ISSUE 3: Knowing God & Understanding the Bible

“But let those who boast boast in this, that they understand and know me.”

Common in today’s world, diverse local and global surrounding contexts are devolving with misinformation and fake news. Christians need to seriously consider how much of this permeates our practice and composes our everyday playbook. Where we get our information is certainly at the center of this condition. The internet, for example, is how Gen Z becomes informed and thus consistently misinformed about the world. In today’s divisive climate, the ability or desire to distinguish fact from fiction and truth from falseness eludes even Christians. Therefore, being able to discern misinformation from facts and fake news from the truth is an inescapable issue that affects us all, thereby challenging the perceptions and interpretations of all Christians—including academicians engaged in the theological task. Since we are influenced in one way or another by this (mis)Information Age, no one is a bystander.

A historical narrative of misinformation has frequently shaped Christian perceptual-interpretive frameworks for theology and lenses for practice, which also has claimed the Bible as its source. Such a narrative has diluted the integrity of the Way, compromised the integrity of the Truth, and fragmented the integrity of the Life, which the Word vulnerably embodied to constitute with nothing less and no substitutes. When the whole person embodying the Truth, Way and Life eludes our understanding, these become bits of information or soundbites in Christian vocabulary. Therefore, our challenge widens with the need among Christians to know the Word. But, on the other hand, our path narrows when the Way, the Truth and the Life is understood.

The narrative history of Christians’ interpretation of the Bible can read like a cautionary tale, which by necessity makes inescapable the issue of understanding the Bible either as a book or a context. Evangelicals, for example have been known as people of the Book, while the identity of too few Christians is defined by the Bible as a context. As a book, the Bible is assumed by many Christians to be the main source (if not inerrant) for knowledge of God, yet what many hold in theory is not upheld in actual practice. That is to say, the epistemic realm of our knowledge of God often has undergone subtle redefinition, thereby replacing God’s Word as the main source with other conflated sources or extra-biblical sources. For example, as a general source of knowledge today, Wikipedia (and other similar websites) has become a prominent source occupying the public mind. Likewise, a host of biblical commentators has formed (both unintended and intended) an analogous Wikipedia source (e.g. as Theopedia) for conflated or extra-biblical knowledge, which serves as the main source of our knowledge of God (the what) that in practice supplants the how by the words from God. The critical issue is the spread of misinformation. Consequently, we have to openly ask further if the cyber world has co-opted the epistemic realm from which our learning is defined and our understanding is determined.

Nico Mele, the director of Harvard’s Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy, expounds generally on the damaging effects of the use of this technology not only on compromising the integrity of information but its power to shape our thinking. For Nico, however, the problem is not technology but “there’s something in our culture that has become less substantive”; this is the problem of the human condition that he admits to not fully understanding.^{^[1]} The lack of understanding the human condition with its underlying sin of reductionism is also indicative of many, if not most, Christians. This has certainly impacted the integrity of both churches and the academy, raising legitimate concern about the significance of the education and learning in those contexts.

The reality we need to wake up to is discomforting: The oft-unrecognized limits of this epistemic realm provide the rationally constricted and emotionally constrained parameters for the extent of our knowledge, while also biasing our learning and understanding of God, such that what we think we know of God is really less because God has been reduced to less.

This raises further key questions about our epistemic realm that we urgently need to address:

The interpretation directly leading to our answers to these questions also further involves hermeneutic issues, the sum of which will either expose their reduced condition of less (as in fragmentary at best) or be integrated for their wholeness.

These basic issues and questions are essential to resolve in our relationship with God, in order to truly know and understand the whole of God (the Trinity) revealing who, what and how God is to, for and with us. This resolution amplifies the need for redemptive change (the old dying and the new rising) in our learning processes and education systems, both in the church and the academy.

An ongoing tension will exist in our discussion between ‘discourse to inform’ and ‘communication to connect’; the former is aligned to the Bible as book and the latter to the Bible as context. Perhaps you may consider your interpretations to engage both sides. Yet, that does not resolve the tension, which hopefully will become evident.

Consider this: Obviously, in order for individuals or groups to have any mutual exchange and further interaction, they must share the same language. This shared language can be verbal and/or nonverbal (as in body language), yet with expressions and signs common to each other in order to have that exchange and interaction. On the other hand, even persons or groups who share the same language can have difficulty exchanging, interacting and being on the same level of understanding.

When I was in the U.S. Air Force, I was exposed to different parts of the U.S. and the world, which until then I had only virtual awareness of. This exposure brought direct experiences of these differences, which clarified and corrected my virtual ones. I recall vividly when I became friends with a colleague who was from the deep South of the U.S. We shared the same language, but being from the heart of the Midwest, Chicago, there were numerous times that I either didn’t understand his southern dialect or misunderstood his connotations of the same words. Since we both had played football, we shared that common bond; yet, making ongoing connection in general was not without difficulty, and a challenge we both had to work on linguistically. (By the way, he shifted more to a Midwesterner than I did to a Southerner—which some may see as a misinformed “victory” for the English language.)

In the Bible we can observe similar difficulty and challenges with language, as well as give testimony of our similar personal experiences with the Word. Perhaps, not surprisingly, you may feel that you and the Word don’t share the same language, and there may be more truth to that than is apparent. To highlight this reality, consider that the Jewish Jesus said directly to Jewish believers in their mutual contest, “Why is my language not clear to you?” (Jn 8:43). Certainly his words were not foreign to them, but the meaning of his language was uncommon to them. In other words, though they shared the same language expressions, they didn’t share the same language signs. And what is underlying this difficulty is the factual reality that essentially they didn’t have the same language as the Word to “know the Truth” (Jn 8:32). This paradoxical linguistic contrast led to their interpretation conflict in misunderstanding the Word (8:33-41). Critical to this process, what underlies interpretation conflicts with the Word are language barriers generated, erected and sustained by reductionism (8:42-47).

How reductionism is at the heart of interpretation conflicts emerged from the beginning; and it is indispensable to understand the language barriers reductionism creates, if we are to get past our current level of biblical interpretation and deeper into the Word’s context of connection. The challenge before us is to understand the language presented in the Bible in order to know if we are interpreting a book’s ‘discourse to inform’ or a context’s ‘communication to connect’. And we need to understand also, as the Word made axiomatic for listening to his words: The language we use in our interpretation will be either the amount of information we get or the extent of connection we have.

The text of the Bible was written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, yet this literary fact does not necessarily define the composition of Scripture and the language distinguished by the Word. An abundance of exegesis and word studies of the biblical languages, not to mention critical studies, have accumulated a wealth of data (cf. Eccl 12:12) that have not advanced biblical studies with the significance to answer Jesus’ above question. This is the type of learning and education that Paul cautioned Timothy not to be misled and shaped by (2 Tim 3:7). The problem yet to be adequately resolved by churches and the academy is twofold: (1) understanding the nature of the Word’s language, and (2) addressing the reductionism that is the barrier to this understanding.

The biblical text is expressed in various genres, which is helpful to know for discerning what is being expressed. This knowledge, however, neither accesses the original-original composition of the Word nor insures an understanding of the composition in its original language—that is, beyond and deeper than its Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek wording. The specific composition of the Word doesn’t clearly emerge and fully unfold from its general expression unless that composition is perceived (read and listened to) in what is truly its original language. Stated briefly: The original language antecedes the biblical languages and gets us to the nature of the Word’s language, which is essential for understanding the Word. Furthermore, this understanding is essential to know the self-revelations God communicates to connect vulnerably with us, so that we can, will and do know the whole-ly God, not merely information about God.

Jesus used parables to express various ideas, yet his thoughts behind them unfolded only in the nature of his language. This was problematic for those who heard him, even for his disciples. When the disciples asked him what a particular parable meant, he told them to their surprise: “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of God; but to others I speak in parables, so that in spite of ‘looking they may not perceive, and listening they may not understand’” (Lk 8:9-10). Jesus’ words didn’t guarantee that the disciples understood him; on the contrary, they frequently didn’t understand the words from Jesus. For example, after his imperative to “Let these words sink into your ears,” he revealed vulnerably what was to happen to him. “But they did not understand his words; its meaning was concealed from them, so they could not perceive it” (Lk 9:44-45). Given how Jesus distinguished the perception of his disciples moments earlier, in contrast to others’ lack, how do we explain the disciples lack and thus loss?

The Word’s language is not readily apparent from these interactions. The clarity of the Word is illuminated when the Word’s original language is distinguished “In the beginning” (Jn 1:1; Gen 1:1), which isn’t the context paid attention to commonly in biblical interpretations. John’s Gospel is crucial for defining the Word’s horizon (main context) in complete context, so that the gospel is whole and neither reduced nor fragmented by a Word out of context and rendered to a book. As noted earlier, at creation the defining words from the Creator (Gen 1:28-30; 2:16-17), expressed in an historical or allegorical context, were either given to human persons to inform them of the parameters of their human function; or they were shared with those persons to communicate distinctly the terms for the relationship between them and the Creator. If the words communicated the terms for relationship together, then these relational terms could only be distinguished when composed in relational language. Anything less than relational language would be ambiguous, elusive, and simply open to variable interpretation of those relational terms; the consequence would be to substitute the Word’s relational terms with other (notably human) terms to define the relationship—for example, as an indirect behavioral code instead of direct reciprocal relational involvement.

This consequence evolved in the primordial garden from the beginning when the question was raised “Did God really say that?” (Gen 3:1) What needs to be understood in this encounter is the linguistic dynamic that on the surface innocently challenged God’s relational language. But then, what evolved is the substitution of an apparently reasonable alternate language to be definitive instead of relational language. How so?

First of all, the nature of the language expressing God’s words was changed from the relational language originally used to communicate to an alternate language used merely to inform (Gen 3:4-5). The shift to the primary focus on transmitting information over communicating relationship then opened the door to two major linguistic shifts of the words from God:

These major shifts transposed ‘the words from God in relational language’ to ‘the words of God in referential language’, and thereby altered the nature of the Word’s original language. The consequence for this beginning that still prevails today is:

The use of referential language that is unable to compose relational terms in order to communicate but is limited to only inform—the narrow transmission of information—therefore a language that cannot understand the composition of the words from Word no matter the wealth of information (even about “good and evil”) processing the words of God it can transmit to speak for God (as if “like God”).

