Category: Philosophy

I’ve discovered some interesting parallels between Plato’s “Seventh Letter” and some of the teachings both in Proverbs and in the Gospels. Plato comments in the 7th Letter that it is of no value, and is in fact a mistake, to try to educate a person who is not in his soul prepared to properly receive it.

“Whenever anyone consults me about any of the weightiest matters affecting his own life…if he seems likely to listen to advice about the thing on which he consults me, I advise him with readiness…. But if a man … evidently does not intend to follow my advice, I do not take the initiative in advising such a man…”

“If men are not by nature and kinship allied to justice and all other things that are honorable,… none of all these will ever learn to the full the truth about virtue and vice.”

For this reason, Plato hesitated to teach philosophy to Dionysius, ruler of Syracuse. He describes how he will put Dionysius to the test, as to whether he would be a worthy student. Plato will make clear how much labor is required in the quest, and see if Dionysius still shows genuine commitment, whether he has the attitude that “life is not worth living if he does anything else”.

There must be a deep love for virtue, above all other things, before one can be taught to become virtuous. Both Plato and Aristotle contended that this needs to be instilled by the training of children, from the earliest age, so that in later years they will be able to receive the explicit teachings. If virtue and piety are not their first love, an end in itself, then whatever they learn from teachers will be in the service of other purposes, contrary to the truly virtuous life.

An example of a very capable and intelligent student of philosophy, who nevertheless did not embrace it as his first love, is Cyrus, as presented by Xenophon In “The Education of Cyrus”. He was formally educated in virtue, and gave all the appearances of a virtuous man during his rise to power; but it becomes evident that he practiced it only for political expediency, for the sake of gaining and retaining power.

The book of Proverbs makes a similar observation, where the first nine chapters seek to instill a burning desire and love for wisdom, as a prerequisite for studying the actual Proverbs in the remainder of the book. Consider, for example, the following. “When I was a son to my father, tender and the only son in the sight of my mother, then he taught me and said to me, ‘Let your heart hold fast my words; keep my commandments and live; acquire wisdom! Acquire understanding! Do not forget nor turn away from the words of my mouth. Do not forsake her, and she will guard you; love her, and she will watch over you.’” – Proverbs 4:3-6.

Similarly, in the synoptic Gospels, Jesus explains his use of parables as a means of concealing the teachings in mystery for those who are not of the right mind-set. The revelation of their meaning is reserved for those who make the commitment of discipleship; and He made clear that it is a costly commitment, warning that they must count the cost. He also instructs the disciples to not “cast your pearls before swine.” And in the gospel of John, we find that Jesus’ teachings can be received and understood only by those who had been previously prepared in their hearts. For example: “He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God.” – John 8:47.

So this principle set forth in the gospels and in Proverbs, was also evident by general revelation to Plato and Aristotle. It is essentially equivalent to saying: “the beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord.” And this fear of the Lord is not taught by words, in books, in the classroom; it is rather acquired in life experience, and most importantly in children as they are trained by their parents. That is what constitutes “the beginning of wisdom”, the prerequisite for virtue-teaching. That is how one acquires ears to hear.

I think many issues arise mainly because transcendence is widely under-appreciated. A particular issue that has recently caught my attention is the supposed heresy of “adoptionism”. One place this comes up is in Hebrews 1:2-5; 5:1-10. Christ, as Son of God, was the agent of creation, from the beginning; yet He was appointed and begotten when He ascended to the right hand of the Majesty. These are the two sides of the paradox of the eternal pre-existing Son of God / Logos, who was also appointed and begotten after His resurrection, due to His obedience (or, alternatively, at His baptism). In order to preserve His full eternal deity, such adoptionistic statements are traditionally interpreted to mean merely His manifestation and revelation as the Son and the King, or the accomplishment of His specifically soteriological mission. I propose it is better to give full weight to both sides of this paradox, and not try to reconcile them within an analytical system of thought.

When speaking of deity, we are attempting to talk about that which transcends space and time. All analytical / conceptual thought, which depends upon space-time metaphors, is therefore inadequate. Any attempt to analytically reconcile such paradoxes will severely and unnecessarily distort the truths that are revealed in the simple assertion of the paradox. It is better to simply accept and embrace such paradoxes. We should consider eternity as including and embracing temporality, in that it transcends the conceptual distinction between eternity and temporality.

The particular paradox of eternal sonship being qualified by incarnation was addressed by Robert Jenson, in saying there is no Logos asarkos. The eternal Son, from the beginning, is founded upon the temporal life of Jesus of Nazareth. By extension, the entire creation, from the beginning, is in some sense causally dependent upon his life as a man. We should give full weight to this bottom-up Christology, and not compromise it for the sake of top-down Christology. I think this was an important point in Pannenberg’s theology. To honor what is revealed, we must fully accept each side of this paradox as equally valid partial truths. To do otherwise would compromise the full truth.

Another application of temporal transcendence is the doctrine of justification. Justification in the present is based on a future completed lifetime of faithfulness. This is because salvation depends upon participation in Christ, which is an eternal transcendent reality. Any attempt to reconcile all aspects of atonement within an analytical system will result in a distortion that fails to represent the full truth. It is better to live with the tension between the assurance of hope and the obligation to persevere: another teaching from Hebrews.

Similarly, there are paradoxes related to space and spatial relationships. The unity of all things, in One, transcends the diversity of the many in space, but in a way that embraces and includes the spatial diversity of the many. This would apply to the paradox of corporate versus individual identity, and the related doctrines of unity and participation in Adam and in Christ. The answer, again, is to accept the paradox.

Such observations also apply to the more general disputes about open theism – whether God is permitted to be mutable and passionate – for the non-contingent God to be partly defined by the contingent creation. This further relates to the distinction between the immanent Trinity and the economic Trinity. We can and should accept that the immanent Trinity includes and embraces all that can be said about the economic Trinity; what we say about the economic Trinity should therefore be accepted as fully valid, but partial, truth. Perhaps this is what Karl Rahner meant to say. The transcendent God is both passionately responsive and steadfastly dependable, even though systematic thinking sees it as paradoxical.

To state it more generally, transcendence transcends even the concept of transcendence. On difficult subjects like this, I often ask “what would Kierkegaard say?” In this, I think he would concur.