Restoring Unity
Divided by Language
Genesis 11:6And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. 7Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.
God divided the people by confounding their language. To this day, our language remains confounded, and we remain divided. Religion, the thing that is supposed to unite us, has divided us. Could it be that a confounded language remains as the root cause of our division?
Observation: word definitions are constructed by “observing how they are used in different contexts and then crafting concise, accurate descriptions that reflect those observed meanings.” (Google)
In other words, words derive their meaning from text. But then text derives its meaning from words. This is circular reasoning. Who decided the meaning of the text in the first place? Without understanding what words mean, how can one establish the meaning of the text?
Definitions derived in this way are contextual: each meaning of a word includes a contextual component which masks the word’s intrinsic meaning.
How was language supposed to work?
Genesis 2:19And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
Words were meant to represent things. The way language is supposed to work is that text gets its meaning from words, and words inherit their meaning from the things they represent.
The way it is supposed to work is that when you hear a word, you picture the creature that was given the name. When you read a sentence, you picture a number of things, and now you can see how the things are related. As you read sentences with the same word but in different contexts, rather than each sentence providing an alternate concept, the two sentences expound on each other and give you a bigger picture.
The problem is that the words in our Biblical vocabulary represent things that can only be found in the kingdom of heaven, which no one had ever seen. The problem is that you cannot assign words to things you have never seen.
This dilemma is explained in more detail in Grammatology
I state this as if it were fact, but I would rather present it as conjecture worthy of your consideration. Rather than presenting it as a thesis, I would rather use the scientific approach and state it as a hypothesis, subject to testing. This hypothesis may sound like an abstract concept, however, as we proceed down this train of thought, it will become clear very quickly whether this concept has merit: whether it should be embraced or rejected.
Seek Ye First
Before we can assign terms to the things that exist only in the kingdom of heaven, we need to become familiar with this kingdom. Allow me to give you a tour of the kingdom of heaven, so you can see for yourself the things that the words in our Biblical vocabulary were meant to represent. I will do this by constructing a model that will help you visualize the kingdom of heaven.
Untangling the Language
“Of Grammatology” by Jacques Derrida is a foundational text in deconstruction that challenges traditional Western philosophy’s privileging of speech over writing. It argues that meaning is not inherent in language but rather emerges from a system of differences and deferrals, a concept Derrida terms “differance”. The book critiques the idea of a stable, unified meaning and highlights the role of writing as a fundamental structuring force in language and thought.
If you think that language is not confounded, take a trip on that train of thought. There are numerous YouTube videos explaining his (Jacques Derrida’s) argument that language is an unstable means of communication, and I agree in light of the understanding that it is based on circular reasoning. In his book, he suggests using deconstruction, a term that he coined and defined in his book.
The idea that language is an unstable means of communication is highlighted by the fact that the Christian community took his word, deconstruction, and redefined it for their own purposes, saying that it really means to abandon your Christian faith. Talk about the instability of language.
When it comes to interpreting Biblical text, I suggest there is a better way, a straight-forward path that addresses the root cause, and that is to use a universal language.
If a picture is worth a thousand words,
then one word is at least worth one picture.
Allow me to explain with an example. When reading instructions to assemble a purchased item, rather than reading the text, I look for the illustrations. Often, the manual contains the instructions in many languages, but the one thing that is constant in all the languages is the set of illustrations. The universal language is pictures. We process information more quickly and accurately visually. Processing verbal information often involves mentally converting the words to mental pictures.
Often, seeing an exploded view of the whole gives me an understanding of how everything fits together. I usually begin without reading the step-by-step and end up doing a lot of rework, but that’s another story.
Seeing the whole, the kingdom of heaven, gives me an appreciation for how everything fits together. I get to see the relationships between all the parts. Rather than understanding words to be something different depending on context, seeing the things represented by the words brings stability to language.
Once I see the parts, I can assign words from my Biblical vocabulary to represent the things I see in the kingdom of heaven. I do this scientifically: in other words, I guess (that’s called a hypothesis).
I then test my hypothesis by examining how the word is used in scripture, making sure that each assignment is consistent in all the contexts in which it is found.
Text without context is pretext,
but context without text is con.
Being true to the nature of the science, I need only publish the results that are found to be successful, burying all my missteps so they never see the light of day. And if later they are found to be in error, that is OK too. After all, continuous improvement implies there is always room for improvement.
This is the advantage a scientist has over a theologian. The theologian hears from God. He works with a thesis. If he gets anything wrong he is ostracized. One misstep and he is banished as a heretic. The scientist, however, works with a hypothesis. He only needs to get it right once, and he is celebrated. The scientist’s disadvantage is that, when practicing science in theological space, he will be judged by theologians according to their standard. This I have found to be true. Just a thought.
This does not mean that our word assignments must be consistent with our theology, although that may be a good place to start, potentially a good first guess. This process may (probably will) dismantle your current theology, but the end result will be a stronger belief system, not an abandoned one.
Once we see the kingdom of heaven, we are ready to take the next step: assigning terms – grace, faith, mercy, and the list goes on – to the things I see. Each word will be pictured in the model, then vetted for contextual consistency. The result is an object-oriented language.
I call this section visualizing the language, because the intrinsic meanings of the words are illustrated, visualized.
To avoid the obvious conflict created by the various versions of the scriptures, I reference the Greek, using a Greek concordance to find where the words are used. A good source for Greek text is www.abarim.com
I have come to appreciate the accuracy of the Greek language. Although I am not a Greek scholar, I suggest that will be to your advantage because my explanations will be in terms you can identify with.
Restoring Theology
Finally, I will use the intrinsic meaning of words to explore the Biblical text, and the plain meaning of the text will become obvious to you. This is where I visualize the scriptures. The result of this exercise is an object-oriented theology.
This approach untangles our language dilemma, and can easily and quickly be applied to any tongue, solving the theological divisions that continue to divide us to this day. I invite you to join me on this most momentous journey.
Direct Links
Father Abraham provided a blueprint, a preview of things to come.
A Divine Pattern is a non-visual narrative explaining aspects of the kingdom of heaven.
2 Corinthians 4 is an example of visualizing the scriptures using the visualized language.
What does it mean to abide in his love.
Communion is a practical look at what should take place when taking communion.
John 6 explains concepts that became stumbling blocks to many, where Jesus said, Unless you eat my flesh.
Joy is probably not what you think it is.
Lord of the Sabbath deals with entering into his rest.
Forgiveness is something that we all struggle with needlessly.
New Wine 