|
Spiritual Metonymy
Reality, Image and the Word of God
February 1988
Confusing Images of Reality for Reality in Matters of Faith
Depending on how they are received, images have the potential to bring us in touch with reality, or to seal us off from reality by becoming ends in themselves. This is true of spiritual things as well as of natural, most importantly of the Word of God.
When it comes to faith in the Word of God, there are not two, but three kinds of hearing, three kinds of receiving, three kinds of believing, three kinds of faith. There is:
1. Ear Faith
You believe something because you heard it. This faith puts you in touch with the Son as He was manifest in the flesh. But it reinforces your trust in your mind.
2. Spirit Faith
You believe something because your spirit touched it. This faith puts your mind in touch with the Holy Spirit. But it reinforces your trust in the natural mind of your spirit.
3. Heart Faith
You believe God Himself because your heart has touched His Presence through moral repentance and commitment. This, and this alone, is saving faith. This faith does not reinforce your trust in your mind, but severs you from it. We are no longer dealing with image.
Image Faith
The first two kinds of faith are image-faith. They come short of introducing our heart to a deeper encounter with the Indwelling Father. But if we receive them properly, they can be means to lead us there. If however we receive them wrongly, they can seal us off from reality forever.
Image faith depends on the mind for a crutch, either in natural or spirit form. But when we become capable of pure heart faith, we must obediently lay down image faith. At the point we become capable to lay down image faith and willfully fail to do so, we become guilty of religious idolatry and spiritual pharisaism.
As long as we are subject to images of mind as a means to true heart Reality, we will always have some trouble distinguishing Reality from image. We will be confusing terms of Reality for terms that describe Reality or that are closely associated with it.
We have not encountered Reality (i.e., Truth) until we have touched God within our hearts. However, because the images of His Reality we receive with our minds mirror Him so closely, and because our minds have been the incumbent reference point for reality, we tend to take our images of Reality for Reality, define Reality in terms of our images according to life-long inherited and untested pre-suppositions.
Until our heart encounter with God advances to the place of exposing these assumptions, they go undetected in the foundation of our thinking. This is what our unbelief is all about—at first ignorant—then possibly willing. (When the light of our heart exposes this ignorant unbelief and we resist the laying down of it, it becomes willing unbelief subject to severe consequence.)
Image Reality, Unbelief, and the Word of God
No more is this confusion of definition more clearly seen than in our understanding of what is the Word of God. For most of our lives we have defined the Word of God in terms of our unbelieving assumptions of what the Word of God is and in terms of the images given to lead us to the True Word of God in its Realty.
But we have hardly or rarely come far enough in our encounter with the Real Word of God to recognize our mental images of the Word as images rather than the Reality, and to expose and abandon our inherited premises for our understanding of it.
The Bible as Image Reality
The image of Reality over which we have the greatest confusion pertaining to our understanding of the Word of God is the Bible. The cumulative exposure of the western church to the scriptures over the Church Age, coupled with the close relationship between the scriptures and the Word of God, has blinded us to understanding what the Word of God is as described by the scripture writers.
We are so familiar with the scriptures that we are unable to objectively see what they say about the Word of God, but rather we have defined the Word of God according to our familiarity with the scriptures, a familiarity in which is based hosts of presuppositions about both the scriptures and the Word of God, none of which are actually stated in the scriptures.
In other words, our familiarity with the scriptures, and not the scriptures themselves, is the basis of the things we “understand” about the Word of God. We claim things and make statements about the Bible in relation to the Word of God that the Bible does not make for itself. While the original intention of many of these statements is good, it is nonetheless crippling to our entrance into the Reality of God Himself, who is The Word.
The purpose of this articles is to—without destroying our fundamental confidence in the trustworthiness of the scriptures or denying their inspiration and preservation by God—become free from the power of natural reason and unbelief which has grown up around our appreciation and familiarity with the Bible so we may objectively see what they themselves say about the Word of God and so enter into the Reality of their description of it.
