Words and images
The adage that a picture is worth a thousand words is perhaps most applicable to the biblical images. Obviously, God has given you a book of words depicting many images, but do you perceive and understand the images as God intended? Of course, since the Bible is all words, you must translate the words into perceived images to gain and communicate an understanding. However, how reliable is your translation of the words into images; and most importantly, how do you confirm that you have gained the intended understanding?
Consider, how many words are required to create an image in your mind? Arguably, I could state just a name or a place, and everyone would form an impression of what I said; however, should anyone feel confident that they understand what I am trying to communicate? As is true for all communication, understanding the overall context of the conversation is necessary before there can be any confidence in the understanding of any particular sentence. Everyone has heard the adamant response; you are taking that statement out of context! So, do you consider the context when you translate a single Bible verse into an image?
Consider, when you quote John 3:16, do you understand the entire conversation that Jesus is expressing to Nicodemus? And do you understand the context when God states that he has plans for Israel (Jer 29:11)? Or, when Paul mentions “forgetting what lies behind” (Phil 3:13), can we just assume that he is saying we can forget what we did in the past, or do we need to first understand the overall context of his dialogue? If you do not understand the overall context of the image being communicated, then should you be confident in your understanding of one small part? If I give a five-minute presentation, can you confidently imagine what I have communicated by using your understanding of just one of my sentences of your choosing? Your imagination can, and will, definitely create an understanding from just one verse, but are you perceiving the larger image that was intended? Importantly, if there is no feedback to confirm your understanding, should you ever feel so confident that you portray to others that your unconfirmed understanding is a truth of God’s Word? For instance, can you claim that you can forget the past as being a truth of God based on your understanding of one phrase in the Bible?
The concept of “context being king” is commonly understood as a rule of interpretation, yet people still selectively use whatever words they can find to support their particular understanding. And the Bible is full of words with over 30,000 verses, so perhaps anyone can claim that they are expressing a “biblical” worldview if they use a particular biblical phrase to support a particular understanding. Again, while many people may recognize the need to consider the larger context, the typical approach is to quote verses or simple phrases when supporting a “biblical” argument. Arguably, they feel comfortable using a few select words because they imagine that the literal words support their argument, and not because they understand the words in the larger context of the chapter.
This matter of perceiving the larger context obviously extends beyond just considering a verse within a chapter, but also a chapter within a book, and a book within the entire canon. Recalling the illusion of two women, the intended overall image must first be confirmed before any particular area could be perceived correctly. Therefore, the process of understanding must logically start with the larger image, and only then should the smaller images be considered for increased understanding. So, before attempting to understand John 3:16, we should first seek to understand the overall context of what Jesus is describing to Nicodemus; and, before any interpretation is attempted, we should understand their conversation in the larger context of the overall image of God’s Word. In other words, you must understand the surrounding forest before you can assume any understanding for a single tree. Which begs the question; does the practice of memorizing biblical verses lead to greater understanding, or does it just reinforce our own understanding? Perhaps the most important lesson I learned is to first seek to understand the larger biblical images, and not try to assign my understanding to a handful of words. And, from that lesson to seek images, I discovered the feedback process for confirming the understanding of any area within God’s Word.
Feedback
I will discuss the feedback process in greater detail later; however, the general concept is to ensure that any derived understanding from an image is consistently confirmed elsewhere in scripture; and, that there are no inconsistencies found in the balance of scripture. As a comparison, consider how a line can be drawn in any direction through one point, but two or more points clarify a line’s direction; and, any points that “stray” from the line’s direction must be explained. Similarly, assuming an understanding from a single instance of any image is risky, so any understanding must be confirmed by similar images elsewhere in scripture; and, the rest of scripture must not contain any “stray” images. Invariably, the images within God’s Word are repetitive and they build upon themselves neatly, so there should be no reason to rely on any one instance for an understanding.
For example, considering Paul’s statement, does the Bible clearly depict elsewhere that you can just forget your past; and, how would you resolve the apparent inconsistency that everyone will have to account for every deed and word? Another example is the popular end-times image which presumably depicts God’s plan to rule this world; yet, the confusing image was only recently created by piecing together a few select verses from various books, while disregarding the obvious fact that no where else in scripture is there an image that depicts a similar understanding. Even worse, the extremely popular image of the “rapture” is essentially created from just one verse; yet, why would God not clearly depict that amazing image anywhere else in all of scripture; particularly in the other apocalyptic literature? Notably, there are a couple of related images which cast doubt on an end-time rapture of believers; so, is the source of your understanding of a rapture from images in scripture, or from images depicted in books and movies created by “wise” sensationalists?
