Ch 3 Challenging Our Interpretations

You do not have the words from God abiding in you, in your learning and education.

You search the Scriptures because you think that in the words of God you have

When many of his disciples heard the Word’s relational language, they said,

I thank you, Father, Lord of all life, because you have hidden ‘the words from God’

After I became a Christian around twenty years old while in the U.S. Air Force, I didn’t have any Christian fellowship in that initial period. Perhaps this was a benefit, since I read the Bible intensely for exciting interaction with the Word. In my naiveté I interpreted the Bible literally and counted on the Word accordingly (notably Phil 4:13). After my time in the Air Force, I became active in a church and later went to seminary. During this period, my literal interpretations were challenged and my naiveté was lost, both for the benefit and to the disadvantage of my interaction with the Word. On the one hand, my interpretations advanced (arguably progressed) in quantitative knowledge, while, on the other hand, without my naiveté something was missing if not lost—later discovered in the significance of qualitative relational understanding. Thankfully, my so-called advancing interpretations in my formative Christian theology and practice were challenged by the Word’s ongoing clarification and correction to restore me to exciting involvement with the whole-ly Word. This relational process continues to unfold, which shouldn’t be confused with gaining more quantitative knowledge of the Bible and being more informed about the words of 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 from God. Anything less and any substitutes for this mindset (phroneo) illuminated by the Word forms 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). These are the contrasting and competing perceptual-interpretive mindsets that I needed to turn from and then be restored to, in order for my interpretations to have clarity and thus have the significance of the words from God—and not have to be challenged for clarification and correction.

Persons, groups, peoples 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 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 our 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 (discussed previously) 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:

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 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 realm 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.”[1] 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 discussed earlier, the hermeneutic process also needs to be qualified in order to understand God as revealed in Scripture.[2]

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.[3] 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 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, for our clarification and correction the words from God are communicated in relational language 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 process the Word makes accessible:

His whole person, the whole of God and God’s wholeness, and the whole 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 Word provides the whole basis in wholeness necessary for challenging our interpretations, along with challenging our education and learning. The Word’s whole basis even challenges how we see wholeness (as in shalôm) and practice it (as in tamiym, from Gen 17:1). But, wherever the Word’s clarification and correction have undergone a subtle reduction to referential language, this whole basis has been fragmented by a perceptual-interpretive mindset using a lens lacking wholeness (as evident in Lk 19:41-42). What we see depends on how we see it—demonstrated by those on the road to Emmaus. So, we cannot rely on the validity of our vision without understanding the lens used. For example, if we only see fragments or certain parts of something, that’s how our lens sees them; even corrective lenses may help us see them better but don’t guarantee seeing the whole picture. This applies to the Word and brings out the essential difference between God’s lens and human lenses. Samuel demonstrated this difference when God told him to select a new king (1 Sam 16:6-7).

What we access from the Word depends on how we see it. In relational language, the words from God are written in cursive (all connected), which seems basic enough but is complicated by our lens. This is illustrated by the following comic of “Dennis the Menace.” In this scene, Dennis returns home from elementary school and tells his mom: “They’re gonna teach us Cursive in school, but I told ‘em I’m not allowed to talk that way.”[4] Since Dennis perceives cursive as about cursing, he’s right to think that he’s not allowed to use that language. Yet, his assumed language conflict is really a language barrier that prevents him from understanding cursive. A similar assumption commonly exists in biblical interpretation that subtly obscures the language barrier preventing an understanding of how the words from God are connected together.

The Bible is composed by texts written in cursive, and it also includes what appears to be random discourse (discursive) that have little or no connection. However, we often miss the Bible’s whole basis in wholeness, or at least don’t understand its significance, because we see it differently and thus don’t recognize the language barrier in our interpretations. Again, what we see depends on how we see it.