[This article is not to destroy our trust in the scriptures, but in our own power of trust, i.e., our capability for trust based in our own power of reasoning.] Make no mistake. We are in no wise questioning or challenging the scriptures themselves. We are challenging though our understanding of and trust in the scriptures as an end rather than a means to an end that blinds us to the Spiritual Reality behind them.
Metonymy
One of the best ways to explain difficult spiritual things is to use examples from natural life that mirror them. Jesus did this most effectively in His parables, and we will do it here. After all, the things of earth do pattern the things of heaven.
Metonymy refers to the using of a word in substitution for a word closely related to it. It is a device we use in everyday speech. Especially we hear it on the news, like this:
“Today the White House said that President Reagan will veto the trade bill.”
The metonymy here is the word “White House.” Now in literal fact, the “White House” didn’t say anything. Houses don’t talk. But it is used here as a figure of speech to represent a particular spokesman in the White House who made the statement. The two are so closely identified—the speaker and the location—that the one is used for the other, and everybody knows what is meant.
Here is another example. Someone looks out over a cornfield from a distance and says, “Look at the corn!” Literally, he sees no corn at all. What he sees is stalks and husks. The corn is on the inside and can’t be seen. But because the man knows the corn is inside the husks, and the two are intricately linked, he calls the whole thing “corn.” And everybody knows the distinction anyway and so has no trouble understanding. (Of course, the man would not eat corn based on what he sees from the road!)
The Danger of Spiritual Metonymy
While metonymy concerning natural realities is usually safe, concerning spiritual realities it can be confusion and deceptively deadly, especially when interlinking physical and spiritual realities are given the same name. When this happens, it leads us to assign equal function of reality to physical and spiritual things. It leads us to think that when we have touched a physical thing carrying a spiritual name, we have automatically touched the spiritual thing itself. And so we are deceived.
Nowhere is this deadly metonymy more apparent than concerning the relationship between the scriptures and the meaning of the Word of God.
(In thought, this same metonymy occurs where we confuse actual scripture with our assumptions about scripture [or as we call it, “being scriptural”]).
In the minds of most evangelical Christians over the centuries, the terms “scripture” and the “Word of God” are totally synonymous admitting of no distinction in nature or substance. The two terms are used interchangeably, favouring the visible side of the reality. That is, the visible scriptures are called the Word of God, but beyond this there is little concept of any spiritual aspect to the “Word of God.” Any invisible reality to the meaning of “Word of God” generally does not enter into consideration.
Thus the focus of consideration is the scripture, to which by metonymy is ascribed the sum of the attributes of the “Word of God.”
In turn, this free interchangeable use of the term “Word of God” for “the scriptures” is based on a deeper confusion of assumption about scripture with what the scriptures actually say about the two terms. It is our duty to show in this article that the unqualified metonymous use of “Word of God” for “scripture” is false, and further that this use is based on the false metonymous use of assumption about scripture for what scriptures actually say.
- Artificial Defense of the Scriptures
As important as scripture is, it is done no service when “defended” and “protected” by human reason and assumptions about it. If the scriptures are truly from God (and they are), then they must stand because God defends them, not man. Human defense can only colour what the scriptures truly say and cloud truth, keeping us from reaching their intended objective.
If we are to know the truth then, we must do away with our assumptions about what the Word of God is and about scripture, and objectively consider what the scripture writers actually say about the terms “Word of God” and “scripture.”
What the Scripture Writers Say about the Word of God
When we come to the scriptures, what do we find in them concerning the terms “Word of God” and “scripture?” What we find is that, although there is a direct relationship between “scripture” and “Word of God,” the two terms are not comprehensively synonymous, and that there is a substantive difference in nature between them.
