Wesleyan Philosophy Society Meeting
Title: Jesus' Relation to Love and Wisdom (draft)
Author: Tim Mosteller, Ph.D
Contact: timothy.mosteller@biola.edu
Many Christians since Tertullian have asked, "What does Athens have to do with
Jerusalem?" I want to try to present an answer to this question by way of answering a related
question, "What does Jesus have to do with philosophy?" In this paper, I will explore the
relationship between the following: Jesus, love understood as phileo or friendship, and wisdom.
I will argue that love and wisdom stand in a symmetrical internal relation to one another and an
asymmetrical internal relation to Jesus. I will argue that love and wisdom cannot fully exist
without the other; they each receive part of their identity through the existence of the other. In
addition, I argue that both love and wisdom stand in an asymmetric internal relationship to Jesus.
They cannot exist apart from Him. In order to elaborate on this latter relation, I will discuss the
ways in which the love of wisdom (or philosophy) is connected with and dependent upon the
person of Jesus Christ. I will conclude this paper with some thoughts on the relationship of the
complex whole (Jesus' relationship to love and wisdom) to individual persons who are seeking to
love God and their neighbors.
To argue for the conclusion that love and wisdom stand in a symmetrical internal relation
to one another there must be something about each that is necessary for its existence which is
present in the other. By an internal relation, I mean a relation an n-adic relation in which a thing
exists only because of its relation to something else. By a symmetrical relation, I mean an n-adic
relation in which the existence of one relatum implies the existence of the other. So, love and
wisdom both have a constituent element which, if absent would not allow them to exist, but that
constituent element is just an element of the other. Further, given that element's existence within
the other, it necessarily implies the existence of the other.
I begin with love understood as friendship (the Greek phileo), by specifying the
constituent element in it that is internally related to wisdom. What is friendship? Friendship is a
relation that one has with another person (or one's self as an "other") which is directed towards
some goal other than the persons in the relationship. Friends are friends because they have
something in common. To borrow from C.S. Lewis, ideas in The Four Loves, lovers in the erotic
sense are seen face to face, each one lost in the beloved. Lovers in the sense of friendship are
always seen side by side working together towards a common goal. A friendship is always about
something. We all know what friendship is like. We have experienced this type of relation
coming into being and fading out of being, primarily due to the commonality of experiences,
common activities; activities which might be as mundane as coin collecting or as profound as
seeking God's kingdom.
There are varieties of friendship. Aristotle distinguished three types: friendships of
utility, of pleasure and complete friendships. It is this latter kind of friendship that I have in
mind. It is the kind of friendship in which one "wishes goods to their friend for the friend's own
sake" (Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics 1156b 10).
If this variety of friendship is possible, then there are two elements to it: the persons in
the relation of friendship and the relation that obtains between them. If we are to attain this
complete friendship where each person is wishing goods to the other, this begs the question of
what goods are we to wish for the other. How do we identify those goods? How do we
appropriately wish them to our friends? Aristotle claims that true friendship arises only from the
virtue of the friends in the relationship. If it is true that virtue is prior to friendship, then
2
something must be said about how one becomes virtuous, but one cannot become virtuous
without wisdom.
This might be a reason to think that friendship cannot exist without wisdom, but why
should we think that wisdom stands in an internal relation with friendship? If wisdom is
something like the practical application of our rational faculties toward our own well being (the
beginning of which may be found in fearing God), then wisdom is going to be a kind of "second
order" mental state. It is not merely thinking or theoretical reasoning. It is thinking about how
to think well in order to be well. If this is right, we necessarily have the application of human
thought towards an object -- the self. This is an old idea. Plato in the Republic said it well of the
man who is truly just that he, "Regulates well what is really his own and rules himself. He puts
himself in order, [and] is his own friend" (Plato, Republic 443d). So wisdom requires the
existence of the self as friend. Friendship, at least internal to the individual stands in an internal
symmetrical relation with wisdom. Friendship cannot exist without wisdom; wisdom cannot
exist without friendship; and both imply the other.
I now turn to the relationship between philosophy (i.e. the complex whole of the diadicinternal-symmetrical relation between friendship and wisdom) and its relationship to Jesus.
