The Non-Identical Metaphor (X isY)
by Dave Brown
Go to the Figures of Speech landing page for a more comprehensive review of biblical figurative language.
I couldn't have been any older that 6, and my brother was two years older than me. One day, coming home from baseball practice, we were walking past a pile of dirt from a nearby construction site that had dozens of what we called "dirtballs" on it. He want over, picked up a big one, and placed it on a nearby fence post. Then he said: "Dave -- this is you," and he took the bat he was carrying and smashed the dirtball do dust. Now, just how my brother became so prolific in figurative language at that age I will never tell you. But I can say from the point of view of a six year old, I knew exactly what his meaning was, and we both got a good laugh out of it.
This story proves little other than the fact that we learn to use figurative language at a very early age. When he said "this is you" the farthermost thing from my mind was that he was trying to convince me that I was literally that dirtball. Maybe that I was somewhat like it, or that he had the power to smash my head -- that I could understood (albeit in disagreement). But my actual physically being that dirtball never occurred to me.
And so it is with the dozens of biblical metaphors of this type. When it says "X is Y" and we realize that the two cannot possibly be totally identical, we conclude that it is obvious that something else is meant. In particular let us suggest this interpretation: "there are characteristics of Y that are very much a reflection of the characteristics of X." The key operative phrase is "very much" -- which may be an understatement. The simile "X is like Y" seems not strong enough a figure of speech, and while "X is Y" is in most cases hyperbole (overkill), the reader is expected to use common sense in understanding both the richness and the limitations of its figurative mapping back to reality.
Let us try out this rule of interpretation and see if it works ...
John 4:24: God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship in spirit and truth.
Looking at an interlinear, it appears that both "is" and "a" have been inserted by the translators to improve our understanding of just what is being conveyed, and we do not deny their scholarly skill in that regard. But it does not hurt for us to think of Jesus literally asserting "God Spirit," to indicate the nature of God. The word "spirit" is literally from the word air or wind, implying that in itself it is unseen but its effects are obvious. This is the something about spirit that is very much a part of what God is, but to limit God to be a ghost or some such being was not the intent of Jesus. His intent had to do with an instruction regarding worship and the involvement of our spirits in worship to God. "God is spirit" is stated as a premise, not as a conclusion.
John 6:35: Jesus said unto them. I am the bread of life: he that comes to me shall not hunger, and he that believes on me shall never thirst.
It is quite interesting to see the reaction of the hearers. They had no problem with the metaphor - there was no questioning like: "you are crazy, you sure do not look like a loaf of bread to me." Their problem was that they understood the metaphor all too well, and it did not coincide with their faith system. They understood that what Jesus was saying is that he had come down from heaven and that he was God. His main objective, however, was to assert that what he was teaching was the truth and their only hope of eternal salvation.
Hebrews 12:28-29: Wherefore, receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us have grace, whereby we may offer service well-pleasing to God with reverence and awe: for our God is a consuming fire.
Again, the objective here is not to limit God to being just a consuming fire, or to even limit him to have just the characteristics of "consuming fire," which is also itself a figure of speech representing both God's omnipotence and His justice. The idea again is that there is something about a consuming fire that is very much an aspect of God. To neglect this is to leave a great gap in our proper understanding of God. He is not just a consuming fire.
1 John 1:5: And this is the message which we have heard from him and announce unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
John used this figure of speech to refer to Jesus in John 1 as well. Light -- truth and openness that enables everything to be seen and understood; as opposed to darkness -- falsehood and deceit, that covers up everything good with the intent of manipulating the hearers. But clearly, when we flip the switch on a flashlight we are not producing God. It is the attributes of light that are being conveyed here, and not light itself. Obviously the statement "God is light" does not mean that all light is God. Light itself is being used in a metaphorical sense to indicate the spiritual enlightenment that comes from fellowship with God the Father and Jesus Christ.
1 John 4:8 He that loves not knows not God; for God is love.
This figure is further explained in subsequent verses. God sent His Son, clearly demonstrating His love. "He that abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him." "We love, because he first loved us." We understand that God is not limited to the abstract concept of love. God also has the characteristics of justice and all of the other things listed above.
