working on right now. The Reformers redefined the word, “gospel.” Through the redefinition of words, they have created a contra reality that they use to control people–this is the whole issue at hand. Furthermore, on what grounds do you conclude that there was no truth before man?
LikeLike
Paul,
Yes. That is PRECISELY what I am saying.
LikeLike