Philosophy as it is traditionally understood involves the study of ontology, epistemology and
axiology. My claim is that philosophy stands in an internal asymmetric relation to Jesus. I will
argue that this is the case by considering scriptural passages that claim that each of the objects of
study in each sub-discipline of philosophy cannot exist without Jesus.1
I believe that the primary starting point in philosophy is ontology. Part of the reason for
this is logical, as Thomas Aquinas indicates, “In this respect being is simply and absolutely prior
to the others [‘good,’ ‘one,’ and ‘true’] because it is included in the understanding of them, and
I want to leave open the question of whether one can demonstrate that philosophy is internally
related to Jesus without appeal to scriptural data.
3
1
not vice versa.”2 Part of the reason is experiential or phenomenal. One of the first things I am
aware of is existence, my own existence (cf. Descartes’ Meditations) and the existence of things
other than myself (people, trees, rocks, tables, God). Given this recognition, one can begin the
activity of analyzing the nature of one’s own existence, the nature of the existence of other things
and the nature of existence as such. That is, one might begin to ask the following questions:
What is it to exist? (Is to exist to be physical or sense perceptible?) What kinds of things exist?
(Do immaterial souls exist? Is the physical world merely an illusion?) What is the ultimate
nature of all real things (e.g. physical, spiritual/mental, some combination of the two)? These
are the first steps in the philosophical discipline of ontology.
The Christian scriptures bear witness that Jesus has something to do with existence, with
the nature of reality as such and with the nature of things that are real. First, consider John 1:3,
“Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made” (NIV).
The English term “made” comes from the Greek word givnomai and can be translated as
“come into being.” So as a Christian philosopher, who wants to take seriously the question of
what is the nature of being, who wants to give robust answers to the nature of existence, I am
presented here with John’s claim that everything that came into being, everything that exists,
exists because of the person of Jesus.
Second, consider Jesus’ claim in John 8:58. Regarding his own being, in response to
antagonistic inquisitors, John writes, “‘I tell you the truth,’ Jesus answered, “before Abraham
was born, I am!’” On Jesus’ identity and this passage, Douglas Groothuis in this book On Jesus
states that this “is a claim that Jesus existed as God during Abraham’s time. The phrase ‘I am’
harks back to God’s self-revelation to Moses when he said, ‘I am that I am’ (Exodus 3:14).”3
2
Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Sentences, I d. 8, q. 1, a. 3c.
3
Douglas Groothuis, On Jesus, (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2001), p. 89.
4
The significance of Jesus’ identity with God the Father, should not be minimized, but for the
ontologist, Jesus’ claim to be the “I am” qua the one who has absolute necessary existence is
crucial.
Third, consider Colossians 1:16-17. “For by him all things were created: things in heaven
and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things
were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.”
There are three things the Christian ontologist must notice here. (1) Note the force of the term
“all.” Paul seems to indicate that Jesus’ relation to things which exist is exhaustive. It covers
everything. (2) Note the ontological dualism involved: visible/physical things and
invisible/spiritual things. (3) The telos, or final cause, the ‘that for the sake of which’ things
exist is Jesus himself. This may provide insight into the connection between ontology, axiology,
and Jesus. Since all things tend towards him in their being, this may imply that there is a way
things ought to be in their being. There is a Christo-teleological normativity to all things that
have being. (4) Notice that the very fabric of being involves Jesus. He is the cause of the unity
of things which exist.
The consideration of Jesus’ relationship to being is a slight departure from the medieval
understanding of the relationship of the transcendentals (unity, truth, goodness) to the Persons of
the Trinity. St. Thomas Aquinas (and others) indicates that the transcendentals “are appropriated
as follows: being pertains to the essence, one to the Father, true to the Son, and good to the Holy
Spirit”4 Aertsen indicates that the term ‘appropriation’ “refers to the distinction between what is
Norman Kretzmann, “Trinity and the Transcendentals,” in Being and Goodness, ed. Scott
MacDonald (Ithica, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1991), p. 92. This appropriation is not
unique to Aquinas, it is also present in Alexander of Hale’s account of the transcendentals in
relation to the divine. See Jan Aertsen, Medieval Philosophy and the Transcendentals, (Leiden:
Brill, 1996), p. 46.