Discussion
The purpose of giving the examples above was not to elaborate on the nature of God, although hopefully some important characteristics of God were conveyed in reviewing these passages. Our point, however, is to illustrate that the common non-identical metaphor in the bible is not to be taken literally to restrict what X is, but it is used hyperbolically to impress that some key aspects of the nature of X are described extremely well by Y. Recall that hyperbole goes beyond exaggeration to the point that taking it literally becomes obviously absurd. Unfortunately, many have left their common sense behind in being taught falsely to take these statements literally.
There are probably at least 20 or 30 different occurrences of the non-Identical metaphor in the New Testament. We are quite fortunate in that generally there is no controversy in regard to the interpretation of non-identical ("X is Y") metaphorical language by most commentators, and this has caused very little problem. However, this are a few that have been seized upon by false teachers to be used to their worldly advantage. The following passages are a couple of examples.
John 10:29-30 My Father, who hath given (them) unto me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch (them) out of the Father's hand. I and the Father are one.
Ignoring the preponderance of scriptural evidence in this regard, they have violated the proper interpretation rule above for non-identical metaphors and jumped to the conclusion that this particular statement must be taken literally, and therefore Jesus and God the Father are identically one and the same. This error is easy to expose because Jesus prayed that we would be one with Him and the Father just as he was one with the father in John 17:22-23 "And the glory which thou hast given me I have given unto them; that they may be one, even as we (are) one ; I in them, and thou in me, that they may be perfected into one; that the world may know that thou didst send me, and loved them, even as thou loved me." Jesus was not talking about some future mystical union where we all become identical. He was praying for the here and now with regard to us. Jesus and God the Father are one in the same sense that all faithful Christians are one, and also one with Jesus. The context makes this clear, and no further refutation of this erroneous interpretation is necessary. Those who bind this teaching do so for their own purposes, not by the authority of Jesus Christ.
Another example of where false teachers have taken exception to the normative rules of interpretation of the non-identical metaphor is in Jesus' statement that he made at the institution of the Lord's supper as given by Paul in ...
1 Cor 11:23-24 For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread; and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, This is my body, which is for you: this do in remembrance of me.
The assertion is made by some that Jesus was speaking literally, and therefore in the ritual of the Lord's Supper the bread used actually becomes his physical body. Of course, we can see, feel and taste that it is still bread, so the purported transformation has to be something mysterious and hidden. Is this what Jesus had in mind? And if that were true, would this not turn the Lord's Supper into a mystical ritual that could defeat the very purpose of the Lord's Supper? For this purpose, see the verse above again; it states that the purpose of the Lord's Supper is to remember Jesus (Jesus said: "do this in remembrance of me"). The purpose is not to eat his physical body (a concept that should be repugnant to everyone), it is to remember Jesus.
This might seem a complex issue to resolve. However, if we apply the same rule here as we did above to non-identical metaphors, we can understand the meaning to be that the bread of the Lord's Supper has some characteristics that are very similar to the body of Jesus. Once he ascended into heaven, his physical body would no longer be present with them. But he promised that he would be with them, both in this context and in many other places (e.g., Mt. 18:20). One interpretation might be, "when you see the bread visualize in your mind my body. Yes, as I lived and as I died on the cross, and as I was resurrected. But even more-so, that I am there with you now in a very real spiritual sense."
We are not saying that the bread is the presence of Jesus. There is to be nothing mystical about it - it is metaphorical language comparable to the other similar constructs exemplified above. The idea is one of bringing to remembrance in order that the Lord's Supper fulfill its purpose. Would not seeing in our mind the body of Christ when we partake of the bread produce that desired effect?
Of course, we do not have a biblical edict explaining the reason that Jesus said: "this IS my body" as opposed to "this REPRESENTS my body" (both of which we believe to be scriptural). However, it seems clear that Jesus was striving for more than just a "representation." Again, let us appeal to our explanation of the other non-identical metaphor, i.e., "there are characteristics of X (the bread) that are an identical reflection of the characteristics of Y (Jesus' body)." Bread was a primary staple of their physical diet ... in many ways their lives were dependent on it. As bread brings forth physical life, Jesus' body brought forth spiritual life. As discussed above, Jesus used the metaphor of bread to refer to himself: "I am the bread of life that gives life to the world" (John 6:33-58). However, Jesus was not referring to the Lord's Supper in the John 6 context; he was emphasizing the truth of his words that He brought into the world providing the source of eternal life. Similarly, John 14:6: "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way , and the truth, and the life: no one comes unto the Father, but by me."