In Jesus’ paradigm for hearing/listening to the Word, applying also to reading the Word, the following are to be further understood as axiomatic:

When Jesus illuminated the presence, influence and consequences of reductionism, he was not only clarifying our existing condition but also addressing what needs to be corrected. Our initial discussion of reductionism only introduces us to the scope of this prevailing reality and its workings. We also need to understand the breadth and depth of its prevalence.

From the beginning, the dynamic workings of reductionism have put into living motion (not virtual) the human (including our) condition. Therefore, we need to recognize unmistakably and to understand entirely:

Reductionism by its nature routinely imposes a narrowed perceptual-interpretive mindset that reduces our lens with the following consequences:

The perceptual-interpretive mindset of reductionism evolved in Israel’s theology and practice from the OT into the NT, which composed a referential theology and formed an outer-in practice that were critiqued initially by the prophets (e.g. Isa 29:13; Eze 33:30-32) and further by Jesus (Mk 7:6-8).

Referentialization of the Word is the most significant, and least understood, consequence emerging from the dynamic of reductionism. As Jesus would further clarify and deeply correct:

These axioms are essential to understand in our theology, to address in our practice, and to apply in our theology and practice. The alternative is to be rendered to the “idols” of both God and our persons erected in our theology and practice (Ps 115:8; 135:18).

Given the definitive nature of the words from God’s language and the determinative purpose of the Word’s clarification and correction, it is crucial for our theological anthropology in particular and theology in general to understand a distinction that is not interchangeable.^{^[2]} Despite the indispensable place of the creation context to complete the context composing the narrative for human beings, it is insufficient, inadequate and incorrect for theological anthropology simply to reference the context of the Creator. As Subject, the Creator’s context is not a referential context; and Creator-Subject’s creative and communicative actions (as well as salvific) are enacted only in relational terms, never referential terms that diminish, minimalize or make secondary the primacy of God’s relational design, purpose and function. In other words, God by nature acts simply in relational terms, which we quite simply often overlook or ignore. There is a basis for this.

The relational terms composing these relational actions can only be distinguished in Creator-Subject’s relational context, and not a referential context in which this relational significance becomes elusive, gets obscured, or is lost. This points to the underlying use of language. The use of relational terms and its composing relational language function for the primary purpose of communication in relationship. In contrast, and often in conflict, the use of referential terms and its composing referential language function for the purpose of transmitting information, which is only secondary at best to the primary function and purpose of relationship. Essentially, on the one hand, it can be said that referential language was not “designed” for the further development of qualitative communication in relationship but, on the other hand, in reality it purposely went in the opposite direction that takes us away from qualitative relational connection. Historically, the referential language of prose evolved after poetry, and early poetry was sung, the qualitative significance of which was basic to communication in relationship and not the mere transmission of information.^{^[3]} For further consideration, Iain McGilchrist locates this qualitative process in the function of the right brain hemisphere. This qualitative function of the right hemisphere, and its related view of the world, is in contrast to the quantitative reduction of words to the referential language of prose by the left brain hemisphere for its function not of communication in relationship but to merely make discourse about something.^{^[4]}

This further makes explicit the non-interchangeable terms composing the distinction between relational language and referential language. We need to understand this distinction to identify the language used by God and that of theological discourse because the two languages have distinctly different levels of significance, if not meaning. That is to say, language matters, and our working language will mean the difference between whole-ly knowing and understanding God and the human person, or merely having common fragmentary knowledge and referential information about them. And we cannot boast of the former on the basis of having the latter, no matter the quantity we possess (cf. Jer 9:23-24). Jesus’ above paradigm is axiomatic for our theology and practice, and thus pivotal for their significance.

Moreover, language matters because language both forms thought and makes functional any thought (notably human consciousness) antecedent to language. It has become increasingly apparent to modern scientific research that the language we speak shapes the way we see the world and even the way we think (not necessarily producing thought).^{^[5]} This points to the function of language not merely as a means of expression but also as a template imposing a constraint limiting what we see and the way we think.[6]

This modern awareness provides us with some understanding of the dynamic of referential language—how it works and what effect it has—that was set in motion from the primordial garden. So, what do you perceive as the purpose for the words from Creator God to the persons in the primordial garden? Was the purpose to transmit important information, or to communicate vital relational terms? Given that specific purpose, does that purpose engage those persons as subjects or merely as objects—that is, as subject-persons to be involved in relationship together, or as objects merely to conform to what God said?

From the primordial garden to the Law to the teachings of the Word, if the language you use is referential language, then what is the purpose you get from your interpretations; and what significance does that purpose have to God?

In the nature of God’s relational language, the only purpose that God has, enacts, and fulfills is to communicate with persons for relationship together, not for their information to conform to, and therefore for their inner-out involvement in the primacy of vulnerable relationship together—reciprocal relationship together face to face, person to person. Moreover, this primacy of relationship is constituted by persons not subtly defined and determined from outer in as those in reduced ontology and function, but only the reciprocal relationship involved vulnerably with persons from inner out constituted in whole ontology and function. When the nature of the language in use has lost its relational integrity, that language has compromised its purpose for the persons engaged. The unavoidable consequence is that that language either has no significant purpose or is simply used as an end in itself. Referential language fulfills either consequence in its assumed purpose; but then, that is the nature of referential language as conjointly composed by reductionism and propagated by its counter-relational workings (as Jesus clarified and corrected, Jn 8:44-45).

If we understand the nature of language, then whatever way we read the Bible, engage Scripture, or listen to the Word should always evoke our concern for the purpose of the language in us. Is this language to inform me, or to communicate with me? Is God merely engaged in theological discourse, or deeply involved to make relational connection with me? How we define this purpose is contingent on the language God uses. Accordingly, our understanding of the language composing the Word will determine whether we have been merely informed by the words of God composing a Book, or we have been relationally communicated with by the words from God constituting the context for connection. The outcome we will take away from this vital concern is the extent of knowing and understanding God, or at least what we think we know and understand about God.

What Jesus illuminated in the above interaction is that there are unavoidable language barriers preventing understanding; and that until these language barriers are removed there will be interpretive conflicts and impasses in understanding. This problem is analogous to marriage conflicts, which may require the spouses to have marriage counseling to get past the language barriers that they either don’t understand or are reluctant to face. In such situations counseling is not merely a suggestion but a need.

Subtle language barriers also emerge in the common use of technology today and the level of involvement it generates that diminishes relationships as an existential reality. Users have not understood the nature of such language barriers and have been reluctant to face them because of an underlying addiction to this technology. This addiction has evolved similarly to the current opioid addiction crisis in the U.S. Opioid addicts may have initially used painkillers for legitimate needs, but soon found themselves entrenched in its use as an end in itself. Compounding this addiction is the pharmaceutical industry, which has promoted opioid use despite knowing its consequences for users. This condition is accelerated by doctors’ prescription abuses and amplified immeasurably by drug cartels pushing Fentanyl. Yet, both for users and developers in either addiction, these current conditions help point out the nature of language barriers that is not understood or is resisted to face up to, and thus may even willfully impose, sustain and promote language barriers on purpose.

Language barriers are a “natural” occurrence in human relations, yet their existence is evidence of the nature of the human condition. The current political divisiveness dominating the U.S. is simply a demonstration of this human condition, and the language barriers of identity politics can be summed in a single word: toxic. Toxic is the single “word of the year” chosen for 2018 by the editors at the Oxford English Dictionary; Dictionary.com chose “misinformation,” which is certainly a primary medium of toxic language and the spread of conspiracy theories. This word describes the language dominating still and the obvious purpose it has fulfilled in its use. Sadly, but not surprisingly, Christians leaders have also used toxic language to emphasize their partisan political views, as well as engaged in the spread of misinformation to support those views. The barriers created, however, go beyond the use of such language. As science has discovered, the language we speak also shapes both the way we see the world and even the way we think. This reality of our minds helps illuminate the nature of our human condition and the language barriers evolving from it to determine human relations, even in relation to God.

Certainly, the political parties in the U.S. would benefit from “marriage” counseling to get past their language barriers. But this outcome depends on the willingness of the parties to be open to each other. This openness involves a vulnerability both to one’s own person and to the other person. The same dynamic of vulnerableness is necessary to get past language barriers with the Word. This process is distinguished in a key interaction with the Word (Jn 3:1-11).

Jesus had been communicating intensively the words from God, which was at the heart of his actions and underlying his “miraculous signs” (semion, 3:2). Yet, the theological trajectory and relational path composed by his language expressions were not understood by this biblical scholar (a Pharisee and member of the Sanhedrin), because Jesus’ language signs could not be processed by Nicodemus’ perceptual-interpretive mindset (3:4,9-10). What Jesus clarified was Nicodemus’ prevailing referential language, which created this language barrier preventing Nicodemus from understanding the relational significance of the words Jesus communicated. Accordingly, Jesus had to correct Nicodemus’ narrow thinking formed by his referential language in order to overcome the language barrier between them.

Language barriers by nature and on purpose subtly pervade the Christian community, distinctly shaping both relationship with God and relationships with each other either without relational significance or in non-relational terms. On the one hand, this is not surprising because this existing (and still evolving) condition is the ingenious workings of reductionism; on the other hand, Christians can and should expect more existential reconciliation since this is the stated outcome for the gospel composed by the Word (as in Col 1:21-23; Eph 2:14-18). Even though this composition of the Word has been used to formulate doctrines of salvation, which most Christians subscribe to, has this doctrinal language (no matter how dogmatic) significantly reduced the language barriers still existing in relationships both with God and each other? If not, why this disparity between our theology and practice?

In consideration of your thinking and what formed it, how do you perceive the book of Deuteronomy and interpret its main composition with the sum details of God’s law? You would likely see Deuteronomy as the Book of Law and interpret its composition as the Rule of Law by which God’s people need to live, fulfilling its duties and obligations in obedience to God. This is the most prominent perception and interpretation, yet it emerges from a perceptual-interpretive mindset that in reality creates a language barrier with these words from God—as the scholar Nicodemus would testify. Again, the language we use will be the Deuteronomy we get; and the above perception and interpretation evolve from referential language, which, to repeat emphatically, formed the perceptual-interpretive mindset establishing this language barrier in order to frustrate the language purpose of God, thereby promoting misinformation in our theology and practice.

