Words and images
The adage that a picture is worth a thousand words is perhaps most applicable to scripture. Of course, since the Word of God is just words with no images, you must translate the words into perceived images to gain and communicate an understanding. Yet, how reliable is your translation of His words into images; and, how do you know if you correctly perceive His message?
So, how many words are required for you to be able 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 communicating? As is true for all communication, perceiving the overall context of the conversation is necessary before there can be any confidence in the understanding of any particular sentence. Everyone has probably heard the adamant response; you are taking that statement out of context! So, are you considering the context when you translate a single verse into an image?
For instance, 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)? Also, 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 message being communicated, then should you be confident in your understanding of one small part? Similarly, if I gave you a five-minute presentation, then can you confidently imagine what I have communicated by using your understanding of just one of my sentences of your choosing? Your imagination surely can, and will, create an understanding from just one verse, but are you perceiving the larger image that God had intended? And, if there is no feedback process to confirm your understanding, then should you ever feel so confident that you portray to others that your unconfirmed understanding is a truth of God’s Word? Can you reasonably claim that God allows you to simply “forget the past” based on your perception of one phrase?
The concept of “context being king” is commonly understood as being a rule of interpretation, yet people still selectively use whatever words they can find to support their own particular understanding. And, since scripture is full of words with over 30,000 verses, arguably anyone can easily claim that they are expressing a “biblical” worldview if they employ any biblical phrase to support their particular understanding. Again, while many people perceive the need to consider the larger context, the typical approach is to quote verses or simple phrases when supporting their biblical argument. Of course, they feel secure employing just the 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 one verse within the chapter, but also a chapter within the book, and a book within the entire canon. Recalling the illusion of the 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 perceive the overall context of what Jesus is conveying to Nicodemus; and, before any interpretation is attempted, we should seek to perceive 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 key question; does the practice of memorizing select verses lead to a greater understanding, or does the common practice just reinforce our own limited understanding?
Seeking feedback
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 of how to perceive images, I discovered the feedback process for confirming the understanding of any area within God’s Word. My perception of the feedback process is discussed in greater detail later; however, the general concept is to ensure that any derived understanding of any image is consistently confirmed elsewhere in scripture, and that there are no inconsistencies found in the balance of God’s Word. As a comparison, consider how lines can be drawn in any direction through a single point, but two or more points clarify a line’s direction, and any points that “stray” from a line’s general direction must be explained. Similarly, forming an understanding from a single instance of any image is risky, so any understanding must be confirmed by similar images found elsewhere in scripture, and the balance of God’s Word must not contain any stray images. Invariably, the images depicted within scripture are repetitive, and they build neatly upon themselves, so there is no good reason to rely on any one instance for an understanding.
For example, considering Paul’s statement, does God’s Word clearly depict elsewhere that you can simply forget your past? And, how would you resolve the apparent inconsistency that everyone will have to account for their every deed and word? Another example is the modern image of the end times which presumably depicts God’s plan of a holy war to end all wars; however, the confusing image was created by piecing together a few select verses from various books, while disregarding the fact that God’s Word never 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 within the other apocalyptic literature? Critically, related images actually cast doubt on the perception of the rapture; so, is the source of your understanding of the rapture from many images depicted throughout God’s Word, or from images depicted in books and movies written by “wise” sensationalists? Did God or man form the image in your mind, and should you be promoting your vague perception to others?
Consider whether you should convey any perception as being a truth of God if you cannot demonstrate how an understanding is clearly and consistently depicted throughout God’s Word. Arguably, the goal should not be to try to create an “absolute” understanding from a small selection of words, which is what the wise men of religion typically promote that you should do. Rather, we should seek to perceive the image being depicted, and then seek feedback by confirming that the perception of any image is repeated elsewhere in scripture without causing confusion. Critically, for me, “I know that I know what I know” only because I have experienced the same understanding also being reaffirmed repeatedly elsewhere in scripture without any inconsistencies.
Arguably, before you should be confident in any perception, you must become familiar with all of scripture well enough to know whether any inconsistencies could be present elsewhere. Because, obviously, if you focus on the image of just one tree, then how could you know if any other tree in the entire forest depicts an image that is inconsistent with your perception? So, are you assuming one image as your overall perception?
Sources of information
Consider the sources that your imagination has employed to form your overall perception of the message of God’s Word. Unfortunately, for many people, their perception of scripture is often formed by images that do not even originate directly from God’s Word. For instance, some employ the images from children’s books where the biblical stories are presented in a way that the author thinks is appropriate, and I suspect that many people have allowed Christian music to be the primary means for forming their perceptions of the biblical images. However, should you allow any other sources to influence what you perceive to be the message of God’s Word?