The Lord's Supper is to have the deepest spiritual significance possible to each of us individually. It is a time when we clear our minds of everything else and intensively meditate upon all that Jesus means to us. It is to result in an improved renewing of our hearts and minds in making ourselves an improved living sacrifice (Romans 12:1-2) that God and our Lord Jesus wants us to be. This cannot be accomplished if we make statements about Jesus' words that can be verified neither from the use of our physical senses nor from the common sense that God has given us.
Reference: Commentary of Luke 22:19
"His body in the same sense that He calls Himself a door (John 10:9), a vine (John 15:1), a root (Rev 22:16), a star, and is described by many other metaphors in Scripture. The bread was an emblem of His flesh, as wounded for the sins of men, and as administered for their spiritual nourishment and growth in grace."
(from Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary, Electronic Database. Copyright © 1997, 2003 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)
Consider these other example identify metaphors in the bible. Below is a very small subset of the many that are there. As you go about your bible studies, be looking for them -- they will not be hard to find.
Psalms 27:1
The LORD is my light and my salvation;
Matthew 26:27-28
27 And he took a cup, and gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins.
1 Corinthians 3:11
For other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ
1 Corinthians 6:19
Or know ye not that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit which is in you, which ye have from God? and ye are not your own;
Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is assurance of (things) hoped for, a conviction of things not seen.
When viewed as a definition, this is a very difficult verse to get our heads around. That is because we are looking for a typical dictionary definition. But let's view it as an non-identical metaphor and see if this will help. Think "God is love" is not a definition of God -- but it sure says enough about Him to enable us to recognize His substance. Now do the same thing with faith. "Faith is assurance of things hoped for" means that if you have faith you will have the assurance of things hoped for. It does not define faith in the abstract, but it is more of an operational definition (like "God is love"). "Faith is a conviction of things not seen" so if you have faith you will certainly have such a conviction. Or conversely, we can conclude that if you do not have the assurance of things hoped for and the conviction of things not seen, then you just do not have the faith as the Bible defines it. Is this ALL that faith is? No, but that is the nature of the non-identical metaphor -- it provides sufficient illustration so that we can begin to understand the whole, much like a synecdoche. The example of the rest of the chapter complete the definition. Notably absence in Hebrews 11 is an example of faith-only. Such would be laughable if it were included, and it would not begin to meet the basic definition of verse 1. For, if you have the assurance and conviction spoken of, you will not be able to just proclaim it as an undefined abstract entity; no, it will manifest itself in action, as it does in all of the examples. In conjunction with this definition of faith, let us consider another triple non-identical metaphor:
John 14:6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, and the truth, and the life: no one comes unto the Father, but by me.
If we take this literally then to believe in Jesus would require that one believe in the way, the truth and the life. This would confirm that "faith" when talking about "faith in Jesus" is a synecdoche (see article). In other words, it cannot be some isolated purely mental process. Believing in Jesus' way (the gospel), the truth (the scriptures), and the life (living according to the gospel) necessitates that the gospel and the life that it requires (Romans 1:17) are also accepted and made a part of one's life. This is true even if we view WAY, TRUTH and LIFE to be non-identical metaphors describing Jesus. Why would he use such a metaphor if he were trying to imply his desire that a believer attempt to be saved by faith-only? Not only that, but the rest of the verse necessarily infers that one it attempting to "come unto the Father," something that the faith-only doctrine would have to classify as a work. The meaning of this non-identical metaphor is that it is impossible to separate Jesus from his way to salvation, the truth that defines this way, and the life that results from it.
James 1:27
Pure religion and undefiled before our God and Father is this, to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, (and) to keep oneself unspotted from the world
James 4:14
For ye are a vapor, that appears for a little time, and then vanishes away.
2 Peter 2:17
These are springs without water, and mists driven by a storm; for whom the blackness of darkness hath been reserved.
Revelation 1:20
The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks are seven churches.
Revelation 2:9
I know thy tribulation, and thy poverty (but thou art rich), and the blasphemy of them that say they are Jews, and they art not, but are a synagogue of Satan.
Revelation 4:5
And (there was) seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God;
Revelation 5:6
And I saw in the midst of the throne and of the four living creatures, and in the midst of the elders, a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, having seven horns, and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God, sent forth into all the earth.
Revelation 22:16.
I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things for the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, the bright, the morning star.
Return to the Figures of Speech landing page for a nearly comprehensive review of biblical figures of speech.