With the nature of God’s relational language, the book of Deuteronomy is composed definitively to fulfill the language purpose essential for the words from God. Deuteronomy is not a book transmitting important information about the Law, despite the fact that it details what obedience to God looks like. On the contrary, the relational language of Deuteronomy in primary function communicates the words from God, specifically in order to share the relational terms (not mere law) necessary to have depth (as in whole) of relationship together integrally with God and with each other. Without God’s relational terms, relationship together will not emerge and unfold as the relational reality, though referential language certainly has informed us of its evolution as a virtual reality. For God’s language purpose, therefore, the book of Deuteronomy is uncommonly composed as the ultimate love story (highlighted in Dt 4:37; 7:8; 10:15; 23:5; 33:3,12), that is, the Book of Love (not Law) to fulfill God’s only language purpose:

The irreducible and nonnegotiable covenant of love (Dt 7:9) for relationship together in wholeness—the relational language and terms which compose and thereby distinguish the nature of tamiym (“be whole”) that emerged in Genesis 17:1 (cf. Dt 18:9,13), unfolded in whole ontology and function with the Shema (Dt 6:4-6), and is sustained in face-to-face relationship with God’s definitive blessing (Num 6:24-25).

Whether the focus is Deuteronomy or any other part of Scripture, the relational nature and purpose of the words from God elude those using referential language. And there will always be this language barrier as long as their perceptual-interpretive mindset is formed by the reductionist ingenuity of referential language. Given this prevailing condition underlying much theology and practice, how do you assess your thinking and what formed it? Like Nicodemus, the clarification and correction by the Word is always available to those who are willing to be vulnerable with their person and thus change—which was a simple yet difficult process to embrace by the disciples to address the barrier in their thinking (Lk 9:44-45; Mk 9:33-34).

Serious Christians would not separate knowing God from knowing God’s Word. Yet, if God’s language is essentially foreign to understand, how would any Christian know God's Word without subtitles? Subtitles, however, don’t automatically result in understanding a foreign language, because who or what produced the subtitles could be misleading or lacking in nuance—especially if only a literal translation. Subtitles, therefore, lead us directly into the wider issue of interpretation and the inescapable challenge of our interpretations of the Bible.

Basically, from the beginning subtitles have been added to the words from God: “that the tree was to be desired to make one wise” (Gen 3:6). And the interpretive history of God’s people has been a narrative of misleading subtitles or lacking the relational nuance of God’s language essential in God’s revelations (cf. Ps 50:7-14; 51:16-17; Isa 29:13). In a defining moment pivotal for those active with God’s Word, Jesus clarified and corrected (1) what is God’s Word and its basis, as well as (2) how it is seen (or heard) and that outcome: “I thank you, Father, Lord of all life, because you have hidden ‘the words from God’ from the mindset of the wise and the intelligent and have revealed them to the mindset of the vulnerable” (Lk 10:21), whereby the Bible either becomes a book of God’s words or is the context for the connection together with God.

When Jesus literally leaped for joy and danced (agalliao) in his above praise of his Father, his excitement revolved around the integral fight against reductionism and its defeat by the words from God revealed in wholeness. What Jesus distinguished in this key moment must not be overlooked or dismissed: The revelation of God’s words emerges only with a distinct perceptual-interpretive mindset, and only these interpretations unfold with whole understanding (synesis) of the words communicated from God. Anything less and any substitutes for this mindset (phroneo) illuminated by the Word form an alternate perceptual-interpretive mindset, which is challenged in all its interpretations—just as Peter experienced with the interpretation from his mindset (Mk 8:31-33). Today the need for challenging interpretations is wider than ever because they form subtitles consequential for the composition of the Word.

Persons, groups, peoples, tribes and nations turn to the Bible for various reasons and purposes. What results from their engagement are interpretations even more diverse than the diversity of those engaged. Diversity in itself creates challenges to different interpretations, with an implied competition to have the right or best interpretation. More and more persons in the global church (perhaps some groups and fewer peoples) are seeing diversity as vital and thus as necessary for theology and practice to progress—notably to advance beyond Western Christian dominance. Most important, however, whether in the global South or North, biblical interpretations need to be challenged, but not in order to see who has the right or best interpretations of the words of God in referential language. Rather, challenges are necessary to determine if interpretations have both the integrity and the significance of the words from God in relational language, thereby supporting the communicative nature of God’s language and fulfilling its purpose.

John’s Gospel includes two narratives that (1) illuminate the need for challenging interpretations and (2) highlight the interpretive issues with the nature and purpose of the Word’s relational language—with both narratives exposing the interpretive engagement of an alternate perceptual-interpretive mindset.

In the first narrative, Jesus challenged the interpretations of those intensely searching the Scriptures, who thought their interpretations resulted in knowing God and having eternal life (Jn 5:39-40). What had evolved from their interpretations was indeed a large quantity of information about God, yet information composed only by the words of God in referential language. What did not result from their perceptual-interpretive mindset was an unbiased interpretation of the words from God embodied before them face to face. Who they saw before them was determined by how they saw him with their mindset. So, that unbiased result wasn’t possible with the language barrier they had with the Word’s relational language. By challenging their interpretations, Jesus exposed (1) the nature of their referential language, (2) the bias imposed on their interpretations by their alternate mindset formed by referential language, and (3) the barrier erected to prevent entering the Word’s realm of connection. The consequence was not having the experiential truth and relational reality of eternal life but merely the epistemological illusion and ontological simulation of it. Therefore, extending the previous discussion on John 3:16, does this first narrative intensify the need to challenge the interpretations of many Christians today throughout the global church and academy?

The second narrative amplifies the need to challenge, including apparent favorable interpretations. This narrative began with the miracle of Jesus feeding the 5,000 (Jn 6:14), which extended from his other previous miracles. Many interpreted his miracle as the true fulfillment of the prophet promised to them in the OT (Dt 18:15,18). Yet, this favorable interpretation didn’t emerge from the Book of Love composed by God’s relational love language, so Jesus challenged their interpretation to expose their bias: “I tell you the truth, you are following me, not because you saw miraculous signs” (6:26, NIV). The language sign for miracle (semeion) goes beyond just the act itself (unique as it is) to distinguish who and what it indicates. Thus, they were not following the person Jesus revealed by semeion. Consequently, their interpretation had to be challenged, which included exposing their bias centered on self-interest/concern: “but because you ate the loaves and had your desires filled.” Yet, the challenge process didn’t stop here since the need was urgent. The Word continued to clarify his relational language and correct their referential language, seeking to change their perceptual-interpretive mindset (6:27-34). As they indicated an initial openness to change, the Word then disclosed his whole person in the nature and purpose of relational language; and he also defined the relational terms for the involvement necessary for relationship together (6:35-58). Sadly, “when many of his disciples heard the Word’s relational language and terms, they said, ‘This teaching is difficult, who can accept it?’” (6:60). So, their initial openness to change was closed by their rigid mindset formed by the reductionist workings of referential language, which selectively interpreted parts of the Word it could accept in referential terms. This is the nature and purpose of referential language with the primary focus on the quantitative from outer in; and the Word goes on to distinguish the whole-ly God’s relational language composing the qualitative from inner out that contrasts and conflicts with its reduction (6:61-64).

Not to be overlooked in the Word’s challenge are the interpretations of his main disciples, which also needed to be challenged in this narrative. Their interpretations of Jesus’ person were challenged implicitly in his direct question to the twelve—as always composed in relational language—which included the implied three relational messages that focus on his person, their persons and the relationship between them. After “many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him” (6:66), “Jesus asked the twelve, ‘Do you also wish to go away?’” (v.67) That is, given how Jesus vulnerably revealed his whole person, how then did they see his person (cf. Mt 16:13-15); and on this basis, what did his disclosure face to face say about both their persons and the relationship between them? Peter responded that their search focused on no other source (unlike those above in John 5:39), and that their interpretations provided the knowledge to put their faith in the fact “you are the Holy One of God” (6:68-69). Later, Peter’s further interpretation of the words from God concluded that “you are the Messiah, the Son of the living God” (Mt 16:16-17).

The Word raised these questions to challenge their (and our) interpretations, whereby to clarify language barriers and to correct misinformed, misleading and biased interpretations. His challenge is needed ongoingly to counter, neutralize and transform the common perceptual-interpretive mindset of reductionism that is formed by the primary medium transmitting reductionism: referential language and terms. How would you assess Peter’s interpretations of the embodied Word? Since you likely have the same interpretations of the Word, what would you conclude about his mindset and any bias in his interpretations? Peter’s were exposed right after his definitive interpretation about the Word as the Messiah.

When Jesus vulnerably shared the reality of what his person would soon experience—not a mere event and historical fact—this was incompatible with Peter’s messianic expectations (Mt 16:21). Accordingly from this mindset (phroneo), he confronted Jesus on what essentially echoed the earlier disciples’ interpretation: “This is a hard disclosure. Who can accept it?” Peter didn’t accept it and rebuked Jesus to his face: “God forbid it, Lord! This must never happen to you” (Mt 16:22). This encounter certainly precipitated the urgent need for immediate attention to challenge Peter’s biased interpretation and existing perceptual-interpretive mindset. Jesus’ person then flared open to counter Peter’s reductionism, mindset and referential interpretation: “Get behind me, Peter—acting as a surrogate of Satan! You are a conflicting barrier to my person; for you are setting your phroneo not on God’s realm but on the limits and constraints of the human realm” (16:23). Hence, Peter’s biased interpretation and reduced mindset were corrected, yet still in need of transformation—the need Peter further demonstrated through much of his discipleship.

Like Peter, do you have professions of faith that may need to be challenged, not necessarily for their doctrine but for their significance? Hopefully the Word will clarify that for you through this study and present you with corrections to carefully listen to and consider in your theology and practice—and thereby embrace as needed.

This points us back to the second relational message that Jesus communicated in his questions above: our person, how he sees us and how we see ourselves. The need for challenging our interpretations is heightened when we don’t make a crucial distinction in “how you listen” (the Word’s distinction, Lk 8:18). This distinction defines the ontology (or identity) of our person and determines our function in the following manner:

● If we listen for the words of God with the human brain, which includes using

In this second relational message implied in his question, Jesus implicitly clarified the theological anthropology used by the twelve to define their person, which then affected (biased) how they saw his person and interpreted the Word (the focus of the first relational message). By challenging their interpretation, the Word exposed their reduced ontology and function, in order for the correction needed that would eventually lead to the transformation essential for their whole ontology and function. Their transformation to wholeness unfolded as they addressed their reductionism in their theology and practice. Yet, as clearly witnessed, this relational outcome needed ongoing challenges to their interpretations (e.g. Mk 8:14-21). Critically, however, not all challenges are adequate for this relational purpose, nor are any source of challenge sufficient for this relational outcome. Integral to the need for challenging interpretations is the basis for these challenges.