Please consider, if you cannot demonstrate how an understanding is clearly and consistently depicted throughout God’s Word, then should you attempt to convey your understanding to anyone else as being a truth of God? Importantly, should you be comfortable with any understanding that is derived from one unique image created from one discrete verse? Again, the goal should not be to try to create a literal understanding from a small selection of words; rather, we should seek to first imagine the larger images, and also seek feedback by confirming that the understanding from any perceived image is repeated elsewhere without causing confusion. For me, “I know that I know what I know” because I have experienced the understanding being confirmed repeatedly elsewhere in scripture without any inconsistencies. Arguably, you must become familiar with all of scripture well enough to sense whether any inconsistencies might exist; because, obviously, if you just focus on one tree, how could you know if there are any different trees in the entire forest?
Sources of information
As emphasized, the understanding of any image assumes that you have the correct perception of the overall image; however, are you perceiving the correct overall image of God’s Word, or are you just assuming that one tree is the overall image? Let’s first consider the sources that your imagination has used to create your overall image of the Bible. Unfortunately, for many people, their perception of God’s Word is often created by images that do not even originate directly from the Bible. Some may use images from children’s books where the biblical stories are presented in a way the author thinks is appropriate, and I suspect many people have allowed Christian songs to influence their perceived biblical images; however, should you allow other sources to influence what to perceive from God’s Word?
Of course, the primary source that creates the overall biblical image for most people is the particular church tradition in which they were raised; because, what is stated from the pulpit or a Bible study is often deemed the “gospel truth,” therefore, the overall image for God’s Word is often defined early in life. And, since people typically join a community or read a book that makes them feel even more comfortable by reaffirming their particular understanding, one’s perception of God’s Word often becomes set in stone. As such, many will defend their particular perception to their death and beyond, which is why I often sense that my effort is futile. I am asking that you reconsider your perceptions of God’s Word that were used to create your core beliefs; and yet, I know that a minor miracle is required before you will allow that to happen, and a major miracle is required for you to devote the time necessary to reimagine any of the biblical images.
Overall image
Arguably, anyone familiar with the Bible perceives an overall image of God’s Word, and they can express that image in their own words. In general, Christians express their perception of the overall image of the Bible by depicting Jesus as the focal point, and some variation of a message of salvation to an unknown heaven while escaping destruction from an unknown hell. Typically, the story of Israel is not a significant part of the expressed image; and, often Israel is simply expressed as those who rejected God. So, if asked, would you similarly express the overall image of the Bible primarily as communicating a message of salvation through Jesus?
Yet, factually, the OT is all about Israel; and, arguably, so is the NT. Consider, if you were given the OT, and you had no knowledge of the NT, would you perceive that God’s Word is primarily about a messiah? No, perhaps a future messiah is occasionally mentioned, but certainly you would perceive that the story of Israel is the overall image. And, when considering the entire Bible, I will argue that the overall image is still all about Israel. Even Jesus considered His mission in the context of Israel (Matt 10:5-6; 15:24), so did Jesus perceive that the Bible was to be imagined as being all about Him, or all about Israel? The coming of Jesus is obviously an amazing biblical image; however, is the image of Jesus intended to displace the story of Israel as the overall biblical image, or is that amazing image intended to be perceived in the context of the overall story of Israel?
Consider, what happens when you perceive that the Bible is primarily about Jesus rather than perceiving the story of Israel as the intended primary image? First, by focusing on Jesus, you might be inclined to perceive that His Words are the only necessary words to understand, particularly since most of the other words are perceived as too difficult to understand. Also, perhaps every other biblical image is thereafter perceived strictly in relation to the image of Jesus, such that every event becomes relative to Him. The fall of man in the garden is perceived as the reason for Jesus, and Genesis 3:15 is perceived as the first indication of God’s promise to send Jesus. The prophets are perceived as predicting Jesus as the future messiah, while Israel is perceived as the people whom God used to foster Jesus, yet the Jews ultimately ignore the prophets and reject Jesus. The gospels are perceived as the historical accounts of God sending Jesus to enable the new covenant by His death on the cross, and the book of Acts is perceived as the start of the new church of people who “believe” in Jesus and who receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit of Jesus. Finally, heaven is imagined as being physically with Jesus, and the entire biblical story is often concluded with the perception of a second coming of Jesus to start a new kingdom on earth.