What are the conditions of salvation given by Jesus?
I couldn't have been any older that 6, and my brother was two years older than me. One day, coming home from baseball practice, we were walking past a pile of dirt from a nearby construction site that had dozens of what we called "dirtballs" on it. He want over, picked up a big one, and placed it on a nearby fence post. Then he said: "Dave -- this is you," and he took the bat he was carrying and smashed the dirtball do dust. Now, just how my brother became so prolific in figurative language at that age I will never tell you. But I can say from the point of view of a six year old, I knew exactly what his meaning was, and we both got a good laugh out of it.
This story proves little other than the fact that we learn to use figurative language at a very early age. When he said "this is you" the farthermost thing from my mind was that he was trying to convince me that I was literally that dirtball. Maybe that I was somewhat like it, or that he had the power to smash my head -- that I could understood (albeit in disagreement). But my actual physically being that dirtball never occurred to me.
And so it is with the dozens of biblical metaphors of this type. When it says "X is Y" and we realize that the two cannot possibly be totally identical, we conclude that it is obvious that something else is meant. In particular let us suggest this interpretation: "there are characteristics of Y that are very much a reflection of the characteristics of X." The key operative phrase is "very much" -- which may be an understatement. The simile "X is like Y" seems not strong enough a figure of speech, and while "X is Y" is in most cases hyperbole (overkill), the reader is expected to use common sense in understanding both the richness and the limitations of its figurative mapping back to reality.
Let us try out this rule of interpretation and see if it works ...
John 4:24: God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship in spirit and truth.
Looking at an interlinear, it appears that both "is" and "a" have been inserted by the translators to improve our understanding of just what is being conveyed, and we do not deny their scholarly skill in that regard. But it does not hurt for us to think of Jesus literally asserting "God Spirit," to indicate the nature of God. The word "spirit" is literally from the word air or wind, implying that in itself it is unseen but its effects are obvious. This is the something about spirit that is very much a part of what God is, but to limit God to be a ghost or some such being was not the intent of Jesus. His intent had to do with an instruction regarding worship and the involvement of our spirits in worship to God. "God is spirit" is stated as a premise, not as a conclusion.
John 6:35: Jesus said unto them. I am the bread of life: he that comes to me shall not hunger, and he that believes on me shall never thirst.
It is quite interesting to see the reaction of the hearers. They had no problem with the metaphor - there was no questioning like: "you are crazy, you sure do not look like a loaf of bread to me." Their problem was that they understood the metaphor all too well, and it did not coincide with their faith system. They understood that what Jesus was saying is that he had come down from heaven and that he was God. His main objective, however, was to assert that what he was teaching was the truth and their only hope of eternal salvation.
Hebrews 12:28-29: Wherefore, receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us have grace, whereby we may offer service well-pleasing to God with reverence and awe: for our God is a consuming fire.
Again, the objective here is not to limit God to being just a consuming fire, or to even limit him to have just the characteristics of "consuming fire," which is also itself a figure of speech representing both God's omnipotence and His justice. The idea again is that there is something about a consuming fire that is very much an aspect of God. To neglect this is to leave a great gap in our proper understanding of God. He is not just a consuming fire.
1 John 1:5: And this is the message which we have heard from him and announce unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
John used this figure of speech to refer to Jesus in John 1 as well. Light -- truth and openness that enables everything to be seen and understood; as opposed to darkness -- falsehood and deceit, that covers up everything good with the intent of manipulating the hearers. But clearly, when we flip the switch on a flashlight we are not producing God. It is the attributes of light that are being conveyed here, and not light itself. Obviously the statement "God is light" does not mean that all light is God. Light itself is being used in a metaphorical sense to indicate the spiritual enlightenment that comes from fellowship with God the Father and Jesus Christ.
1 John 4:8 He that loves not knows not God; for God is love.
This figure is further explained in subsequent verses. God sent His Son, clearly demonstrating His love. "He that abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him." "We love, because he first loved us." We understand that God is not limited to the abstract concept of love. God also has the characteristics of justice and all of the other things listed above.
Discussion
The purpose of giving the examples above was not to elaborate on the nature of God, although hopefully some important characteristics of God were conveyed in reviewing these passages. Our point, however, is to illustrate that the common non-identical metaphor in the bible is not to be taken literally to restrict what X is, but it is used hyperbolically to impress that some key aspects of the nature of X are described extremely well by Y. Recall that hyperbole goes beyond exaggeration to the point that taking it literally becomes obviously absurd. Unfortunately, many have left their common sense behind in being taught falsely to take these statements literally.