This takes us back to how the Word communicated the words from God, which is integral to what the Word communicated and must be seen together to understand the Word’s whole basis in wholeness. The how and the what of the Word converge in this integral basis:

The Word (1) embodied the whole of God (nothing less) and (2) enacted God’s wholeness (with nothing less and no substitutes); and the Word’s basis of God’s whole in wholeness (a) is specially revealed and thereby distinguished only in relational language, which (b) composes distinctly cursive relational terms that (c) emerge and unfold in God’s integral relational context and process for (d) the irreducible relational purpose and nonnegotiable relational outcome of whole reciprocal relationship together in wholeness, thereby fulfilling God’s definitive blessing (the integral connection between Num 6:25-26 and 2 Cor 4:6).

When the what is separated from the how, the cursive words from God communicated in relational language are misperceived—perhaps as inappropriate language not to be used—because the receiving mindset has transposed (often inadvertently like Dennis) the Word’s original language to referential language. As discussed, referential language fragments the Word’s relational terms and messages from cursive to discursive bits of information, which reduces the relational purpose for communicating the words from God down to the discursive transmission of the fragmentary words of God. The perceptual-interpretive mindset formed by referential language is unable to perceive and understand cursive—also thinking as Dennis did that common discourse is not that way. Yet, this assumption of being unable to use such language only clouds the reality of a disabled mindset (as made evident in Jn 6:41-60).

The effects of referential language on our mindset is like what’s happening in the modern digital world: Digital language digitizes the human brain by flooding its cells and synapses with digital information, which the human mind only processes in bits without any cursive significance—misguided by the epistemological illusions of having the so-called more from the Information (misinformed) Age. This digitized mindset evolves on the internet and gets embedded in social media to simulate human interaction and communication with merely the transmission of discursive bits of information (personal or not). The consequence is to disable the human mindset to perceive cursive, to understand the difference between merely the fragmentary and the whole, and even to know what’s real and not real. The latter is currently amplified by artificial intelligence and related perceptions generated by computers. Hao Li, a leading researcher on computer-generated (CG) video at USC, is founder of Pinscreen, which produces videos (e.g. from a simple selfie) using an algorithm that will become so accurate they will defy reality—thus creating ambiguity and confounding the mind about what’s real and not real. This technology of computer science evolved from gains researchers have made in deeper neural networks, and the complex algorithms that loosely mimic the thinking of the human brain. Li said the key to preventing a distrust in video is to build awareness by educating people of the capabilities of the CG world.[5]

In a similar way, the information about the words of God generated by referential language blurs the reality of the words from God in relational language, which then can captivate human thinking with the realistic terms it projects. If the Word is not to devolve into fake news or bad news, then we also must build awareness by educating Christians of the capabilities of referential language and the world of reductionism. Yet, curiously, having said this about the digital world, it is being discovered existentially that podcasts are helping persons listen more carefully, and thus being affected more deeply than what their brains normally hear. Perhaps this suggests that the words from God should be podcast in order to rewire our brains and educate our persons more deeply than our minds.

Of course, the perceptual-interpretive mindset formed by referential language is neither limited to a modern phenomenon nor confined to the workings of the modern world. But we certainly observe today how this perceptual-interpretive mindset is amplified and its lens (not perception) magnified. The Word was always clarifying and correcting how he was perceived and his words were interpreted. Sadly, the Word also grieved over his people because they didn’t recognize with their mindset what constitutes wholeness (Lk 19:41-42). To educate his disciples in his whole basis in wholeness, he challenged their existing mindset (phroneo, Mk 8:33, cf. Phil 2:2,5) to make them aware of the cursive lacking in their interpretation of his words (Mk 8:14-21). There was both patience and frustration in the Word’s education because their learning was a struggle, given the extent of their mindset (as Peter demonstrated in the interaction soon after):

“Do you still not perceive (noeo, a basic act of the mind) or understand (syniēmi, the essential understanding of the whole) by putting together my words? Are your hearts desensitized to the qualitative, putting a veil on your whole person? Do you have eyes and fail to see what’s real? Do you have ears and fail to listen carefully and hear the communication of my words in relational language?”