God’s trajectory into the universe and the human context has been a subject of philosophical speculation and debate through the ages, the results of which have essentially reduced God’s trajectory to a virtual reality. This reduction diverts or prevents us from distinguishing the real reality of the theological trajectory of God’s presence and the relational path of God’s involvement in the common context of human life. Not only philosophy but any and all reductionism keeps us from distinguishing the trajectory of this presence that only God reveals, and also the path of this involvement that only God determines—the presence and involvement experienced only in God’s context of connection. The revelation of God’s presence and the determination of God’s involvement emerge distinguished unmistakably and unfold accordingly in the Scriptures. The terms, however, for God’s presence and involvement have been redefined in human terms, whereby the basis for presence and involvement has undergone diverse interpretations. We need to return to the definitive basis of God’s theological trajectory and relational path, so that all such interpretations can be challenged only by the communication revealing the words from God.

The words from God converge in the Bible, and its text unfolds in a historical narrative that frames the real story (neither fictional nor virtual) of God’s actions in the universe and involvement with created life. Thus, interpreting the Bible must take into account this history. As Murray Rae states: “The Bible does not present us with a set of timeless or universal truths that can be abstracted from history but directs our attention to the God who makes himself known precisely through the particularities of history.”^{^[7]} At the same time, this historical account must be interpreted theologically—contrary to historical criticism—in order to fully account for God’s action and involvement in the human context, not to overlook accounting for the whole of God’s ontology. The lack or absence of such accounting has allowed the reductionism of God, of the trajectory of God’s presence, and of the path of God’s involvement, all to human terms, shaping or construction—that is, reduced to the common of life prevailing in the human context, including its history. Thus, while historical input refines interpretation, along with form and literary input, it is neither the main nor the most significant basis for challenging interpretations.

Moreover, interpreting the Bible isn’t just about exegesis of texts, no matter how accurate that information may be. Exegesis alone does not give us whole understanding (synesis) of God’s presence and involvement, even though it may yield greater quantity of knowledge detailing that. Without minimizing its value, exegetical interpretations must be qualified by hermeneutics and integrated together. Hermeneutics is needed for that understanding to emerge; yet, as evident in the academy, the hermeneutic process also needs to be qualified in order to understand God as revealed in Scripture.^{^[8]}

Whole understanding emerges based on how God is revealed in Scripture—that is, based on God’s communication of self-disclosure distinctly by the words from God, rather than based on surrogates just transmitting information about God using the words of God. This distinction of how God is revealed in and by the Word is essential for defining the primary basis to challenge interpretations, so that understanding can truly be determined. Making this distinction, however, has been ambiguous, ignored or simply not understood by most who engage the Bible, thereby rendering interpretations diverse, and understanding elusive.

It is unequivocal that the Bible as the text of God’s words is polyphonic. That is to say, various different voices (human as well as heavenly) have been instrumental in echoing the voice of God. While these voices lend their particular nuance (e.g. contextual setting or horizon) to the text, each voice is only secondary to the primary of God’s voice for composing the textual messages (i.e. the revelations of God’s presence and involvement). Therefore, while it is important to recognize and account for these different voices, they (individually or collectively) neither define nor determine the relational communication of the words from God. When this essential distinction is understood without partiality, the Word is emphatically distinguished:

God speaks for himself; and whenever primacy is given to other voices in the text—including voices of methods of interpretation either ‘behind the text’ or ‘in front of the text’—they subtly end up speaking for God instead of only echoing God’s voice; thus, they speak for God merely with reference to the words of God rather than echoing the relational messages communicated by the words from God.

However, when the polyphonic sources are given their proper place in the Bible, the Word is echoed and highlighted such that the whole-ly God’s presence and involvement are fully interpreted in their relational significance—for example, as the evangelist John did in his Gospel. On this basis, these secondary biblical voices then also serve to help us interpret the primacy of the words from God communicated directly to us in relationship for the sole relational purpose to experience in relationship together in our current context.^{^[9]} Assuming Moses’ voice in the Pentateuch, he teaches us not to focus on the information in the words of God but concentrate on the words from God communicated in relationship, that is, the primacy of face-to-face relationship (Ex 33:11-20, NIV). For Moses, the information of referential language wasn’t sufficient for his faith, nor to base his theology and practice on such interpretations. The relational significance of God’s voice could only be distinguished in relational language, so Moses held God accountable for God’s presence and involvement in only relational terms: “If your presence is not relationally involved with us…. Now show me your glory face to face”; therefore later God would illuminate his relational involvement with Moses, which God then clearly distinguished in correcting others questioning Moses’ interpretations (Num 12:6-8). This clarifies the primary basis by which interpretations need to be challenged for correction, just as Aaron and Miriam’s were. Likewise for our clarification and correction, when Moses asked above “Teach me” the primary of God’s relational language, he clearly demonstrates for us the primary basis for interpreting the words from God—a teaching moment that should not be overlooked or ignored.

Without the primary basis for interpreting the Bible, our interpretations evolve with adaptations to our surrounding contexts somewhat analogous to “the survival of the fittest.” This self-centering evolution is not surprising since it has been the normative dynamic from the beginning. In this adaptive evolution, the interpretations of God’s words have been influenced by the surrounding context and shaped by human thinking, self-interest and self-concern ever since the primordial garden. Not understanding and accounting for this human bias in our hermeneutics has resulted in the existing diversity and multiplicity of interpretations—a consequential process distinguished even in ancient times (Eccl 1:18; 5:1-3,7; 12:9-12) and witnessed by the Word on the road to Emmaus (Lk 24:17,25-27).

The above essential distinction points to further critical distinctions that need to be made to establish the primary basis for interpretations. In the dynamic of interpretation there is the ongoing direct epistemological interaction between revelation and discovery, that is, God’s revelation and our discovery. In this reflexive interaction, it must be clearly realized that God’s revelation is always antecedent to our discovery, and thus is always primary to any and all secondary efforts by our engagement of the Bible (and other biblical sources) to discover knowledge of God. In the interpretive dynamic—no matter how reflexive it becomes (as in a hermeneutic cone or spiral)—knowing and understanding God emerges foremost when we listen carefully to God first, and thereby always maintain this primary hermeneutic context and process in the primacy of relationship together. Only on this basis does the basis for interpretation become primary.

The transcendent God cannot be humbly discovered in a limited epistemic realm or by a narrowed-down epistemic process—which apophatic (negative) theology rightly claims about what we can say about God, yet wrongly limits it to what cannot be said. However, as Moses taught us, the transcendent God can be known and experienced through the face-to-face presence and involvement of God—taking us beyond merely an encounter based solely on faith—whose depth emerged in the beginning with the Word and converged in the embodied Word. This is the relational outcome when our discovery is anteceded by and thus based on God’s revelation—which the two disciples on the road to Emmaus learned the hard way (Lk 24:31-32).

This points to a second critical distinction, which the two disciples made evident in their previous interpretations of the Word, the kind of interpretation that has evolved exponentially. In the diverse interpretations of the Word and what so-called knowledge and understanding of God have amassed, the sum of what is concluded is best described as merely a parenthesis: an additional comment or explanation about the words of God, signifying interpretations that substitute for the expression of the words from God communicated in relational language. Accordingly, parentheses prevail in biblical interpretation and studies but only with the following limits: As the diverse comments and explanations from our ideas and concepts of God in referential language, and in spite of how widely transmitted, they don’t get to the heart of the Word from God; thus they neither know nor understand God in the primary context of relationship and its essential relational process—the relational context and process necessary to be involved in order to know any person, human or divine. Therefore, whatever their source or level of expertise, parentheses are human theological shaping of God that must be exposed, clarified and corrected as a basis for interpretation, so that our interpretations can get to the heart of God’s presence and involvement to truly know and understand God in our theology and practice (as illuminated in Ps 25:4-5, 9-10,14).

As we learn from Moses, when God speaks face to face in relational language, the Word reveals God’s glory—kāḇôḏ, the depth essentially of the heart of God—so that the Word from God unmistakably distinguishes God’s ontology as whole-ly beyond all the common of life (Ex 33:18-23; 34:5-6; Isa 5:16, cf. Ps 29). When God’s presence and involvement are distinguished in whole ontology and function—for which Moses held God accountable to reveal—the words from God render any parentheses about the words of God secondary at best, but mostly speechless to speak for God or mute to echo God’s words—just as Aaron and Miriam were chastened and corrected (Num 12:2,5,8-9), along with others who have taken the road to Emmaus.

This leads us to a third critical distinction urgently needing to be made among more mature Christians, because the quality of biblical interpretations today has created a theological fog. The existing global church and academy are not lacking in biblical interpretations, with increasing theological interpretations supplementing this quantity. Basically, they all contradict the Word’s priority to “Be still” (rapah), signifying to cease human effort and desist from human shaping in order to “know that I am God” (Ps 46:10). The issue here is not their quantity but both their quality and their underlying basis. Much of this knowledge is ambiguous in its understanding because much of its understanding is misleading in significance—that is, for significance in what is primary instead of merely the secondary.

The distinction needing to be made here is between biblical literacy and actually knowing and understanding God (the critical boasts in Jer 9:23-24). This distinction brings to the surface the basis for biblical interpretation and the differences that center on the secondary or the primary, and that result in quantity or quality respectively. On what side of this distinction do you see many Christians, church leaders and scholars, not to mention yourself?

The practice today of biblical literacy centers on gaining and possessing knowledge of the words of God referenced throughout the Bible. What characterizes this knowledge is the information composed in referential language, which may accurately inform the reader about the words of God but by the nature of its language also render that knowledge ambiguous and understanding misleading. The understanding evolving from biblical literacy is misleading, because based on its referential language its understanding centers on only what appears (and is assumed) to be the words from God—when in fact it is simply composed by the referential information about the words of God. Proper biblical (not extra-biblical) fact-checking (not proof-texting) make evident that only simulations of the words from God are utilized, subtly or unknowingly, which then not only misinform and mislead but also promote, reinforce and sustain illusions about what is known. Simply stated about biblical literacy:

The ambiguity is that the knowledge is only partial at best or simply fragmentary—notably as it is used for theology to formulate partial doctrines with fragmentary propositional truths (as in a Rule of Faith), then conforming to this Rule of Faith for practice in what amounts to a virtual reality—thereby misleading its possessors and practitioners into thinking that understanding of more (an illusion of the whole) is gained.