Furthermore, beyond the perceived image of Jesus, the vast majority of the Bible is effectively perceived as depicting rules for proper behavior. The OT stories are perceived as providing insight into good and bad behaviors, and the NT epistles are generally perceived as providing information for how to respond to God. Yet, has the perception that God’s Word depicts the rules for proper moral behavior caused more division or compassion among men? Even if you consider just the people within the church, has the concept of a biblical morality united the church body, or has it been the main cause for divisiveness? I will argue this point further when discussing the perception of sin; however, does it make sense that God would give us a book to judge the actions of others, while He also tells us not to judge the actions of others? Yet, by focusing on the image of Jesus, the majority of God’s Word is typically perceived as a “mirror” and a “tool” to judge the actions of yourself and others.
Ultimately, by focusing on Jesus as the primary image, God’s Word is perceived as two testaments; essentially before and after Jesus, the old and the new covenants. A common perception is that the OT pointed forward to the cross, and its message was for the Jews; while the NT points back to the cross, and its message is for those of us who believe the story of Jesus. Arguably, if you focus on Jesus, the only way to perceive God’s Word is the image of two faces both looking at the cross from different directions. However, I perceive the story of Jesus as being a smaller image within the larger image of Israel, so I will discuss further this perception of two faces in a later chapter.
Consider that, as a result of perceiving Jesus as the primary image, God’s Word is essentially perceived as being unnecessary information after you die. Presumably, that is a logical conclusion, because, why should you care about the Bible if you are with the physical Jesus? And, why should care about rules for proper behavior when you are dead? For some, perhaps you perceive that you are made holy when you die, such that you are given all wisdom in the blink of an eye, so why would you need God’s Word? So, do you agree with the acronym B-I-B-L-E by perceiving God’s Word as Basic Information Before Leaving Earth? Apparently, while God’s Word will not pass away, everyone imagines that it will become essentially worthless when they pass away.
Lines of thinking
So, would you agree that the Bible typically becomes condensed into those basic lines of thinking? If so, do you perceive that the “gospel” message is simply the good news of Jesus, such that a person’s salvation is determined by whether they accept in some manner that image of Jesus? Arguably, those lines of thinking have existed since the beginning of the church; yet, what are the potential consequences of perceiving God’s Word as a simple message of salvation through Jesus?
Consider, other than a vague message of salvation, what additional understanding can be gained by perceiving Jesus as messiah? Certainly, the image of Jesus influences a Christian’s understanding of life, and their answers to the great questions become essentially their belief statement; I am a sinner who was saved by the grace of God, with a purpose to love others and share the good news to unbelievers, and with a future called heaven. Yet, while that image of Jesus might bring feelings of comfort to some people, how does that simple message of salvation provide any meaningful understanding of the mysteries of our salvation, or of our spiritual war? Notably, people can say that they are “saved,” yet can they provide any meaningful understanding of what it actually means to be saved? Of course, they will likely claim, why do you need to know the mysteries of salvation if the simple message of salvation is all that you need to know?
Remember, religion perceives that the Bible “clearly” provides a wisdom that explains the creation of this world, how to live in this world, and how to survive a future judgment; so, does religion even perceive that a mystery exists beyond that wisdom? Yet, Paul repeatedly makes mention of the “mysteries of salvation,” so do you perceive that they are revealed somewhere in God’s Word? Perhaps you can point to some verses that sound mysterious, yet do they provide any meaningful understanding? Of course, if you perceive that the Bible is intended as a simple message of salvation through Jesus, then why would you even attempt to imagine that “mysteries” are somehow revealed in God’s Word? Importantly, if you perceive that your salvation is based solely on your believing the facts of the historical Jesus, then why would you devote any time to seek something that you perceive is either not important or perhaps does not even exist? Could that thinking explain why less than 1% of Christians actually study God’s Word; because, why should you care to learn anything else other than your particular understanding of Jesus?