The Word wants all his followers to syniēmi by putting together the words from God in cursive, in order that God’s relational language will reveal and distinguish the Word’s whole basis in wholeness, distinguished from the fragmentary information of referential language. Moreover, for further education, the Word distinguishes his whole basis in wholeness with “my uncommon peace (as in shalôm) I give you,” contrary to the common peace of the world (Jn 14:27). In relational words (not referential), the Word’s wholeness (the shalôm fulfilling God’s definitive blessing, Num 6:26) is always uncommon and must be distinguished by the uncommon’s nature from the common that referential language transmits. When the Word’s clarification and correction of his whole basis in wholeness is embraced, the integral relational outcome will unfold so that we will indeed experience the relational reality of knowing and understanding the whole-ly God as well as having God’s uncommon wholeness constituted in our theology and practice.

No other basis can distinguish the whole reality of God, and challenge what’s not really whole.

By the counter-relational workings of reductionism, referential language has evolved today to adapt much engagement of the Bible in what essentially amounts to digitized interpretations: interpretation that is quantified without the significance of qualitative sensitivity and relational awareness. What is seen in the Bible emerges from how it is seen by a digitally influenced and shaped perceptual-interpretive mindset lacking a real sense of qualitative sensitivity and relational awareness, even though it may reference the qualitative and relational in its thinking and information about the words of God. The resulting digital information has amassed in existing theology and practice to compose them effectively as “Now both thinner and lighter” (as the Moses cartoon illustrated earlier). This condition, and its antecedent outworkings, will continue and further evolve unless it is challenged by what I call incarnated interpretation. This challenge is pivotal for theology and practice today, pivotal both in its basis and for the need it addresses.

As the definitive text written in cursive, the Bible goes further and deeper than composing simply one story or single drama unified throughout. From its beginning the Word communicated the words from God on the whole basis in wholeness, which takes biblical theology further in understanding and deeper in biblical practice. And central to the Word is the incarnation that constitutes the pivot for the integral basis of the words from God, including communicated in the OT. Yet, for this relational process to unfold, the incarnation has to go beyond merely an historical event that gets formalized in doctrine for our theology and practice.

Throughout the incarnation the embodied Word challenged the theology and practice of Judaism that were based on the Hebrew text rather than the original language. Without the original language of the Word, the OT is fragmented from its whole basis in wholeness, and thus reduced to referential information about the words of God that are no longer written in cursive. This critical difference is observed in interpreting Deuteronomy as either the Book of Law or the Book of Love (noted previously). The Word embodied the latter in the qualitative relational significance pivotal for (1) God’s presence and involvement “In the beginning” and since, for (2) the whole basis in wholeness distinguishing the words from God through the OT and NT, and for (3) challenging interpretations of anything less and any substitutes, which currently compose much theology and practice. Therefore, both the validity and reliability of the Bible, biblical interpretations, and the theology and practice formed thereby, all pivot on the incarnation as well as rise in likeness on the basis of the incarnated dynamic of nothing less and no substitutes. If they are not incarnated accordingly, then they are not based on the Word’s whole basis in wholeness, and consequently are always subject to the incarnation’s pivotal challenge.

So, what does it mean to be incarnated? First of all, let’s be clear that this does not mean mere embodiment, which historically has undergone environmental changes—perhaps analogous to the environmental changes incurred by planet Earth.

The interpretation of the incarnation was the central issue challenged first by different persons in the NT, next in the early church, and then throughout church history. Basic to this issue is who and what distinguish the incarnation, which leads to the how of the incarnation’s significance. We need to examine our own interpretations of the incarnation in light of this critical challenge—a challenge frequently rehearsed in referential language that doesn’t get to the full meaning of incarnated.