Biblical literacy, however, is not the knowledge and understanding—no matter how much the quantity of expertise—that can claim to know and understand God. But, then, that is both the nature and purpose of referential language as evolved from reductionism, summarized as follows:

To form the perceptual-interpretive mindset, framework and even worldview that create epistemological illusion about what we know and understand (including of “good and evil” as well as of God), in order to promote ontological simulations about God for simulations in our ontology and function, so that ambiguous knowledge and misleading understanding will generate fog in our theology and practice.

Therefore, the reductionist basis of biblical literacy requires us to go beyond questioning only the legitimacy of many challenges in interpretation and leads us also to questioning the education and what is learned in our churches and academy, and to challenge their legitimacy.

In contrast and conflict with the boasts of biblical literacy, biblical discovery and parentheses of what amounts to a book, for our clarification and correction the words from God are communicated in relational language in order to distinguish the essential context specifically for our relational connection to actually know and understand God—to know and understand integrally as the experiential truth (not merely propositional) and the relational reality (not mere virtual). As the two disciples learned from the whole Way, this uncommon relational connection is accessible even if we find ourselves on the road to Emmaus. The Word is accessible, however, only by the relational involvement defined by the Word’s relational terms; and in this specific relational context and process the Word vulnerably makes accessible:

His whole person, the whole of God and God’s wholeness, and the whole (not just big) picture of the design and purpose of God’s presence and involvement, and the whole relational outcome fulfilled by the whole-ly Trinity—all embodied, enacted and fulfilled irreducibly, as well as integrally distinguished nonnegotiably, by whole ontology and function, therefore on the basis of nothing less and no substitutes.

The words of the Bible with anything less and any substitutes for the Word render the Bible to a book without its essential context. This context is elusive when it’s composed in a language foreign to it; and this is the typical perceptual-interpretive lens that has widened the path to misguiding and misleading subtitles—interpretations that include traditions of theology and practice. The epistemic and hermeneutic processes indicated above converge in this issue: the math of God’s Word that calculates God’s terms for theology and practice, introduced briefly here and expanded on in the next section.

Calculating this math is illustrated by Nathaniel (Jn 1:44-50). He was ready to redact the Word with a common stereotype, but he made a pivotal transition from using a traditional subtitle of a book to the vulnerable context face to face with the embodied Word—but only after recalculating his math of the Word. This was essential for having clarity of perception and the correct interpretation of the Word, which widened the challenge for Nathaniel’s perceptual-interpretive lens.

The simple truth is: God communicates, and only God speaks for God, using human contexts, authors and language to express in relational terms the whole of who, what and how God is. All Christians are subject to the authority of God’s communication, which is not about conforming literally to the text of Scripture. Thus, we are all challenged in our interpretive (hermeneutic) process. The hermeneutic challenge is the relational process of involvement that responds directly—neither indirectly nor with the latitude of personal interests and biases—to God and submits to the authority of God’s communication. This makes unmistakable the transition in our challenge. Any identity of God that does not unfold from this hermeneutic challenge of Scripture should be suspect—and rightfully encountered with a hermeneutic of suspicion—as well as challenged for clarification, if not confronted for correction.

While the text of Scripture requires interpretation, the authority of Scripture is not subject to interpretation, particularly under the cloak of the priesthood of all believers. Authority is God’s domain and Christian faith only affirms the truth of this reality, so our faith does not compose this authority. This subtle distinction is critical to maintain in our faith. Moreover, while the practice of this faith may be variable among Christians, the affirmation of this truth is not dependent on faith alone and thus not subject to the diversity of Christian beliefs. Even though the relational response of the priesthood of all believers may reciprocally represent God, those who so respond do not speak for God.

Beyond merely a step of faith, undertaking the hermeneutic challenge requires a valid basis and reliable process of interpreting Scripture that is crucial in order for all Christians to be able to trust what God says and reveals.

Nathanael represents a disciple who initially entered the scope of the hermeneutic challenge (Jn 1:44-50). In spite of his bias (“Can anything good come out of Nazareth?”) Nathanael submitted to the hermeneutic challenge to look for the Word in the reality disclosed only by the Word, which required him to suspend his bias enough for him to be open to this deeper reality—to whom the Word responded, “Here is truly an Israelite in whom there is no deceit” (v.47). The relational outcome distinctly from Nathanael’s reciprocal relational response was to learn and know the Word, though his understanding at this stage of the hermeneutic process was still limited and in need of deeper relational involvement. Nevertheless, given what the Word made paradigmatic in the hermeneutic process (Mk 4:24), Jesus affirmed the involvement of Nathanael’s person at this stage with the anticipation that “you will see greater revelations” (v.50). Clearly, his vulnerable integrity not only impressed Jesus but witnessed to the how that the Word makes evident for connection face to face, person to person.

Given what Jesus also made the relational imperative for the integrity of his disciples to “Follow me, my whole person before my teachings and example,” it is imperative for all his followers to be vulnerable with their person in order to know and understand the Word in the primacy of relationship together, and thus “where and how I am, my follower also will be” (Jn 12:26). This is the relational outcome unfolding only from openly honest engagement of the hermeneutic challenge. By vulnerable involvement in the how of the Word, our person enters the Word’s context of connection to meet, receive, embrace, and relationally respond to the whole Word face to face, person to person, whereby our whole person is able to “Follow my whole person” in reciprocal relationship together.

The relational imperative for our faith must be integrated ongoingly with the paradigm for our hermeneutic process in order for our practice of faith to have relational significance to God, as well as to be distinguished as true followers of the Word. This again raises the three basic questions essential for the theology and practice of discipleship:

All disciples must answer these questions with relational significance to truly be distinguished as followers of Jesus—that is, distinguished beyond what commonly exists among Christians. Most Christians presume in their practice to have the answers to basic questions 1 and 2, and on the basis of those assumptions (or presuppositions) they answer question 3. But the answer to question 3 can only be fully defined and determined by the depth of significance that question 2 is answered with. Further and integrally, question 2 unfolds (not evolves) defined and determined only by the depth of significance that fulfills question 1. Therefore, as we proceed in this examination these three questions are basic to who and what are essential to our faith and vital for how we practice.

Getting to the depth of significance of God’s communication in Scripture has been problematic for Christians down through history, to say the least, notably because only relational significance constitutes the depth of God’s communication. Relational significance is the difference that distinguishes God’s relational language from the general use of referential language, which is commonly used even by Christians—especially in the academy to compose biblical and theological studies. That makes listening to God not only a priority but primary in the process of interpretation, making all other hermeneutic activity secondary (not unimportant)—perhaps at times even unnecessary, certainly if it distracts us from the primary or disconnects us from the primacy of relationship that the grace of God’s communication constitutes only in this context of connection. Listening is fully discussed in the next chapter. That still leaves us with the text of Scripture, which is contained within human contexts and historical settings that render God’s communication more complex than literal expressions of simple truths.

Since the communication of God’s Word is expressed by human authors, in historical contexts and through literary genres, these need to be accounted for in the interpretation process in order not to misunderstand God speaking. And where we need to start is from the beginning with “Did God say that?” (Gen 3:1)^{^[10]} As emerged from the beginning in the primordial garden, on the other hand, these characteristics of the biblical text are always secondary to what remains primary in God’s Word; thus they must neither distract nor take away from the primacy of the relational context, process and purpose of God communicating God’s relational terms to us. Indeed, “God does say that” and our challenge in the interpretive process is to receive God face to face (as in Num 12:6-8; Job 42:3-5; 2 Cor 4:6), and not take liberties to speak for the Other—as commonly takes place in human interaction to prevent the relational connection for significant communication. In Other words, interpretation of Scripture is making relational connection with the heart of God—the God who vulnerably makes the integrity of God accessible whole-ly (i.e. whole and holy/uncommon) in relational response to us, who responds to our human context for the primacy of relationship together but not according to human terms (including our terms as Christians).

Given the existing plurality assuming Christian identity and the diversity composing Christian theology and practice, who is making relational connection with the heart of God? What are non-Christian observers to conclude about the lack of coherence in Christian theology and practice, much less assess the fragmentation of Christian identity? Such diversity witnesses to the lack of significance (even to the insignificance) of both Christians and God; and the absence of their wholeness renders the gospel a false hope for the human condition—contrary to and in conflict with Jesus’ formative prayer for Christian identity in likeness of the whole-ly God, the Trinity (Jn 17:20-23).

Jesus made a distinct hermeneutic process the relational imperative for all his followers, or there would be consequences in their theology and practice (Lk 8:18; Mk 4:23-25). Based on his imperative, the unmistakable reason for the existing diversity in Christian theology and practice is the failure to meet Jesus’ hermeneutic challenge, leaving the interpretation of the Other (the Word and his gospel) to others in all their diversity—even those with good intentions, These others would include the magisterial Reformers and all others (notably evangelicals) who subscribe to sola scriptura and sola fide.^{^[11]} As a consequence predicted by Jesus’ paradigm—“the measure you give [or use] will be the measure you get” (Mk 4:24)—the common composition of orthodoxy has become a theological construction without the relational significance of God’s Word, therefore lacking the orthopraxy of the whole-ly Way, Truth and Life.

In the hermeneutic challenge both of and by the Word, disciples must be able to distinguish in their theology and practice the relational response of following the person of Jesus in history from a belief (however convicted) in Jesus as a historical subject. The latter belief constrains the Word (even in sola scriptura) to a narrowed-down epistemic realm (a common source of knowledge) of mere referential information of Jesus’ words, teachings, miracles, example, and the like, But, in explicit contrast and implicit conflict, the former relational response embraces the whole person in relationship based on the relational language communicated by the Word—listening to all his words without selecting only what we want to hear. For these disciples, what Jesus communicated in the Gospels (whether in narrative or metaphor) in different human situations and historical contexts has ongoing relational significance for all Christians (from past to present to future), the authority of which defines and determines all discipleship according to his terms without having the latitude to shape relationship together by our terms (i.e. to diversify the way, Mt 7:13-14, cf. Jn 10:7). Again, the latter’s belief essentially speaks for the Other with words (even as correct doctrine) that lack relational significance (cf. “every careless word,” argos, unprofitable, in Mt 12:33-36). Unlike Nathanael, this essentially redacts the Word.