Of course, the primary source that creates the overall biblical message for most people is the particular church tradition in which they were raised; because, what is stated from the pulpit or from a bible study class is often deemed the “gospel truth,” such that the overall perception of 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 overall perception of God’s Word that was employed to form your core beliefs; and yet, I know that a minor miracle is required before you will allow that to happen, and that a major miracle is required for you to devote the time necessary to reimagine any of the biblical images. However, as realized from the illusion of two women, perceiving the overall image of scripture as God intended is paramount. Overall primary image of God’s Word
Arguably, anyone familiar with scripture 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 being 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 perception of God’s Word primarily as communicating a message of salvation through Jesus? However, factually, the OT is all about Israel; and, arguably, so is the NT.
If you were given just the OT, and you had no knowledge of the NT, then would you perceive that scripture is primarily about a Son of God? Arguably, you would not. Because, while a future messiah is occasionally mentioned, you would likely perceive that the story of Israel is intended as the overall image. And, when considering the entire bible, I will argue that the overall image is still all about Israel, where even Jesus considered His mission in the context of Israel (Matt 10:5-6; 15:24). So, did Jesus perceive that God’s Word was to be imagined as being all about Him, or all about Israel? Obviously, the coming of Jesus is 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 story of Israel? So, what happens when you perceive that God’s Word 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 considered 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 being the reason for Jesus, and Genesis 3:15 is perceived as being the first indication of God’s promise to send Jesus. The prophets are perceived as predicting Jesus as the future messiah, while Israel is simply perceived as being the people whom God used to foster Jesus. The gospels are perceived as being 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, even heaven is imagined as being physically with Jesus, and the entire biblical story is often concluded with the sole 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 scripture 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. However, has the perception that God’s Word depicts “rules” for proper moral behavior caused more division or compassion among men? Even if you considered just the people within the church, has the concept of a biblical morality united the church body, or has it been one of the main causes 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, arguably, by focusing on the image of Jesus, the majority of God’s Word is typically perceived as both a “mirror” and a “tool” to judge the actions of yourself and others.
Also, by focusing on Jesus as the primary image, God’s Word is perceived as depicting two testaments; essentially the times before and after Jesus, with 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 just focus on Jesus, then the only way to perceive God’s Word is the image of two faces both looking at the cross from different directions. However, I now perceive that the story of Jesus is a smaller image within the larger image of Israel, so I will discuss further this perception of “two faces” in a later chapter.
Critically, as a result of perceiving Jesus as the primary image, all of God’s Word is effectively perceived as being unnecessary information after you die. Presumably, that thought is a logical conclusion, because, why should you care about the bible if you are with the physical Jesus? And, why should you care about the rules for proper behavior when you are dead? For some, perhaps you perceive that you will be made holy when you die, such that you are given all wisdom in the blink of an eye, so why would you still need God’s Word? Arguably, many agree that the acronym B-I-B-L-E accurately depicts God’s Word as Basic Information Before Leaving Earth. As such, even though God depicts that not even one iota will pass away, Christians imagine that scripture is essentially worthless when they die.
Lines of thinking
So, do you agree that God’s Word typically becomes condensed into those basic lines of thinking? If so, then 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 one image of Jesus? Arguably, that line of thinking has 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?
Particularly, other than that 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; that is, I am a sinner who is saved by the grace of God, with a purpose to love others and to share the good news to unbelievers, and with a future called heaven. However, while that image of Jesus might bring comforting feelings to some people, does that simple message provide any meaningful understanding of the mysteries of our salvation, or of our spiritual war? Notably, while Christians can say that they are “saved,” they cannot provide any meaningful understanding of what it actually means to be saved. Of course, they will claim, why do you need to know the mysteries of our salvation if the simple message of salvation is all that you need to know? However, do they know, or do they just “feel” saved?
Remember, religion perceives that scripture clearly provides a wisdom that explains the creation of this world, how to live in this world, and how to survive the future judgment; so, does religion perceive that any mysteries exist beyond that wisdom? Notably, Paul repeatedly makes mention of the “mysteries” of salvation, yet do you perceive that those mysteries are revealed somewhere within scripture? Perhaps you can point to verses that sound mysterious, but do they provide any meaningful understanding? Of course, if you perceive that God’s Word is intended as a simple message of salvation through Jesus, then why would you even attempt to imagine that any mysteries are being revealed? Critically, 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 either as being unimportant or not even existing? Arguably, that thinking explains why less than 1% of Christians actually study scripture; because, why should you care to learn anything else other than your own particular understanding of Jesus? So, do you care to know if mysteries are being revealed?