The incarnation was not merely a body that came to us—though Christmas tradition has centered on that—the embodiment of which was the topic of major theological debate in the early church. Yet, embodiment focused on the object embodied in contrast to the incarnated subject-person who was embodied. The who Jesus embodied was the whole of God, neither just the title or name of God nor merely attributes of God. The fact of the who was challenged in the NT and denied, distorted or simply rendered the who to a fact; and even as fact, the nature of the who continued to be debated in early church history, with nuances about the who as object that diminished or obscured the who as subject embodied only as the whole person. This overlaps into the next dimensions of the incarnation, which are integral to be incarnated.

Less central to this challenge and basic in this debate has been the what that Jesus embodied and enacted, along with the how. As the incarnation established the who of Jesus, he made imperative for those believing the who to “Follow me,” that is, follow the what of his whole person as subject constituted by whole ontology and function, not merely the who rendered to an object of belief. For the incarnated Jesus, the who is inseparable from the what, and to separate them would fragment his whole person and thereby reduce the whole of God constituted by the whole ontology and function of the Trinity. Yet, this separation is the most common interpretation of the incarnation by Christians, whereby the significance of being incarnated has been obscured or lost in their theology and practice. Furthermore, in this integral process to be incarnated, the what of the who is constituted solely by the how: Enacting whole ontology and function by the nonnegotiable relational terms of the whole of God’s vulnerable presence and relational involvement that distinguish the Trinity’s irreducible relational purpose and process of reciprocal relationship together in wholeness.

The incarnated Jesus, therefore, didn’t come to us merely with the embodiment of a physical body, but most basically and essentially he came as the subject-person who incarnated the who, the what and the how of his whole person, his Trinitarian person; accordingly, the Word incarnated also the image and likeness of the Trinity for us to be incarnated in the image and likeness of God’s whole ontology and function.[6] Neither one dimensional nor two dimensional, the incarnated Jesus integrates these three dimensions of Jesus’ whole person (in 3-D) on the Word’s whole basis in wholeness. Therefore, the incarnation is incarnated only when this whole person is the who, what and how Jesus embodied and enacted; and the who cannot be distinguished without the what, and only the how distinguishes the what of the who. The incarnated Jesus fully embodied nothing less than the who and what, and vulnerably enacted no substitutes for the how. Accordingly and unmistakably, this incarnated dynamic constitutes integrally the who, what and how of the gospel on the Word’s whole basis in wholeness, whereby the good news offers the who, what and how for us to follow irreducibly and nonnegotiably on the Word’s basis. Not only, then, does this incarnated understanding challenge our interpretations of the incarnation, but it also challenges our interpretations of both the gospel and discipleship.

Obviously we don’t have the gospel without the incarnation. The question is whether the gospel we claim and proclaim is the gospel of the incarnated Word. The incarnated Word signifies the pivotal challenge facing us here. Most Christians think that the gospel emerged from the incarnation, likely using John 3:16 as its central theme. The gospel of the incarnated Word, however, emerged in the human context “In the beginning” (Jn 1:1-3), whereby it unfolded in the incarnation on the whole basis in wholeness of the incarnated Word—the who, what and how of the whole of God enacted in the beginning. In the words of John’s Gospel, we cannot see the incarnation of the embodied Word without seeing the incarnated Word enacted in the beginning. In order to help us see the whole basis in wholeness of the Word, John provided the lens for how to see the Word’s whole theological trajectory and relational path in wholeness. The whole gospel, therefore, composes only the good news of the incarnated Word, who together with the Father and the Spirit constitutes the covenant of love for incarnated relationship together face to face, person to person.

Moreover, the pivotal challenge of this incarnated interpretation extends also to our interpretations of discipleship. The incarnated Word in post-resurrection and ascension continued to clarify and correct those who followed him. One critical encounter was recorded by John when the palpable Word (together with the Spirit) gave this incisive feedback: “I know your works of discipleship—committed, dedicated and persevering servants for his sake, all based on correct doctrine, which was used to expose false teaching—But I have this against you, that you have abandoned the relational involvement of love you had at first in our relationship together” (Rev 2:2-4). How could the intensity of their discipleship be considered anything less than praiseworthy? Because they got preoccupied with the secondary and thus got diverted from the primary: following first and foremost the whole subject-person of the incarnated Word in the primacy of reciprocal relationship together in wholeness constituting the covenant of love. Consequently, they did not incarnate the persons necessary according to the Word’s whole basis in wholeness. Rather they based their identity and function on the so-called right Christian things to do and were diligent in fulfilling them. Despite their good intentions, they merely reflected the perceptual-interpretive mindset formed by referential language and thus the reduction of the words from God to just possessing the words of God in their theology and practice—the subtle relational distance in discipleship that reduces or fragments primary relational involvement with the incarnated Word.