Consider, besides me, have you ever heard of anyone claiming to be able to use the biblical images to provide a simple yet deep understanding of the mysteries of salvation? To my knowledge, no one else has ever made that claim; so, why is that? Is the absence of claims because the revelation of the mysteries does not exist; or, is it because no one has found the revelation? If the revelation does exist within God’s Word, why has no one else found it? Could the wisdom of religion, that the Bible is all about Jesus, be the primary reason why the mysteries remain hidden?
Importantly, I am not claiming any credentials in the academic study of theology; however, I am emphatically claiming that I have devoted most of my thought-life since I retired in 2019 towards gaining an understanding of God’s Word. When I started, while I imagined that there were deeper understandings to be gained, I thought that I would just “deeply reaffirm” what I already understood. I considered myself a very wise theologian, so I had absolutely no expectation that I would learn anything contrary to what I already understood. My point is to emphasize that I started with the same traditional understanding of the Bible as shared by many, and I was 100% confident in my understanding. Yet, over the next five years of diligent effort, I was led to a new perspective of God’s Word; and importantly, I was not led by any of the wise men, but by an internal voice. And that voice opened up the scripture in a way that was totally different than I ever heard or could ever imagine, such that I was able to perceive the larger images and imagine the intended symbolism of the story of Israel. Therefore, I can certainly understand why no one has found the revelation of the mysteries; because, if your mind is focused on Jesus, then it might be impossible for you to perceive anything else but that simple message of salvation. So, recalling the illusion of two woman, could the apparent image of a “young woman” (the simple message of salvation) be a deception intended to distract you from perceiving the less-apparent image of an “old woman” (the hidden wisdom of salvation)?
Hidden wisdom
Consider, could religion’s simple message of salvation be considered the “hidden” wisdom that Paul frequently mentions? Logically, that conclusion would not make sense, because religion emphatically claims that the simple message of salvation is an obvious message; and, that man is without excuse for not perceiving the message, presumably because all of creation shouts evidence that cannot be hidden. So, if religion’s simple message of salvation is not professing a hidden wisdom, then what type of wisdom is religion professing?
Consider again how religion claims that the Bible explains clearly how this world was created, how Jesus came into this world, how to live in this world, how to respond to God while living in this world, and how this world will be judged when Jesus returns to this world. So, is it fair to say that religion claims to be the source of the “true” wisdom of this world? Since the beginning of the church, has not religion always claimed to be the only source of true understanding of this world? Arguably, did not the Pharisees make the same claim about their belief system? So, who is currently promoting a “wisdom of this world” that will be made to look foolish (1 Cor 1:20; 2:6-7)?
Consider, since a fool believes there is no God (Ps 14), and a fool by definition has no wisdom; therefore, in God’s eyes, do not the “wise” actually believe in God? Notably, Paul states that the wise religious leaders and the debaters of the age are the ones who are promoting a worldly wisdom instead of the true hidden wisdom; so, who are the debaters of this age? Could religion, with its “worldly wisdom” and its simple message of salvation through Jesus, actually be promoting a wisdom of this world that will be made to look foolish? While everyone will argue that Paul and Jesus are referring solely to the Pharisees, I will argue that they are talking about any belief system that approaches God’s Word with a literal-historical “worldly” perspective, such as Judaism and Christianity.
Consider, if the symbolic perspective can reveal a simple yet deep understanding of your life and the nature of God using nothing but the images within God’s Word, then would you consider that the hidden wisdom? And, if the symbolic perspective reveals the hidden wisdom, then will not the wise men promoting the popular wisdom of religion be made to look foolish? Please realize that you will probably consider the symbolic perspective to be foolishness; however, is that response not to be expected (1 Cor 2:14)? Notably, have you ever considered what knowledge God claims that you could be lacking (e.g. Hos 4:6)?
Focus on Jesus
Consider, if God does intend the Bible to be primarily perceived as a story of Israel, then is the story of Jesus being used as a distraction? Perhaps, if Satan knows that God’s intent is to prepare His people for their war against his demons by using the story of Israel as a parable to provide a hidden wisdom, then is he using the image of Jesus as the distraction to blind mankind from the knowledge necessary to defeat him? Is Satan successfully robbing your attention from the primary image that God intended for His Word by focusing your eyes on the physical Jesus (Luke 8:12)? There is no way I would have considered that deception until very recently, yet it has become obvious in hindsight.