Profoundly, besides me, have you ever heard anyone claiming to be able to employ solely the images in scripture to provide a simple yet deep understanding of the mysteries of salvation? To my knowledge, no one else has ever claimed that ability. However, is the absence of that claim 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, then why has no one found it? Could the wisdom of religion, that scripture is all about Jesus, be the primary reason why the mysteries remain hidden?
Importantly, while I am not claiming any academic credentials in the study of theology, I am claiming that I have devoted much time towards gaining an understanding of God’s Word. And, when starting my journey, while I imagined that a deeper knowledge could be gained, I thought that I would just deeply reaffirm what I already understood. I considered myself a very wise theologian, so I did not expect to learn anything contrary to what I had already understood. My point is that I started with the same traditional understanding of scripture as shared by many, and I was very 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 had ever heard or could ever imagine, such that I was able to perceive the larger biblical images and imagine the intended symbolism within the story of Israel. Therefore, I can certainly understand why no one has ever 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 very apparent image of a “young woman” (i.e. the simple message of salvation) be a deception intended to distract you from perceiving the much less apparent image of an “old woman” (i.e. the hidden wisdom of your salvation)?
The hidden wisdom
Consider whether religion’s simple message of salvation could be considered the hidden wisdom that Paul often mentions? Logically, that conclusion could not be considered reasonable, because religion 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 Paul’s hidden wisdom, then what type of wisdom is religion professing?
Consider again how religion claims that God’s Word 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 not fair to say that religion claims to perceive the source of the true wisdom of this world? Since the beginning, has not religion always claimed to be the only source of true understanding of this world? Yet, 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)?
Paul states that the wise religious leaders and the debaters of the age are the ones promoting a earthly wisdom instead of the true hidden wisdom; so, who are the debaters of this age? Could religion, with its “earthly wisdom,” and with its simple message of salvation through Jesus, actually be promoting a wisdom of this world that will be made to look foolish? While many will argue that Paul and Jesus are referring solely to the past Pharisees, I will argue later for a much deeper meaning. But, the pertinent point is that perceiving God’s Word with an earthly perspective creates a religion, not true knowledge.
Yet, if the symbolic perspective reveals a simple and very deep understanding of your life and the nature of God by employing only the images in scripture, then would not that be a hidden wisdom? Arguably, if the symbolic perspective does reveal the hidden wisdom, then will not those who are promoting the popular wisdom of today’s religions be made to look foolish? Please realize that if you consider the symbolic perspective to be foolishness, is not that response to be expected (1 Cor 2:14)? Oddly, Christians calling my thinking foolish is encouraging.
The focus on Jesus
So, if God does intend His Word to be primarily perceived as a story of Israel, then is the story of Jesus being employed as a distraction? And, 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 Satan employing the simple image of Jesus as the distraction to blind mankind from the knowledge that is 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 absolutely no way that I would have considered that deception until recently, yet it has become very obvious in hindsight.
Initially, my effort had focused on the fact that religion relies on the literal historical perspective of God’s Word, whereas I perceived 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 understandings that do not cause confusion and apparent contradictions. However, until recently, even I was blinded to Satan’s insidious tactic of employing the very apparent image of Jesus to distract you from perceiving the much less apparent image of Israel.
Critically, I am not denying in any sense the work of Jesus, as His sacrificial work is the necessary price that God had to pay to fulfill His original promise (Gen 15:17). Yet, did God give you an entire book to make you feel good about His sacrifice; or, did He intend His Word to provide you with a meaningful understanding of His plan to apply the sacrificial body and blood of Jesus to enable your eternal life? Ultimately, should you imagine that God’s Word is primarily intended to comfort you with a simple 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 how you are feeling, or about what you know? Arguably, the true understanding of God’s plan for your life should result in feelings of 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 the world to experience the “wonder” of God; however, religion tells you that you can also experience the “presence” of God. However, 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 only be realized by your feelings. Yet, should you trust your feelings, because how can you know the actual source of your feelings (Jer 17:9)? In particular, as every Christian knows, can not the angel of darkness create deceptive feelings of “light” in you?