We go on to find that the Word of God is a Source Reality from which the scriptures are derived. The scriptures are a limited reality while the Word of God is an unlimited Reality; they are a dependent reality while the Word of God is an independent Reality. And the focus of our relationship is to the independent, unlimited, source Reality of the Word of God, and only secondarily to the dependent, limited, derived reality of the scriptures. These are what the scriptures themselves demonstrate.
You don’t believe me? I understand. For that cause we are going to directly “search the scriptures and see if these things are so.” Let’s begin by looking at the following chart.
The chart below is based on my personal analysis of the scriptural use, meaning and context of the terms “word” (in relation to the speaking of God), “word of the Lord,” and “word of God.” The counts and percentages based in the King James Bible detail how many times these terms are applied solely to scripture (in blue), solely to the active living speaking of God outside of scripture (in red), or possibly interchangeably to both at the same time (in green):
Use of the Term “Word(s)” Relative to Communication from God in the KJV Bible
Use of term “WORDS”
OT Count
OT %
NT Count
NT %
Bible Count
Bible %
- clear applications to scripture only
56*
09.5%*
17
7%
71
08.5%
- possible application to either scripture/non-scripture
118
19.5%
22
9%
141
16.5%
-clear applications to non-scripture
427
71%
213
84%
641
75%
TOTAL
601
100%
252
100%
853
100%
Use of Phrase “WORD OF THE LORD”
OT Count
OT %
NT Count
NT %
Bible Count
Bible %
- clear applications to scripture only
10
04.5%
0
0%
10
04.5%
- possible application to either scripture/non-scripture
3
01.5%
3
30%
6
02.5%
-clear applications to non-scripture
215
94%
7
70%
222
93%
TOTAL
228
100%
10
100%
238
100%
Use of Phrase “WORD OF GOD”
OT Count
OT %
NT Count
NT %
Bible Count
Bible %
- clear applications to scripture only
0
0%
1
02.5%
1
02.5%
- possible application to either scripture/non-scripture
0
0%
4
9%
4
08.5%
-clear applications to non-scripture
2
100%
39
88.5%
41
89%
TOTAL
2
100%
44
100%
46
100%
[* All figures on this chart are very close approximates, subject to slight variation depending on interpretation. But this is meant not to be precise but to present a general picture. The percentages are so varied that differences in interpretation will not affect the significance. For the complete study identifying every use of these terms throughout the Bible, please click HERE.]
What do we see? That chart shows us that there is an overwhelming distinction between exclusive identification of the Word of God with scripture, and the Word of God as an independent Reality to which we have access as living beings. If we look at the total count for the whole Bible, we find that 75% of the times scripture writers refer to communication from God, it is extra-biblically! It is in terms of present-tense revelation from some source other than already written scripture.
By and far, the fundamental understanding all the writers had of the meaning and nature of God’s Word was that it is a Spiritual Reality to which man has access, not confined to the pages of scriptures available to that time. In fact, less than 10% of the time does the concept of God’s Word apply specifically and exclusively to written scripture!
In line with this, the consistent flavour of understanding among all the writers was that the appearance or lack of it of a word to be found in previous scripture had little if anything to do with establishing its veracity as a WORD OF GOD.
Moses, for example, had no scriptures against which to verify that his own words from God were genuine. Throughout the era of the kings until Josiah, the scriptures of Moses and Joshua played almost no part at all in identifying or verifying the Word of God. They were lost. No prophet in the Old Testament made any appeal to previous scriptures to verify that his words were from God—even though his words supported the spirit of the scriptures.
For all these writers, the scriptures played a very minimal part in establishing what is the Word of God, even though they accepted the scriptures as wholly inspired by God.
The Implications: What It Means to Be “Biblical”
Why is this so important to see? It is important because, although we claim to be “biblical” people, we can’t truly be biblical unless and until we at least understand the scriptures through the eyes of the men who wrote them. With reference to the meaning of the Word of God, it means we can’t claim to be “biblical” unless we relate to what they call the “Word of God” the same way they did.