There are probably at least 20 or 30 different occurrences of the non-Identical metaphor in the New Testament. We are quite fortunate in that generally there is no controversy in regard to the interpretation of non-identical ("X is Y") metaphorical language by most commentators, and this has caused very little problem. However, this are a few that have been seized upon by false teachers to be used to their worldly advantage. The following passages are a couple of examples.
John 10:29-30 My Father, who hath given (them) unto me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch (them) out of the Father's hand. I and the Father are one.
Ignoring the preponderance of scriptural evidence in this regard, they have violated the proper interpretation rule above for non-identical metaphors and jumped to the conclusion that this particular statement must be taken literally, and therefore Jesus and God the Father are identically one and the same. This error is easy to expose because Jesus prayed that we would be one with Him and the Father just as he was one with the father in John 17:22-23 "And the glory which thou hast given me I have given unto them; that they may be one, even as we (are) one ; I in them, and thou in me, that they may be perfected into one; that the world may know that thou didst send me, and loved them, even as thou loved me." Jesus was not talking about some future mystical union where we all become identical. He was praying for the here and now with regard to us. Jesus and God the Father are one in the same sense that all faithful Christians are one, and also one with Jesus. The context makes this clear, and no further refutation of this erroneous interpretation is necessary. Those who bind this teaching do so for their own purposes, not by the authority of Jesus Christ.
Another example of where false teachers have taken exception to the normative rules of interpretation of the non-identical metaphor is in Jesus' statement that he made at the institution of the Lord's supper as given by Paul in ...
1 Cor 11:23-24 For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread; and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, This is my body, which is for you: this do in remembrance of me.
The assertion is made by some that Jesus was speaking literally, and therefore in the ritual of the Lord's Supper the bread used actually becomes his physical body. Of course, we can see, feel and taste that it is still bread, so the purported transformation has to be something mysterious and hidden. Is this what Jesus had in mind? And if that were true, would this not turn the Lord's Supper into a mystical ritual that could defeat the very purpose of the Lord's Supper? For this purpose, see the verse above again; it states that the purpose of the Lord's Supper is to remember Jesus (Jesus said: "do this in remembrance of me"). The purpose is not to eat his physical body (a concept that should be repugnant to everyone), it is to remember Jesus.
This might seem a complex issue to resolve. However, if we apply the same rule here as we did above to non-identical metaphors, we can understand the meaning to be that the bread of the Lord's Supper has some characteristics that are very similar to the body of Jesus. Once he ascended into heaven, his physical body would no longer be present with them. But he promised that he would be with them, both in this context and in many other places (e.g., Mt. 18:20). One interpretation might be, "when you see the bread visualize in your mind my body. Yes, as I lived and as I died on the cross, and as I was resurrected. But even more-so, that I am there with you now in a very real spiritual sense."
We are not saying that the bread is the presence of Jesus. There is to be nothing mystical about it - it is metaphorical language comparable to the other similar constructs exemplified above. The idea is one of bringing to remembrance in order that the Lord's Supper fulfill its purpose. Would not seeing in our mind the body of Christ when we partake of the bread produce that desired effect?
Of course, we do not have a biblical edict explaining the reason that Jesus said: "this IS my body" as opposed to "this REPRESENTS my body" (both of which we believe to be scriptural). However, it seems clear that Jesus was striving for more than just a "representation." Again, let us appeal to our explanation of the other non-identical metaphor, i.e., "there are characteristics of X (the bread) that are an identical reflection of the characteristics of Y (Jesus' body)." Bread was a primary staple of their physical diet ... in many ways their lives were dependent on it. As bread brings forth physical life, Jesus' body brought forth spiritual life. As discussed above, Jesus used the metaphor of bread to refer to himself: "I am the bread of life that gives life to the world" (John 6:33-58). However, Jesus was not referring to the Lord's Supper in the John 6 context; he was emphasizing the truth of his words that He brought into the world providing the source of eternal life. Similarly, John 14:6: "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way , and the truth, and the life: no one comes unto the Father, but by me."