For over a year, my effort has focused on the fact that religion relies on a “literal-historical” perspective of God’s Word, whereas I perceive that we should be seeking understanding based on a symbolic perspective. Man has always determined the rules for approaching God’s Word, and I will argue against those rules in my discussion of hermeneutics. And much of my argument is a comparison of the two perspectives to demonstrate that only the symbolic perspective results in understanding that does not cause confusion or apparent contradiction. Yet, until recently, even I was blinded to the insidious nature of using the very apparent image of Jesus to distract you from the much less apparent image of Israel.
Please note that I am not denying in any way the work of Jesus; His sacrificial work was the necessary price that God had to pay to fulfill His original promise (Gen 15:17). However, did God give you an entire book just to make you feel good about His sacrifice, or to provide you a meaningful understanding of His plan to apply the sacrificial body and blood of Jesus in your eternal life? Ultimately, should you imagine that God’s Word is primarily intended to comfort you with a message of salvation, or to inform you with an understanding of the mysteries of that salvation? Obviously, you should be both comforted and informed, but is God more concerned about what you feel, or about what you know? Arguably, an understanding of God’s plan for your life can result in absolute comfort, but can a feeling of comfort ever result in any absolute understanding?
Feelings versus knowledge
Consider again how religion often promotes the idea that you should imagine having a “relationship” with God, so there is an emphasis on having “experiences” of God in your life. Notably, many people travel to experience the “wonder” of God; however, religion tells you that you can also experience the “presence” of God. Yet, experiencing the presence of a spiritual being is not something that can be accomplished by any of your five sensory processes, so the experience can be realized only by your feelings. However, should you trust your feelings, because how do you know the true source of any feeling (Jer 17:9)? Can the angel of darkness create deceptive feelings in you?
Consider, if you are seeking feelings of comfort from God’s Word, then is it not likely that some of those feelings will actually be deceptions? Perhaps all of them are deceptions, or perhaps none of them; arguably, you cannot know which feelings are deceptions. So, if the source of your feelings is always uncertain, is it logical to assume that God wants you to imagine a “personal” relationship with Him based on your feelings; or, is it more likely that Satan is encouraging you to imagine those comforting feelings? Importantly, should you imagine that God is giving you a book to create feelings knowing that Satan will create deceptions? Therefore, which is more likely God’s intent for His Word; to solicit your feelings of appreciation, or to provide you an understanding of the source of those feelings?
Consider, who is more likely to desire your response of appreciation; the god of this world, or the true God? Notably, Satan can create both feelings of appreciation and the felt need to respond to those feelings, and he certainly wants to keep you blinded from any understanding that might reveal his deception. So, are you being deceived by a felt need to express appreciation, and also perhaps a felt need for acts of appeasement, while remaining blind to the knowledge that God intended to provide in His Word? Arguably, there will be no greater “yolk” ever imposed upon mankind than the felt need to respond in appreciation to an unknown God. Many will argue that you were born with a desire to seek and worship your creator; however, even if that fact is true, how can you know whether an innate desire is pure or a deception? Did the god of this world create a felt need in you to worship him (Est 3)?
Responding to God
Consider, one of the secular world’s major complaints with religion is this perception that God requires us to respond to Him in some manner. And, while I understand the good intentions of the many who perceive evangelism as the primary mission of religion, I will argue vehemently that God does not require any response from anyone in this life other than to trust Him for our provision and protection, and to diligently seek His understanding of our spiritual condition. I realize that even suggesting the concept of “universalism” is a heresy for many; however, there is perhaps no greater divisive issue than this perceived need to convince others that there will be eternal consequences if they do not respond now in some manner to an unknown God.
Consider how religions are designed primarily to encourage the desire to respond to an unknown God; and, for Christian religions, the desired response emphasizes the need to appreciate God’s sacrifice, and the appearance of an improved behavior. Therefore, religion primarily uses the biblical image of Jesus on the cross as the means to encourage the perception that God’s intent for His Word is to solicit feelings of appreciation from you; and that you should worship “now” that unknown God somehow with your words and actions. Notably, practically every Christian song and every sermon is focused on appreciating Jesus, and how you should respond to that image. But again, is it logical to imagine that God is giving you a book to encourage feelings of appreciation knowing that Satan will create deceptions?