Yet what we do is to objectively stand back after the centuries and without entering into the understanding of the writers, simply label the collection of their writings as the “Word of God,” leave it at that, and then claim to be biblical because we create a “mosaic” from scripture to support what we already think is so. Our idea of being “biblical” is rooted in nothing more than our inherited assumptions of what it means to be “biblical.” It is not rooted in sharing the minds of the writers themselves.
If we want to be “biblical,” we must be able to read the scriptures as if we were the very first ones to whom it was addressed, hearing the words under the same conditions of hearing as the first hearers. (Then we must walk in the reality of what they have written!)
But if the understanding we have of scripture is not as applicable to the first hearers as to us now, then we are not walking according to scripture, but according to our own understanding of it, filled with all the assumptions, pre-suppositions, prejudices—inherited and otherwise—that govern our outlook on life.
Putting Ourselves in Their Shoes
If this is so, then let’s ask some testy questions. Having taken a brief look at the concept of the Old Testament authors concerning the Word of God, let’s put ourselves in the shoes of the various first hearers (or readers) of the words of these authors.
First of all, we find in almost all cases, we are not “reading” anything at all. We are hearing spoken words. For most of what was issued forth as the Word of God did not come forth as writing, but as speech that was written down later. RIGHT AWAY we see there has to be a difference between the WORD OF GOD and scripture.
If only scripture is the Word of God, then we would have to say that (for example) the words of Jeremiah did not become the Word of God until he wrote them down later. Would you put your name to that belief? I hope not. But if you are going to limit the Word of God to scripture, you would have to!
- Moses and the Israelites
All right. Let’s put ourselves in the shoes of the first Israelites who heard Moses issue the Ten Commandments as well as his other words about the commandments. Moses made no appeal to any previous writing. He said he met God in the mountain and God told him such-and-such, and God inscribed these commandments into the stones.
Tell me. Would you have believed him? Also, how much of what he said would you have accepted as the Word of God? Would you have accepted none of it because he made no appeal to earlier scriptures? Or would you at least have accepted the 10 commandments because they were at least written in stone? Or would you have received everything Moses was saying to be God’s Word, even the words not written in the stone?
If you decide to believe everything Moses was saying to be the Word of God, on what basis would you have done so, seeing most of it was not written down to that point?
On the other hand, if you were to have said, “I’ll only believe for sure that Moses is speaking God’s Word when I see it all written down someday and it has withstood the test of time,” on what basis could you be sure that that was a valid way to prove God had spoken to Moses (especially seeing that the faith you would need to have obeyed Moses would have had to have been right away—not decades or centuries later?)
- Believing the Old Testament Prophets
Let’s move on in history. After Moses wrote the first scriptures, many others came along claiming to have the Word of the Lord: Samuel, Nathan, Elijah, Jeremiah, etc. Today you accept this as so. (“It’s in the Bible!” of course.)
But put yourself in the audience of those who first heard them. Would you have believed these men to be issuing forth the direct Word of God? Keep in mind, these men quoted nearly nothing from the already written law. Since they were not quoting scriptures, would you have rejected them as heretics for claiming to speak the inspired Word of God? If so, on what basis—especially since the Law itself said future prophets would arise to speak the word of the Lord?
But if you decided to believe they were speaking the Word of God, then on what basis would it have been (since they were not appealing to the scriptures to prove they were speaking God’s Word, and since you certainly couldn’t have lived long enough to see it in writing after the fact centuries later)?
How is it that Eli had no problem perceiving that God spoke to the boy Samuel, especially seeing (as it was said to be) there was no more “open vision” in Israel? Why did David have no problem believing Nathan the prophet even though Nathan didn’t quote scripture to him? If indeed the “scriptures were sufficient” for complete guidance, why did David as well as future kings appeal to prophets and the Urim and Thummim for more specific Words? Moreover, how is it David had no problem believing that he himself was a prophet that could speak the Word of God? (By today’s evangelical standard, these people were all deluded.)