Certainly interpretation is always occurring about what the Word communicates. The hermeneutic challenge doesn’t preclude our interpretation but always puts it in its primary context, whereby the Word speaks first and thus for himself—always Jesus’ relational imperative for the hermeneutic process. However—and this must be recognized and acknowledged—as long as the hermeneutic door remains wide open to “Did God say that?” others will increasingly speak for God, speaking contrary not to orthodoxy and orthopraxy but to whole theology and practice.^{^[12]} This then further raises the question: If Christians meet Jesus’ hermeneutic challenge, will there no longer be all this diversity in theology and practice? As just footnoted, opinions differ about the nature of existing Christian diversity and what is needed today. Just taking up Jesus’ hermeneutic challenge would likely not eliminate existing diversity, but it would greatly reduce it to the extent of our relational response of ongoing relational involvement in the hermeneutic process—the significant involvement of which is neither defined nor determined by the mere adjective ‘relational’. Only the depth of our relational involvement will meet the hermeneutic challenge that counteracts our divisive condition and the biases inherent in it (as Nathanael witnessed).

At the same time, to discount illusions and simulations of unity—existing within churches, between churches, and in the global church and academy—we need to ongoingly emphasize that the hermeneutic key to the reality of Christian unity is not conformity to and uniformity in theology and practice, but rather receiving the depth of the whole gospel and the wholeness of Jesus. The unavoidable challenge for all Christians is becoming disciples of whole theology and practice that unfolds from only the whole gospel and is distinguished by its whole Word. For this relational outcome to unfold, however, integrally includes in the unavoidable challenge the ongoing fight against reductionism and its counter-relational workings that subtly fragment the whole gospel and reinterpret the Word’s wholeness into parts not integrated together, or that are simply missing. This challenge has not been well incorporated into the prevailing hermeneutic process, mainly because reductionism is either ignored or not understood (even by church leaders and those in the academy).

Reductionism emerged distinctly in the primordial garden yet evolved with ambiguity (Gen 3:1-5). The subtlety of reductionism’s workings created hermeneutic confusion and theological fog by first raising reasonable skepticism or the seeds of doubt with the seemingly harmless question “Did God say that?” Implied in this query of interpretation, which seems basic for all wanting to know what God said, is a hermeneutic shift of who has priority in the interpretive process: “If God did in fact say that, then what did God really mean by that?” This is when and how the hermeneutic door has opened wide for others to render their voice to speak for God’s intentions (e.g. “you will not die,” v.4). The consequence is a subtle fragmenting of God’s words apart from the wholeness of God’s communication and thus a shift into diverse theology (as in “your eyes will be opened and you will be like God,” v.5) and practice (on the assumption of “knowing good and evil”). Sounds reasonable, doesn’t it? After all, the main alternative is to be a biblical literalist or to fall into skepticism, perhaps solipsism, or even despair. With the hope of knowing what God said since this beginning, however, the hermeneutic process has been developed with further sophistication and justification; yet it mainly still operates implicitly under the priority of the interpreter and thus covertly under the determining influence of reductionism.

A reductionist mindset has prevailed in human history, shaping human perceptual-interpretive frameworks and lenses in underlying ways with a fragmentary focus. As we witness and are seduced today, the digital age of modern technological convenience has imposed its parameters on our thinking and shaped our practice with a dominating binary perceptual framework and interpretive lens. Subtly, our knowledge has been reduced mainly to either-or quantitative terms, which lack qualitative depth and relational significance—the consequences of convenience gained from the internet and experienced on social media. In no other context is this more true, though not prevailing overtly, than in the history of God’s people, with the modern Christian context the most evident notably lacking qualitative sensitivity and relational awareness. A cartoon demonstrates this condition. Moses is seen returning from Mt Sinai with the stone tablets of God’s commandments raised above his head, with this new declaration for God’s people: “Behold! Now both thinner and lighter.”^{^[13]} Ironically, and sadly, the historical reality for ancient Israel was their reduction of God’s relational terms for covenant relationship together down to “thinner and lighter” conforming to a code of behavior for religious-national identity, thereby losing the qualitative depth and relational significance of the covenant relationship of God’s love (as in Dt 7:7-9).

Also, sadly, yet not surprisingly, to this day new “thinner and lighter” declarations are made to speak for “Did God say that?” and/or to give account for what God really meant by that. What does this say both about contextual influence in our interpretations and about the so-called authority of God’s communication in Scripture, which we supposedly affirm by our so-called faith? And directly related, what does this “thinner and lighter” say about the integrity of the gospel—is it really quantified binary—and its so-called grace, which we presumably claim by our so-called faith?

In the realm of connection embodied by the Word, the person presented by Jesus always had to be clarified and corrected throughout the incarnation. That is, the Word’s clarification and correction were necessary in order for his whole person to be rightly and fully perceived, received, known, understood, and responded to in the primacy of reciprocal relationship compatible to the whole-ly God. And throughout Scripture the words from God also clarify and correct for this specific relational purpose and outcome. Yet, this integral process is epistemic, hermeneutic and relational, not to mention ontological, and it only unfolds in the breadth and depth of God’s whole-ly context of connection. To distinguish God’s uncommon theological trajectory along with the Word’s vulnerable relational path, each dimension of this process is necessary for the outcome to be whole—which means uncommon by nature to the surrounding common. The critical issue is and remains: Whose epistemic source, hermeneutic routine, and relational terms constitute the context of connection for engaging the Bible? This needs to be resolved in the transition of our challenge.

Jesus told Nathanael in their initial context of connection that “you will see greater revelations” (Jn 1:50). The Word’s prophetic voice, however, would only be an experiential reality for Nathanael if he went deeper into this context of connection. Just as for Nathanael, this requires from all of us the depth of relational involvement based only on the Word’s relational terms, which are integrally designed for experiencing the relational reality in God’s whole-ly context of connection. The early disciples (unfortunately, including Nathanael) struggled in their epistemic, hermeneutic and relational context of connection with the Word; and it is arguable if this condition prevails among Christians today or has even become more relationally distant from the Word’s clarification and correction. How do you see our condition today, and more importantly, how do you experience the Word? This is a math issue, the calculations of which are consequential.

Perhaps the calculations of God’s terms illustrated in the movie Yentl will be helpful for this process. The movie’s setting is in Poland during 1904. Yentl is a Jewish female (portrayed by Barbra Streisand), whose father nurtured her intellect in a learning process that went against Jewish tradition. Understandably (and rightly) Yentl thirsted for even more after her father died. That opportunity, however, was accessible only at a rabbinic school, which was open only to men. This reality among God’s people led Yentl to challenge their calculation of God’s terms, whereby she expresses her feelings to God in song:

“There’s not a morning I begin without/A thousand questions running/Through my mind,/That I don’t try to find the reason/And the logic in the world that God designed…/And tell me where—/Where is it written what it is I’m/Meant to be,/that I can’t dare/To have the chance to pick the fruit/Of every tree,/Or have my share/Of every sweet imagined possibility?/Just tell me where, tell me where?/If I were only meant to tend the nest,/Then why does my imagination sail/Across the mountains and the seas,/Beyond the make-believe of any/Fairy’s tale?/…And tell me where—/Where is it written what it is I’m/Meant to be,/That I can’t dare—/To find the meanings in the/Mornings that I see,/Or have my share—/Of every sweet-imagined possibility?/Just tell me where—/Where is it written?/Tell me where—/Or if it’s written anywhere?”[14]

By vulnerably engaging God’s context, Yentl recalculated the misguided subtitle of God’s terms imposed on her that reduced her person and diminished her function created by God. Therefore, she countered this dominant culture by disguising herself as a man and entered rabbinic school to pursue “every sweet-imagined possibility” God had for her life. I won’t say what happened to her in case you haven’t seen the movie. But as the direct extension of her opening song to God vulnerably expressed above, the movie closes with Yentl singing:

“It all began the day I found/That from my window/I could only see/A piece of sky./I stepped outside and looked around,/I never dreamed it was so wide/Or even half as high./ …The more I live—the more I learn./The more I learn—the more I realize/The less I know./Each step I take—(Papa, I’ve a voice now!)/Each page I turn—(Papa, I’ve a choice now!)/Each mile I travel only means/The more I have to go./What’s wrong with wanting more?/If you can fly—then soar!/With all there is—why settle for/Just a piece of sky?”[15]

With her whole person from inner out, her heart soars with the closing relational message “Papa, watch me fly!”—as she journeys with God from old to new.

The Word makes relational connection with us for us also to experience a similar transition.

Mathematics is irreplaceable for the theories composed by science and for their outcomes to be valid and reliable. Math is also a critical framework for God’s Word in order to understand how God’s terms are calculated for theology and practice. The most basic calculation of God’s terms is simply stated by the words from God: “You must diligently be involved in all the terms that I communicate to you; do not add to it or subtract from it” (Dt 12:32). The invariable measure of the Word’s calculation was established earlier (Dt 4:2) and here reinforced to directly counter and neutralize the normative calculation: “You shall not do according to all that we are doing here today, everyone doing whatever they calculate is right [yashar, level, straight] in his own eyes” (Dt 12:8, ESV, cf. Jdg 17:6; 21:25). The norm could calculate God’s terms not only with addition or subtraction but also with division and multiplication—the math of God’s Word calculated by variable and relative subtitles that reduce the wholeness of God’s terms and/or paraphrase or conflate God’s terms without their relational significance. The product of this math contradicts God’s irreducible and nonnegotiable terms and thereby widen the path “to the right or to the left” (Dt 5:32-33; 28:14; Jos 1:7, cf. 2 Kgs 22:2).

This math of God’s Word is critical to understand. In mathematics, the accuracy of any calculations depends on accounting for intervening variables (or dependent variables) by the calculus of variations and finite differences, which determine their effect on the dependent variable being calculated. The resulting dependent variable then is inseparable from the independent variable in the equation. The independent variable of God’s Word is the invariable state of God’s uncommon terms. The dependent variable in this equation is our calculation of God’s terms. Our calculation is always subject to intervening variables from the influence in our surrounding contexts. Since such intervening variables subject God’s uncommon terms to our common terms, they must always be accounted for in our calculations or else God’s terms become relative in a wider path of our common terms.