4
5
common to the triune divinity and what is treated as proper to one of the Persons.”5 While the
individual transcendentals are appropriated to each member of the Trinity, Aquinas maintains
that each transcendental appropriated to each member is not “really distinguished from being,
which remains with the essence.”6 So, Jesus is connected with being, due to his essential nature
as God. My motivation for connecting Jesus to being comes primarily through those scriptural
passages which connect him to being, although the relationship between the persons of the
Trinity is crucial for a robust theology proper.
The second major discipline of philosophy is epistemology. The primary traditional
epistemological questions are: What is knowledge? What is truth? What is justification? How
do I know? What is the extent of knowledge? The scriptures bear witness that Jesus has
something to do with truth and knowledge.
Consider John 1:14. “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have
seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and
truth.” Truth, ajlhqeivaß, literally an un-hiding or revealing, is present in the person of
Jesus. Truth has traditionally been thought to be the correspondence between a truth bearer
(proposition, sentence, statement, etc. . .) and a truth maker (object, fact, state of affairs, etc . . .).
In this case, given what was indicated above about Jesus being the one in whom things have their
being, the ‘truth’ maker side of the correspondence relation is dependent upon him. On the other
side, the truth bearer is also dependent upon him: Jesus is the Word, the logos, of God. Jesus as
truth is the word become flesh, the Son of the Father who perfectly corresponds to the way the
Father is in bodily form.7 This is also evident in John 14:6 when Jesus says, “I am the way the
5
6
Aertsen, p. 47.
Kretzmann, p. 93.
Kretzmann, p. 99 indicates that for Aquinas, truth is the appropriated attribute of the son, and
“as an appropriated attribute [it clarifies] the relationship between the first and second persons
6
7
truth and the life. Jesus is certainly saying that he is the truth about the Father and the way to
Him and eternal life in Him, but the Christian philosopher should inquire whether or not Jesus is
saying something profound about his nature and the nature of truth itself.
The apostle Paul also indicates that Jesus has some connection with the discipline of
epistemology in Colossians 2:3 where he writes that Jesus is the one “in whom are hidden all the
treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” As with being, Paul gives great scope to Jesus’ connection
with knowledge. It is exhaustive. Note the axiological component of Paul’s claims. Knowledge
present in Jesus has value. Again, Paul indicates the interconnectedness of the disciplines of
philosophy. If these claims are true, the study of the nature of truth and knowledge, one’s
epistemology, will have Jesus at its center.
The third major sub-discipline of philosophy is axiology. I understand the study of value
to have two main components: ethics, which is the study of moral values, and aesthetics, the
study of non-moral values. Let us begin with aesthetics. The scriptures bear witness that Jesus
has something to do with beauty. Consider, John 1:4-5 “In him was life, and that life was the
light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it;” John 1:14
“We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only;” John 2:11 “He thus revealed his glory,
and his disciples put their faith in him.” The concepts of light and glory are concepts that seem
to go hand in hand with traditional ideal notions of beauty. Plato’s connection, in the Republic,
between the form of the Good, light and beauty comes to mind here. John seems to indicate that
there is something magnificent about the beauty that is found in Jesus, a beauty that brings with
it a sense of veneration.
Consider Luke 9:31-32 where, during the transfiguration, Jesus’ “clothes became as
bright as a flash of lightning” and there was “glorious splendor” as he talked with Moses and
[of the Trinity]; and . . . it develops a metaphorically proper attribution of truth that is worth
considering as an understanding of Jesus’ claim to be the truth.”
7
Elijah. Hebrews 1:3 speaks of Jesus as being “the radiance of God’s glory” and Revelation
21:23 that the Lamb is the lamp of the New Jerusalem. These scriptures indicate that Jesus as
the second person of the Trinity is beautiful. While it seems that these scriptures less clearly
indicate that beauty is ontologically dependent on Jesus than truth and being itself, they do
indicate that beauty is part and parcel of the character of Jesus.
The last major sub-discipline of philosophy is ethics. An ethicist will want to answer
questions like: What is the good life? Who is the good person? In addition to these properly
ethical questions, every ethical system will also have a specific ontology, epistemology and
anthropology.8 While Jesus dealt with these questions philosophically, his answers to them
differ from other philosophers. Jesus’ answers are wrapped up in his identity as the Son of God.