The Lord's Supper is to have the deepest spiritual significance possible to each of us individually. It is a time when we clear our minds of everything else and intensively meditate upon all that Jesus means to us. It is to result in an improved renewing of our hearts and minds in making ourselves an improved living sacrifice (Romans 12:1-2) that God and our Lord Jesus wants us to be. This cannot be accomplished if we make statements about Jesus' words that can be verified neither from the use of our physical senses nor from the common sense that God has given us.
Reference: Commentary of Luke 22:19
"His body in the same sense that He calls Himself a door (John 10:9), a vine (John 15:1), a root (Rev 22:16), a star, and is described by many other metaphors in Scripture. The bread was an emblem of His flesh, as wounded for the sins of men, and as administered for their spiritual nourishment and growth in grace."
(from Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary, Electronic Database. Copyright © 1997, 2003 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)
Consider these other example identify metaphors in the bible. Below is a very small subset of the many that are there. As you go about your bible studies, be looking for them -- they will not be hard to find.
Psalms 27:1
The LORD is my light and my salvation;
Matthew 26:27-28
27 And he took a cup, and gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins.
1 Corinthians 3:11
For other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ
1 Corinthians 6:19
Or know ye not that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit which is in you, which ye have from God? and ye are not your own;
Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is assurance of (things) hoped for, a conviction of things not seen.
When viewed as a definition, this is a very difficult verse to get our heads around. That is because we are looking for a typical dictionary definition. But let's view it as an non-identical metaphor and see if this will help. Think "God is love" is not a definition of God -- but it sure says enough about Him to enable us to recognize His substance. Now do the same thing with faith. "Faith is assurance of things hoped for" means that if you have faith you will have the assurance of things hoped for. It does not define faith in the abstract, but it is more of an operational definition (like "God is love"). "Faith is a conviction of things not seen" so if you have faith you will certainly have such a conviction. Or conversely, we can conclude that if you do not have the assurance of things hoped for and the conviction of things not seen, then you just do not have the faith as the Bible defines it. Is this ALL that faith is? No, but that is the nature of the non-identical metaphor -- it provides sufficient illustration so that we can begin to understand the whole, much like a synecdoche. The example of the rest of the chapter complete the definition. Notably absence in Hebrews 11 is an example of faith-only. Such would be laughable if it were included, and it would not begin to meet the basic definition of verse 1. For, if you have the assurance and conviction spoken of, you will not be able to just proclaim it as an undefined abstract entity; no, it will manifest itself in action, as it does in all of the examples. In conjunction with this definition of faith, let us consider another triple non-identical metaphor:
John 14:6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, and the truth, and the life: no one comes unto the Father, but by me.
If we take this literally then to believe in Jesus would require that one believe in the way, the truth and the life. This would confirm that "faith" when talking about "faith in Jesus" is a synecdoche (see article). In other words, it cannot be some isolated purely mental process. Believing in Jesus' way (the gospel), the truth (the scriptures), and the life (living according to the gospel) necessitates that the gospel and the life that it requires (Romans 1:17) are also accepted and made a part of one's life. This is true even if we view WAY, TRUTH and LIFE to be non-identical metaphors describing Jesus. Why would he use such a metaphor if he were trying to imply his desire that a believer attempt to be saved by faith-only? Not only that, but the rest of the verse necessarily infers that one it attempting to "come unto the Father," something that the faith-only doctrine would have to classify as a work. The meaning of this non-identical metaphor is that it is impossible to separate Jesus from his way to salvation, the truth that defines this way, and the life that results from it.
James 1:27
Pure religion and undefiled before our God and Father is this, to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, (and) to keep oneself unspotted from the world
James 4:14
For ye are a vapor, that appears for a little time, and then vanishes away.
2 Peter 2:17
These are springs without water, and mists driven by a storm; for whom the blackness of darkness hath been reserved.
Revelation 1:20
The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks are seven churches.
Revelation 2:9
I know thy tribulation, and thy poverty (but thou art rich), and the blasphemy of them that say they are Jews, and they art not, but are a synagogue of Satan.
Revelation 4:5
And (there was) seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God;
Revelation 5:6
And I saw in the midst of the throne and of the four living creatures, and in the midst of the elders, a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, having seven horns, and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God, sent forth into all the earth.
Revelation 22:16.
I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things for the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, the bright, the morning star.
Return to the Figures of Speech landing page for a nearly comprehensive review of biblical figures of speech.
What are the conditions of salvation given by Jesus?