The wider path to the right or the left could be subtle, which can render the math of God’s Word to ambiguity. For example, the calculus of God’s identity is rooted in the Shema (Dt 6:4) for God’s people. Thomas McCall concludes about Second Temple Judaism that it was reliably monotheistic: there is only one God, and this God is the Creator and Ruler. Yet “this account of monotheism is not centered on numerical oneness, nor does it obviously dictate that there is at most one divine person.”^{^[16]} He quotes contemporary Jewish theologian Pinchas Lapide in support:

The Oneness of God, which could be called Israel’s only ‘dogma,’ is neither a mathematical nor a quantitative oneness…the difference between gods and the One God is indeed not some kind of difference in number—a more miserable understanding there could hardly be—but rather a difference in essence. It concerns a definition not of reckoning but of inner content; we are concerned not with arithmetic but rather with the heart of religion, for ‘one’ is not so much a quantitative concept as a qualitative one.^{^[17]}

Lapide’s distinction between a quantitative concept and a qualitative one is necessary to make, yet it is insufficient to understand Paul’s monotheism.

The issue of the Shema involves what distinguishes its God and thus how this God is distinguished. God is distinguished as ‘the only One’ entirely from outside the universe, who therefore has no other qualitative kind in the world by which to be compared. ‘God is one’ means unequivocally ‘God is incomparable’. Yet this qualitative distinction of God is insufficient to resolve the issue of the Shema. This exclusive identity is not a concept, quantitative or qualitative—though philosophical theology historically has rendered it as such. Rather the full identity of God emerges from the essential relational outcome of the qualitative being (the who) of God’s vulnerable self-disclosure as Subject. Now the complex Subject illuminates the whole and uncommon God’s direct relational involvement (the how of God’s presence) in communicative action to clearly distinguish the relational nature (the what) of God—disclosing the vulnerable presence and relational involvement of the innermost being of the who, what and how of “God’s glory in the face of Jesus Christ” (2 Cor 4:6, the depth of Paul’s monotheism). Without God’s relational response from outside the universe, the whole and uncommon God is not distinguished to us and no one knows of the One who is incomparable. Therefore, the who of the Shema is fragmentary unless both what distinguishes its God and how this God is distinguished are clearly defined qualitatively and determined relationally. Accordingly, the qualitative and relational whole of this One can neither be reduced to referential terms (even as the Shema) nor negotiated down to human shaping (a numerical One), both of which are contingent on and comparative to what is probable within the universe, and consequently is unable to go beyond self-referencing to distinguish the incomparable One of the Shema.

Given the calculations noted above in the math of God’s Word, how common do you think these calculations operate today? If we don’t pay attention to the math and understand the calculations used, the products calculated today will correlate directly with the invalid and unreliable math of the past.

Consider again: Do present calculations detail Deuteronomy as the Book of Law, or do they account for its primacy as the Book of Love (as discussed previously)? Furthermore, in what framework does our math put Leviticus? With the correct calculation of God’s terms, the book of Leviticus is not a detailed enumeration of a behavior code. Rather Leviticus communicates the consummate contextual process that distinguishes the whole-ly (whole and uncommon) God from the common in the human context, in order to define the identity and determine the function of God’s whole-ly people in covenant relationship together (Lev 10:10, cf. Eze 44:23). This widens our math challenge today to examine the existing calculations for what is uncommon or holy, because many past calculations “have made no distinction between the holy and the common” (Eze 22:26).

In the calculus of God’s terms for covenant relationship together, two sub-issues are inescapable to calculate: (1) clarifying what holy is, and (2) correctly accounting for the difference between the holy and the common, which is essential to calculate to distinguish God’s terms from anything less and any substitutes calculated by our terms (as Eze corrected in 44:23).

What is holy is clarified by who is holy (Lev 11:44-45; 19:2; 20:7). Holy (qadesh) is to be clean, pure and thus set apart from what is the common constituting the human context. Therefore, holy equates to what is the uncommon, which is distinguished only by who is uncommon (as the Lord revealed, Lev 10:3). Calculating holy is incomplete as purity or perfection and must incorporate who is uncommon to embody what is holy that is clearly distinguished as uncommon by being distinctly set apart from the common.

God declared, not to inform us but to clarify, correct and challenge us: “You thought that I was one just like yourself” (Ps 50:21). God exposed this alternative reality among his people, which continues to exist today, not typically explicit in our theology but implicitly in our practice. The essential reality is that “I am holy” (qādôsh, Lev 11:44), who is separate from what is common and thus distinctly set apart from the common. Therefore, God is vulnerably present only as uncommon and is relationally involved only by God’s wholeness, which are both nonnegotiable and irreducible by common terms. Anything less and any substitutes from human shaping make the whole-ly God’s presence and involvement indistinguishable. Forming God’s identity in our common images has unavoidable relational consequences, notably forming a barrier to experience the relational reality and outcome of God’s definitive blessing for only God’s covenant family (Num 6:24-26).

The whole profile of God’s holy face is distinguished by nothing less and no substitutes. The alternative reality reconstructs this essential reality with what is common, thereby reversing the basis for the reality of God and his people in effect with alternative facts (as in Ps 50:9-13). That is, the issue in this effort is not necessarily to “be like God” (as in the primordial garden, Gen 3:5) but rather this two-fold dynamic: (1) Shape God and relationship together subtly in our terms (perhaps in our image), and (2) determine our person as Jesus’ disciples and our life in discipleship indirectly through the bias of our terms. The insurmountable difference that God magnifies is that God is whole and uncommon (whole-ly) in ontology and function, while the terms of our ontology and function are fragmentary and common—reduced terms that also are projected back on “God composed in our likeness.”

When holy is clarified by the uncommon, then the second sub-issue challenges us to correctly account for the difference between the uncommon and the common. God unmistakably distinguished the uncommon as incompatible with the common and thus as incongruent in the common’s lens. On this basis, it is imperative that we “be uncommon for I am uncommon” (Lev 11:44)—set apart from the common by being distinguished with-in the Uncommon. This clarification and correction critically composes the distinguishing bias with and in the Uncommon, who challenges the identity of who, what and how we are in order to be incompatible with the common and incongruent in the common—rather than an identity “just like yourself.”

To be compatible with the Uncommon and congruent in the uncommon of God is determined only by the whole relational terms of God’s relational process. This means that to be uncommon (or holy) is not about perfection—as in spiritually, morally, ethically, and thereby to misunderstand sanctification—but connection, that is, relational connection that is compatible with the Uncommon because it is congruent in the uncommon of God. When perfection is integrated with being sanctified (as Jesus embodied and prayed, Jn 17:19), it then has a place in our practice to be holy and also whole inseparably, thus integrally whole-ly; but its theology must not be composed with a commonized bias of idealized notions.

The book of Hebrews discipleship manifesto clarifies that the relational progression of Jesus’ relational work has sanctified us in the uncommon (Heb 10:10); and the relational outcome of this relational progression is to “make perfect” (teleioo) “those who are being made uncommon” (Heb 10:14, NIV). Teleioo means to complete the relational purpose of Jesus’ relational work, which is fulfilled by only wholeness in relationship together (as God’s blessing initiated, Num 6:26, and the Word embodied, Jn 14:27). The whole-ly relational process is the only way, truth and means to this relational outcome of teleioo. In his manifesto for discipleship, Jesus made imperative for our practice the relational work to “be complete, mature [teleios]” in likeness of how our whole-ly Father is present and involved in uncommon love (Mt 5:45-48). His relational imperative, then, for all disciples is to be whole and uncommon in our relational involvement of family love just as our Father is, in order to distinguish our identity as his daughters and sons in family together. Therefore, perfection is always secondary to the primacy of relational connection with the Uncommon. Yet, this relational connection only happens with-in the Uncommon, which composes the primacy of relationship together distinguished only by the integral relational terms, language, context and process of the whole-ly God—all of which we must account for to have relational connection.

When Christians are not misguided by misunderstanding perfection, there typically is a common assumption Christians make about relationship with God: Because of God’s grace there is room for our imperfection, and thus there is space to exercise our personal interests, desires and other related terms; likewise, since God is loving and forgiving, there is flexibility in relationship together—if not presuming the relationship is negotiable. Jesus had a contrary approach to such differences. To Peter, Jesus said that he functioned as Satan, because he focused on the common at the expense of the uncommon (Mt 16:23). Jesus added later that Peter had no direct involvement in their relationship together, because Peter gave primacy to the common over the uncommon (Jn 13:8).

God’s relational response of grace and relational involvement of love distinguished the uncommon in order for us to be transformed from the common to the whole-ly, without which the influence of the common will pervade and prevail in our persons, relationships and churches—even if by default veiled in our good intentions. The Good News of God’s whole-ly presence and involvement is only for this whole-ly relational outcome (Heb 2:11; 10:10,14). Therefore, the Hebrews manifesto makes this relational imperative for discipleship: “Pursue wholeness in your function with everyone, and the uncommon without which no one will see the Lord face to face without the veil in intimate relationship together” (Heb 12:14, cf. 10:20-22).

Hebrews illuminates for all of Jesus’ followers the holy partition in relationship with the whole-ly God, who is inaccessible to anyone or anything common. The holy partition signifies the pivotal juncture in relationship with God. If we haven’t advanced past the holy partition, our relationship with God is influenced, shaped and occupied by the common, and thus subtly engaged in the reverse dynamic of anything less and any substitutes. Claiming the cross does not give us access to face-to-face relationship with the whole-ly God without embracing Jesus’ relational work tearing down the holy partition. Since such a claim apparently is the prevailing condition among Christians, the common still existing effectively has become the acceptable practice to define the identity and determine the function of Jesus’ followers distinctly in front of the holy partition still in place. This relational condition is unacceptable in the Hebrews manifesto, not to mention clarified, exposed and corrected in Jesus’ manifesto definitive for all his followers (Mt 5-7).

Hopefully, the whole-ly relational outcome of the gospel clarifies, corrects and challenges us to change any common assumptions we have about relationship with God and being Jesus’ disciples. This, however, requires a distinguishing bias that does not defer to the common’s influence. As has been necessary for God’s whole-ly family, “You are to distinguish between the holy and the common” (Lev 10:10, cf. Eze 22:26).