Also, 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 none of them are deceptions, or perhaps all of them are; arguably, you cannot know which feelings are deceptions. And, if the source of your feelings is uncertain, then is it logical to assume that God wants you to imagine a personal relationship with Him based on abstract feelings; or, is it more than 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 feelings of appreciation, or to provide an understanding of the source of those feelings?
Who is more likely to desire your response of appreciation; the god of this world, or the true God? Of course, Satan can create both the feelings of appreciation and the felt need to respond to those feelings, and he certainly wants to keep you from any understanding that would undermine his powerful deception. So, seriously consider whether you are being deceived by a felt need to express a form of appreciation, and also perhaps a felt need to perform acts of appeasement, while remaining blind to the knowledge that God had intended to provide in His Word. Are God’s people ever destroyed for a lack of appreciation?
Arguably, there has never been, and there will never ever be, a greater “yolk” imposed upon all of mankind than religion’s felt need to somehow respond in appreciation to an unknown God. Certainly, many will argue that you were born with a desire to seek and worship your creator; yet, even if that fact is true, can you know whether an innate desire is pure or a deception? Critically, since Satan is often depicted as being the god of this world, are you not of this world, and therefore under his rule? As such, by focusing on feelings instead of understanding, is religion blinding you to the knowledge of how God is allowing Satan to rule this world? Also, is it any wonder why the religion of today stresses a relationship, given that it has no answers?
Responding to God
One of the secular world’s major complaints of religion is the perception that God requires us to respond to Him in some manner. And, while I understand the good intentions of those who perceive evangelism as the primary mission of religion, I will argue vehemently that God does not require any response from anyone during this life other than to trust Him for their provision and their protection, while diligently seeking His understanding of their 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.
Arguably, religions are designed primarily to encourage you to respond to an unknown God; and, for the Christian religions, the desired response emphasizes the need to appreciate God’s sacrifice, and the need to demonstrate an improved behavior. As such, religion employs the image of Jesus on the cross as the primary means to encourage the perception that God’s intent for His Word is to solicit your feelings of appreciation, and that you should somehow worship that unknown God “now” with your words and actions. Notably, practically every Christian song and every sermon is focused on appreciating the image of 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 you to respond to a felt need to express feelings of appreciation, especially when you know that Satan can, and will, create deceptions?
Please note that I fully 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 insert yourself into David’s shoes, but is God intending you to assume that perspective? 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 should be thankful for God’s 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, rather than simply the singing of praises in appreciation for what He did for you two thousand years ago (Rom 12:1). Obviously, you should expect God to explain the nature of your future sacrificial worship, and that information is depicted throughout scripture as will be discussed. However, at this point, my argument is that religion is unintentionally being deceitful by encouraging you to imagine that the biblical commands are intended literally for this current time. As such, the ultimate question for you to answer is this; 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; yet, religion has no meaningful perception 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, by assuming the literal historical perspective, religion “must” perceive that all of 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 problematic premise of the literal perspective, religion can only provide confusing answers that often result in apparently contradictory understandings.
Factually, at the core of religion is the ultimate contradiction regarding the proximate cause of salvation; half of religion promotes God’s sovereignty in election, while the other half of religion promotes man’s free will. Both images of God’s pre-determination and man’s willing response are clearly depicted in scripture; yet, how can any belief system claim any truth of salvation if it cannot resolve that very apparent contradiction? Presumably, it makes no difference how or 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 salvation have varied during church history, and since religion cannot explain how nor when you are made holy, then why should you concede religion any credibility to tell you how you are saved?
Throughout this effort, many inconsistencies will be reviewed to demonstrate how most of the biblical images are actually depicting future realities, such that the confusion caused by perceiving the commands as being applicable now is replaced with a new understanding that makes sense. Yet, even though I had considered the inconsistencies for a while, I was surprised to realize that a contributing cause for many of them is this deceptive focus on the image of Jesus. Because, if your loving Father truly intended His Word to provide you with the necessary 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.
Perhaps Satan’s 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, while placing a yolk of proper behavior upon yourself and everyone else. Perhaps he has blinded you from perceiving God’s plan of salvation, by replacing that profound spiritual truth with the extremely divisive image of a war in the end times between believers and unbelievers. And, perhaps the most damaging consequence of his deception is the 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 deceptively created religion to promote a wisdom of this world as a veil to blind you from perceiving the hidden wisdom? 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, then you might also begin to imagine that the purpose of His Word is to provide a simple yet deep understanding of yourself and your future life, and not just a simple understanding of Jesus.
Next: Part 3