The good life is one conformed to the will of the Father, and the good person is one who
adequately reflects Jesus’ character. The ontology of Jesus’ ethics is wrapped up in his identity.
Value properties are from him and for him and through him. Ethical knowledge comes to its
proper telos by being born anew in Jesus’ kingdom. Jesus also provides a specific plan to
become well off. His “way” or path to well being and well doing involves various practices or
disciplines that have been well recognized and well established as being practically successful in
the lives of millions throughout history. What I want to emphasize here is not only what Jesus’
ethic involves, but that it is grounded in his person. Jesus’ ethic, unlike say, Aristotle’s virtue
ethic, Kant’s deontological system or Mill’s utilitarianism, is not merely a system of ideas
external to the person presenting the ideas. Aristotle, Kant and Mill recognized certain ethical
truths which they expanded into systems of ethics. Jesus’ ethic is part and parcel of who he is.
Jesus’ ethic stands in an internal relation to his person and identity.
8
I owe this insight to Dallas Willard.
8
The scriptures bear witness to this internal relation. John 1:4 “In him was life.” The good
life is not merely in the system of ideas presented by Jesus; it is in him. John 10:10 “I have come
that they may have life, and have it to the full.” Again, Jesus is identifying himself as the source
of the good life. Note well the scope of this life: it is full. The Apostle Paul recognizes this
intimate connection between the person of Jesus and ethics, when in Philippians 1:11 he prays
for the believers in Philippi, that they would be “filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes
through Jesus Christ.” The New Testament Greek word for ‘righteousness’ is the same word that
Plato uses in the Republic, where it is most often translated as ‘justice.’ Truly living well and
being well comes through being properly related to the person of Jesus. The Apostle Peter also
recognizes this truth when he writes in 2 Peter 1:3, “His [Jesus’] divine power has given us
everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his
own glory and goodness.” Again, if these claims are true, then ethics will be directly connected
with Jesus.
Given this brief survey of biblical passages which indicate a connection between Jesus
and philosophy, what are the practical results for doing philosophy? If a good argument can be
given that philosophy is internally related to Jesus, what implications does this have for applying
philosophy to the practical love for God and for our neighbors? I'd like to suggest three possible
responses to the conclusions generated above.
We first must intellectually recognize that something interesting is being said by Jesus
and the New Testament writers about his connection to philosophy. This ought to move us to
worship Jesus more devoutly given the recognition that Jesus has something to do with both the
academic discipline of philosophy and our own friendship with wisdom. I think this is a crucial
response in a total use of these ideas in relation to one’s own philosophical endeavors, but I think
it is not complete without any direct application to philosophical puzzles and problems,
9
especially the problem of how to become wise. From the increase in our devotion to Jesus, we
ought to ask him for help in applying these concepts to our own philosophical development. For
example, one might use the concept of Jesus being the grounding of truth to develop something
as abstract and intellectual as one's account of a correspondence theory of truth, or an account of
free will. In addition one might use the concept of Jesus being the grounding for beauty to
develop a color scheme for one's dining room, or one might recognize that Jesus is intimately
connected with justice as one seeks to learn to care for the poor.
If I begin by intellectually recognizing Jesus' connection to being, truth and goodness,
then my devotion to him can bring about, with His help, direct philosophical application.
Philosophy as the friendship with wisdom is first and foremost a friendship, an activity between
persons: the philosopher and wisdom. Wisdom is personified in the scriptures (e.g. Proverbs 8)
and is identified by some scholars with the person of Christ.9 So, as one seeks to answer puzzles
in the philosophy of mind or epistemology, or respond to the skeptic about knowledge, or defeat
relativism, or just love one's neighbor, one might first take the intellectual response by
recognizing that Jesus has something to do with one’s work in the discipline of philosophy. A
scholar might then take the devotional response and ask the One in whom one’s own life and
discipline consist for help in applying the ideas of Jesus and his relationship to philosophy to
specific projects and puzzles within the discipline. This might lead to the truly philosophical
response of gleaning specific ways of using the concept of Jesus being the ground for philosophy
for good work in academic philosophy, in all disciplines in the academy, and in all of human life.
9
Carl Henry, God, Revelation and Authority (Waco, TX: Word, 1979), 320-321.
10