Nathaniel asked in his cultural bias whether anything good (agathos, beneficial, significant, distinguished, thus whole and uncommon) can come out of what’s only common (Jn 1:46). If Jesus were not clearly distinguished from the common, the answer would certainly be NO. Since Jesus’ presence and involvement were enacted apart from the shaping influence of the common, his ontology and function were unmistakably distinguished by the uncommon, that is, distinguished whole and uncommon. This essential reality is the whole-ly who and what Nathaniel discovered as he suspended his bias. It is unlikely at that point that Nathaniel exercised a bias in the uncommon; but he was open enough to allow the uncommon to be discovered, experienced and thereby be responded to beyond the limits and constraints of the common. What we witness forming for Nathaniel further compels our need for what we see being composed in the above discussion, which unfolds only on this basis:

What is essential to follow whole-ly Jesus is for all disciples to openly have and ongoingly exercise in their discipleship the distinguishing bias emerging from face-to-face relationship with the Uncommon and unfolding unambiguously apart from the common and thus in the uncommon—the distinguishing bias with-in the Uncommon, which does not defer to the common’s influence but integrally exposes any existing bias for the common and acts against it for transformation to the whole-ly.

Certainly Peter struggled with the influence of the common in his discipleship that composed his bias as a disciple. So, it is relationally significant that his own relational progression was complete and matured (teleios) to transform his ontology and function to be whole-ly, and thereby further illuminate the whole-ly theology and practice for persons, relationships and the global church (1 Pet 1:13-16; 2:9-12). And for this distinguishing bias with-in the Uncommon, we must thank the whole-ly Mary whom Jesus magnified for taking the lead in order for the gospel’s whole-ly relational outcome to be the essential reality for all of Jesus’ followers. Her everyday life functioned in the dynamic of nothing less and no substitutes—in contrast to the others’ prevailing function in the reverse dynamic of anything less and any substitutes—whereby she distinguished the uncommon identity for all disciples.

As the calculus for these two sub-issues clearly distinguish our whole-ly identity and function on the basis of the Word’s whole-ly terms, our relationship together deepens to know and understand the whole-ly God (as delineated in Jer 9:24 and contrasted in Jn 14:9). Given the math of the Word, can we justify any other outcome from our calculations?

Engaging the Bible either centers on various levels of sorting through the words of the Book to know its subject-matter, or it enters the context of the Word for a connection that will lead to knowing the Subject revealed therein. The history of engagement in the former has resulted in an encyclopedia of knowledge about God, which the average Christian today could easily consider of little significance, perhaps irrelevant, as younger generations would likely confirm. Younger Christians, however, are challenged by the common basis used to know someone, anybody notably on social media, the bias of which would be applied readily to the context of the Bible and thus render the Subject of the Word to these reduced terms. The outcome from engagement that results for all of us is either knowing something about someone, or knowing who the person is and thus understanding what and how that person is from inner out. This begs the question for all Christians: What is our basis for knowing anyone, and when do we think we know and perhaps understand that person?

Jesus’ frustration with his disciples for not knowing his person after he’s been vulnerably involved with them for three years (Jn 14:9) should intensify our challenge with the Bible. A teaching narrative will help us understand Jesus’ feelings and narrow the path for us to take as the basis to know someone. Just prior to his steps to the cross, Jesus “began to be grieved and agitated” so he told his disciples “I am deeply grieved” (Mt 26:37-38). He asked them to keep watch with him; then he went privately to pray. When he returned, he found them sleeping; and he said to Peter, “So, could you not stay awake with me one hour?” The same thing happened two more times, intensifying his sadness, “Are you still sleeping and centered on your rest?”

What’s obvious to you in this interaction? And is it apparent to you why they didn’t know Jesus? Moreover, based on how you do relationships, what do you think you would have done if you were in their shoes?

Consider this: We have to have relational awareness for our engagement with others (including with the Word) to be significant. In order for our relational awareness to be significant, we must make connection with the other(s). For that connection in our relational awareness to be of deeper significance, it has to be direct connection face to face. And for face to face connection to have deep significance must involve intimacy—that is, the vulnerable relational process of hearts opening to each other and coming together heart to heart, not only face to face.

Moses wanted to have deeper connection with God, so he basically asked the Lord directly “Show me your glory”—that is, “the deep measure of your being” (Ex 33:18). God, then, opened even more vulnerably to Moses, revealing the mystery of God’s face (33:20, cf. 32:30), by which God communicated with Moses face to face (Num 12:7-8). God’s revelations in the Bible constitute the communication from God’s face (paneh) that distinguishes the relational context God provides for direct connection face to face (as in Num 6:24-26; 2 Cor 4:6). In addition, the relational process initiated with Moses is further deepened for the involvement of intimacy to distinguish the redemptive change from the old to the new (2 Cor 3:13-18). The Word, in relational words, defines the relational context and determines the relational process essential for the intimate face to face involvement that has the relational outcome of knowing God and understanding the Bible—the only outcome of significance.

Today, Christians need to ask themselves if they can truly “boast (halal, or celebrate) about this, that they understand and know me” (Jer 9:24). Or if they, at best, can only boast in their wisdom or boast merely in their other secondary resources (9:23). The state of Christian education is challenged, on the one hand, by its level of understanding the Bible; and more importantly, on the other hand, it is confronted by its depth of knowing God. When this examination is directed specifically to theological education, where do you think the main focus of its boast centers? As documented in seminary libraries, the biblical calculations from theological education are unavoidably consequential, notably for Christians who depend on them to understand the Bible in general and in particular to know God. Thus, the Christian community needs to recognize the liability that theological education could compose in its calculations; then we will take accountability for the wider challenge and the narrower path facing us face to face, heart to heart.

The Word is not silent on this issue when he addresses “the wise and learned” of his earthly time. In spite of all their studies and so-called expertise, they didn’t know the Father (Jn 5:37-39) or understand his revelations (Lk 10:21). And these scholars were amazed and astonished at Jesus’ teaching at the temple: “How did this man get such learning without having studied?” (Jn 7:14-15, NIV). Paul also critiqued such education when he exposed those “who are always being instructed and can never arrive at a deeper knowledge of the truth” (2 Tim 3:7).

Recently in the academy there has been a paradigm shift in the perceptual-interpretive framework of some biblical scholars to a more relational dimension by the use of prosopological exegesis.[18] In Greek prosopon means “face” or “person” (in Hebrew, paneh), which then forms an exegesis with more relational awareness. Biblical scholar Scot McKnight discusses the need for this framework also for theologians in order to understand the Bible as the context for communication by the Word to humans who can communicate with God.[19] This is certainly a step in the right direction for theological education to be of deeper significance. However, it doesn’t go deep enough to develop the qualitative sensitivity and relational awareness to connect with God vulnerably for the intimate involvement heart to heart (not just face to face) to listen fully to God’s communication. Only at this depth will our person(s) receive the experiential truth and relational reality of the relational outcome of knowing and understanding the whole-ly God. And it is only in this relational outcome will we no longer hear “I have been with you all this time and you still do not know me.”

Take heed: No other outcome will have this full significance, regardless of whatever else Christians feel is significant to boast about. With the subtlety or ambiguity of anything less and any substitutes, the Word remains sad that “you are still sleeping” and “you still do not know me.”

[1] Nico Mele expressed his views in an interview in the Los Angeles Times Business Beat (March 6, 2018) and in his book The End of Big: How the Internet Makes David the New Goliath (New York: Macmillan, 2013).

[2] I reemphasize this discussion I made previously in The Person in Complete Context: The Whole of Theological Anthropology Distinguished (Theological Anthropology Study: 2014). Online at http://www.4X12.org.

[3] See Oliver Sacks for a discussion on perfect pitch, tonal communication and protolanguage, Musicophilia: Tales of Music and the Brian (New York: Vintage Books, 2008); see also Edward Foley, From Age to Age: How Christians Have Celebrated the Eucharist (Chicago: Liturgy Training Publications, 1991), 9.

[4] Iain McGilchrist, The Master and his Emissary: The Divided Brain and the Making of the Modern World (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010), 105.

[5] Reported by Sharon Begley in “What’s in a Word?” Newsweek, July 20, 2009, 31.

[6] Iain McGilchrist, The Master and his Emissary, 110.

[7] Murray Rae, “Theological Interpretation and Historical Criticism,” in Craig G. Bartholomew and Heath A. Thomas, eds., A Manifesto for Theological Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2016), 96.

[8] For a discussion integrating hermeneutics and exegesis, see Matthew R. Malcolm, From Hermeneutics to Exegesis: The Trajectory of Biblical Interpretation (Nashville, TN: B & H Academic, 2018).

[9] David I. Starling discusses how the biblical authors themselves help us learn how best to interpret the Bible, in Hermeneutics as Apprenticeship: How the Bible Shapes Our Interpretative Habits and Practices (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2016).

[10] See my study on the hermeneutic challenge from the beginning and its ongoing implications for our theological task. “Did God Really Say That?” Theology in the Age of Reductionism (Theology Study, 2013). Online at http://4X12.org.

[11] Kevin J. Vanhoozer examines Christian diversity in both-and terms that affirms a hermeneutic based on the solas, and thereby highlights the underlying unity existing in plurality of interpretation. See Biblical Authority After Babel: Retrieving the Solas in the Spirit of Mere Protestant Christianity (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2016).

[12] Christian Smith describes this existing condition in Christianity with stronger either-or terms in The Bible Made Impossible: Why Biblicism Is Not a Truly Evangelical Reading of Scripture (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2011). Peter J. Leithart calls for the death of Protestantism in order for the unity in the church to be restored, in The End of Protestantism: Pursuing Unity in a Fragmented Church (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2016).

[13] From Parade Magazine, “Cartoon Parade,” 12/8/2015.

[14] Where Is It Written?” lyrics by Alan and Marilyn Bergman.

[15] A Piece of Sky, lyrics by Alan and Marilyn Bergman.

[16] Thomas H. McCall, Which Trinity? Whose Monotheism? Philosophical and Systematic Theologians on the Metaphysics of Trinitarian Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 60.

[17] McCall, 60-61.

[18] See Matthew Bates, The Birth of the Trinity, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016).

[19] Scot McKnight, Five Things Biblical Scholars Wish Theologians Knew, (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2021).