The church in Ephesus along with the church in Sardis—whose esteemed reputation for being alive was abruptly corrected by the Word not finding their works incarnated on God’s whole basis in wholeness (Rev 3:1-2)—demonstrated the condition of churches widely existing today. In this pervasive condition, churches mislead, distort and sustain discipleship away from the incarnated Word in direct contrast and conflict with the Word’s relational imperative to incarnate “Follow me” with nothing less than and no substitutes for the irreducible and nonnegotiable whole basis in wholeness. The same can be said for the education and learning primarily taking place in the academy.

So, where does this pivotal challenge by incarnated interpretation of the Word find the gospel and the discipleship that you presume in your theology and practice?

The Word ongoingly clarifies and corrects any reductionism of the words from God in relational language, which then by necessity includes clarifying and correcting anything less and any substitutes of the whole of God and God’s uncommon wholeness. When the LORD corrected faithful Samuel’s lens defining how he saw to determine what he saw, God’s lens was revealed to illuminate for all of us how God sees differently: “God does not see as humans see; they see from the outer in, thus partially and fragmented, but God sees from the inner out, thus integrally and whole” (1 Sam 16:7). The words from God always illuminate God’s whole basis in wholeness. And what is magnified in the communication of God’s whole and wholeness is the experiential truth and relational reality that this is not only incarnated whole but also distinguished uncommon—thus distinguished from the common defining the human context and determining human life. The truth and reality are: The uncommon nature of the words from God unequivocally conflicts with the common, such that “This teaching is difficult; who can accept it in its original relational language?” (Jn 6:60) Indeed, it is much more palatable in referential language, even at the communion table as commonly practiced. That is also the existential truth of the presence and influence of reductionism in our theology, as well as the pervading reality of reductionism’s counter-relational workings in our practice.

In Paul Ricoeur’s (known for his hermeneutic philosophy) critique of historical-critical interpretation focused ‘behind’ the biblical text, he aptly assessed the current hermeneutic condition—which also would include biblical interpretation by a mindset formed ‘in front of’ the biblical text that determines how one sees what is in the Bible; yet his apt assessment of the hermeneutic condition only includes a nebulous hope for the way out of it: “Beyond the desert of criticism [and existing biblical interpretations], we wish to be called again.”[7]

Clearly distinguished, however, the pivotal challenge of incarnated interpretation calls us to incarnate our theology and practice on the whole basis in wholeness of the words from God, and grieves for us until we do. As uncommon as this is to what we commonly hear, who will listen carefully and respond to the Word in the relational terms of our incarnated likeness? Until we do, no matter what our boast, “You do not have the words from whole-ly God abiding in you, in your learning and education.”

Incarnated interpretation, therefore, is not only a discomforting challenge for our theology and practice, but also a threatening confrontation of our identity and function that are contextualized by the common’s culture.

[1] 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.

[2] 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).

[3] 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).

[4] By Hank Ketcham, Los Angeles Times, November 27, 2018.

[5] Hao Li was interviewed by David Pierson for “When the realistic blurs reality,” Los Angeles Times, February, 19, 2018.

[6] I have expanded discussion of the Trinity in relational language in The Face of the Trinity: The Trinitarian Essential for the Whole of God and Life (Trinity Study, 2016). Online at http://www.4X12.org.

[7] Paul Ricoeur, The Symbolism of Evil (Boston: Beacon Press, 1969), 349.