Historical Repudiation of the Metonymy
Do you see the problem in light of today’s simplistic equation that “Word of God = Scripture”? None of the people who either spoke the words or heard the words, or who recorded them in writing after the fact had that equation in view at all!
For all these people, the Word of God was a phenomenon to which the later writing of the words were simply after-the-fact-reflections of that Word and which stood in their own right to reflect those particular words—but were not used to judge or determine or limit the superseding reality of the Word of God which they reflected!
Had this been the case—were possession and evaluation of scripture the proof of what is the Word of God —there is no way you could have believed any of these people to have issued forth the Word of God as you claim to easily believe now. Yet failure to have believed them at that time would have meant certain death for you in many cases.
What does the Old Testament establish for us? It establishes that
· The Word of God is a force of spiritual reality that exists above and beyond the scriptures that reflect it in writing here and there.
· The Word of God was a reality to which there was ongoing present-tense access throughout the history of Israel, and while scripture was an accurate reflection of it, access to visible scripture in no way limited or evaluated it.
· The Word of God stood on its own SELF-VERIFYING merit before the heart of man, whether or not it was clothed in writing that had stood the test of time.
This is the “scriptural” presentation of the Word of God and its relationship to scripture! The people who believed in the scriptures believed them because they lined up with the Word of God to which they had present-tense access, not because the scriptures had been around longer than they had….
The New Testament Record
What we have just seen in the Old Testament is repeated in the record of the New Testament. For to Jesus and the Apostles and to all who wrote the New Testament scriptures, the Word of God is not primarily defined by the scriptures but by the active living dynamic of the Voice of God at work in and among His Church in the present tense.
The percentages are astounding. Only once in the entire New Testament does the phrase “Word of God” refer exclusively to scripture. This is when Jesus cites the Pharisees for making the “word of God of none effect” by breaking the command to honor mother and father by their tradition.
Yet throughout His ministry and throughout the Acts of the Apostles, the inspired Word of God refers almost exclusively to the immediate preaching, teaching and spreading of the spoken testimony of the believers. “The word of God grew and multiplied!” Nor was this limited at all to the apostles. Peter in fact exhorted that every man speak as “the oracle of God.”
The irony of this period is that in the main, it was those who knew the scriptures best as Word of God —the Pharisees—who did the most to oppose the active living dynamic of Word of God. Jesus chided them for coming no further than the scriptures to find life. It is clear that the deadly spiritual metonymy that comprehensively equates the scriptures with the Word of God stood as the very power of unbelief to all these people.
And so, to you who make the same error, how would you have had any way to believe in the words of Christ and the apostles as the true Word of God when there were so many grace transcensions by Christ of the scriptures and so many new precedents in teaching and action that had no precedent in the scriptures to that time?
You would have had none of this written down for you as scripture until many decades later to confirm it as the Word of God. And by then it would have been too late for you to have believed. Faith is only in the NOW. Faith in the past—that is, faith in an historical account, or historical faith—is not saving faith.
In the End
We must get past the deadly metonymy that causes us to believe in the Word of God primarily through our mental intercourse with the scriptures.
We must touch the One through our hearts who is the Word of God, coming to Him for our life, and obeying His Voice, and not our images of His Reality as portrayed through the written word.
We must get past our imaginary assumptions about the Word of God to hear the living Word of the Lord daily in our lives, deep in our hearts.
When we come to Him through the scriptures, we must come beyond our mental interactions with the words to know Him, The Word through its words. And we must eventually be able to come to Him and to know Him beyond the scriptures themselves. He is the Word, and He is our life.
That is the call of this article.
Chris Anderson
written at Greenville, South Carolina
First Love Ministry
- a ministry of Anglemar Fellowship
http://www.firstloveministry.org
02/88
BACK TO TOP
Webmaster mailto:littleflock@netzero.net
Page updated September 28, 2023