Please note that I recognize the image depicting a call to “praise” God, a call which is particularly present within the Psalms of David and throughout the NT. Yet, I will argue that religion is not correctly perceiving the timing and the reasons for this call to praise. Notably, in your imagination, you may put yourself in David’s shoes, but is God intending you to assume that perspective? As before, can you just “claim” some of David’s words and “apply” them to yourself without understanding the intended context of David’s Psalms? Certainly, we are to be thankful always for the gift of life, but my argument is regarding the type of response that God expects from you now.
Importantly, I also recognize the biblical call to respond with “worship,” but I will argue that the image depicting God’s call for your voluntary worship is a reality that will not occur until after your death, and that the nature of your worship will be a “spiritual” sacrifice (Rom 12:1) and not the singing of praises in appreciation for what He did for you two thousand years ago. Obviously, you should expect God to explain the nature of that future sacrificial worship, and hopefully I will give you some images to consider as you approach God’s Word. At this point, my argument is that religion is being unintentionally deceitful by encouraging you to imagine that the biblical commands are intended literally for this current time. And, in a sense, the ultimate question becomes; when does your “sanctification” occur, before or after your death?
Religion wants you to imagine that the process of being made “holy” starts when you respond appropriately; however, religion has no meaningful understanding of what occurs after that moment, nor after your death. Religion generally assumes that believers must be made holy when they die, presumably because sin is not allowed in heaven; however, there is no meaningful biblical evidence supporting this position, and perhaps there is some against it (e.g. Phil 1:6). Regardless, religion, because of its literal-historical perspective, “must” perceive that all the commands can “only” be applicable prior to your death; yet, religion cannot resolve the many inconsistencies that result from assuming that perspective. Consequently, instead of questioning the premise of assuming a literal historical perspective, religion can only provide you confusing answers that often result in apparently contradictory understandings.
Critically, at the core of modern religion is the ultimate apparent contradiction regarding your salvation; half of religion believes in God’s sovereign election, and the other half of religion believes in man’s free will. Both images of God’s pre-determination and man’s required response are clearly depicted in God’s Word; so, how can any belief system claim an understanding of salvation if it cannot clearly resolve that apparent contradiction? Presumably, it does not matter exactly why you are saved; rather, any belief system is deemed acceptable if it promotes both the story of Jesus and the consequence of hell for those who do not accept that story. Yet, since the “rules” for your salvation have varied dramatically over church history, and since religion cannot meaningfully explain how and when you are made holy; why should you concede religion any credibility to tell you how you are saved?
Throughout my effort, I will review some of the prominent inconsistencies to demonstrate how most of the biblical images are actually depicting future spiritual realities, such that the confusion caused by perceiving the commands as applicable “now” is replaced with a new understanding of the future that makes sense. Interestingly, though I have been considering these inconsistencies for over a year, I only recently realized that a contributing cause for many of them is this deceptive use of the image of Jesus. Because, if your loving Father truly intended His Word to provide you information to prepare you for your future, then consider how successful Satan has been in deceiving you by focusing your attention on a simple message of salvation by believing in the historical Jesus. Perhaps his deception has distracted you from seeking a simple yet deep understanding of yourself. Perhaps he has also inspired you to use God’s Word as a weapon to cause division among mankind; and to place a yolk of proper behavior upon yourself and everyone else. Perhaps he has blinded you from perceiving God’s complete plan of salvation for your eternal life, and perhaps he has replaced that profound spiritual truth with the extremely divisive image of an end time’s world war between believers and unbelievers. And perhaps the most damaging consequence of the deception is this divisive call by religion to worship and respond to an unknown God now through feelings of appreciation and improved behavior. Somehow, you are supposed to become a “better” person now “because” of what He did for you.
So, has Satan very deceptively created religion to promote a “wisdom of this world” as the veil that is blinding you from even perceiving the existence of the hidden wisdom of God’s Word? Arguably, that veil will eventually be lifted at some point in everyone’s eternal existence; however, do you want to remain deceived by holding onto your “old” understanding as long as possible, or would you prefer to start seeking that “new” understanding now? Because, if you begin to consider that God intended the story of Israel as a parable of a person’s spiritual existence, then you might also begin to perceive that the purpose of God’s Word is to provide a simple yet deep understanding of yourself and your future, and not just a simple understanding of Jesus.
Next: Part 3