As discussed, I was shocked to discover two realities of God’s Word. The first was the logical realization that the OT alone is sufficient for understanding the mysteries of salvation, and the second is that the NT depicts the fulfillment of the OT story of Israel. Arguably, if you also recognized those two realities, then your perception of scripture would also change over time from the vague images as perceived by your religion to the amazing images of every person’s eternal life. Consequently, my goal is to provide thoughts to consider as you become a disciple, such that you reconsider the way you currently perceive scripture, by beginning to reimagine the story of Israel as God’s primary intent for His Word.
Arguably, you must perceive that the story of Israel is intended as a parable to gain any symbolic understanding; yet, you will certainly never consider that perspective if you perceive that the bible is primarily intended to be about Jesus and the cross. So, my goal for this chapter is to discuss various images from the OT, and how they are built upon by the NT images. Oddly, yet for a reason that should be obvious, God employs several methods that create obstacles to the easy perception of the two testaments being one continuous story; so, those obstacles and how to overcome them will be discussed. Chapter ten will also discuss how the NT depicts OT fulfillment in often subtle ways.
Ultimately, my entire effort is based on the premise that God is depicting a vase (i.e. the story of Israel), such that the cross becomes a key element of the story, and not the primary image of His Word. And, when you perceive the realities of scripture that were not readily apparent, then you will also be shocked, and on your way towards a new journey into God’s Word that reveals the message that your Father had intended.
Dispensational thinking
The early Catholic church developed a religion that perceived Israel as being a depiction of the OT church; and Peter, having received the keys to the kingdom, was perceived as depicting the first pope of the NT Catholic church. This perspective is commonly referred to as the “replacement” theology, where Judaism is considered the religion of the OT dispensation, and Catholicism is considered the religion of the NT dispensation. Presumably, this perception of religious dispensationalism has existed since the formation of the church during the time of Constantine in the fourth century; yet, does God’s Word truly promote a dispensational view of religion? Everyone assumes that is the correct perception, but does scripture ever state that an OT promise or command ended at the coming of a messiah? So, does God’s Word depict Judaism as the OT religion and Christianity as the NT religion? What should be considered to determine if God had intended to give us book that depicts two different religions?
To clarify, I perceive the image of “dispensation” as being the “principles” that are in place during a particular period of time. Admittedly, having been raised Catholic, my only perception of dispensational thinking was this image of both the OT Jewish religion and the NT Christian religion. Notably, I later became aware of the various modern end times predictions, but those images had never impacted my original thinking regarding the dispensations of two religions. Yet, as part of my deep dive, I was exposed to the other concepts of dispensationalism where images within God’s Word are perceived as depicting different eras or epochs throughout time. Presumably, some of the wise men perceive that the various covenants God made with Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and others depict promises that were made just for their people at their time. And, if you assume a literal historical perspective, then you might also perceive that God treats people differently depending on when they live.
Frankly, it was hard enough for me to appreciate the existence of the two dispensations of religion, so I never truly considered the more elaborate dispensational thinking. Suffice it to say, I have never been comfortable with the notion that God treats people differently depending on whether they died before or after the cross, so that image never made sense to me. Was I “lucky” to have been born when I was? Of course, I was never able to answer that question, because I never understood what happened to the people who were born B.C. (i.e. before Christ). So, one of my first quests was to try to understand how a Jew had perceived part one of God’s message. Of course, a popular perception is that the Jews were “under the law,” and that we are now “under grace;” yet, I wanted to appreciate what a Jew would have understood just from reading the OT. Did a Jew perceive various dispensations as the wise men perceive today? Notably, this quest to consider the Jew’s perspective occurred very early in my journey; so, I had not yet come to the logical realization that the OT could stand alone, or that the OT would reveal the mysteries of salvation. Literally, I had no idea what I would discover, or that the journey would soon change my life.
Your preconceived notions
Before I proceed, I must emphasize my belief that the only way anyone can perceive the symbolism is to go on a similar quest. Because, since you have the image of Jesus on your mind, then you will be reading the OT primarily “looking” for validation of your current understanding. So, since your current perception of an ancient Jew is that he was “under the law,” or that he had a different set of rules, then you will similarly be looking for validation of that understanding. Arguably, the hardest thing for anyone today is to read the OT without their preconceived notions that have been imposed upon them by their religion. Yet, while it is almost impossible to do, it is absolutely critical that you wipe your slate clean and make yourself blind to all of your prior perceptions, and instead try to put yourself into the mindset of a person whose only available scripture is the OT.
Of course, religion claims that a Jew mistakenly imagined that a messiah would be coming to establish a physical kingdom of Israel, rather than someone who will come and die on a cross. However, I would challenge you to draw your own conclusion, because I am not aware of any verse within all of God’s Word that even suggests that the Jews had that misunderstanding. Arguably, it would have been reasonable for a Jew to imagine a messianic “victory” of some sort, because God does promise David that an everlasting kingdom would be established (e.g., 2 Sam 7:13), and there are numerous images depicting nations being destroyed (e.g., Zech 12:9). So, while you might currently perceive that those “messianic” images are intended to depict “future” events because they “apparently” were not fulfilled at the coming of Jesus, does the OT ever depict that God will first send a messiah to die on a cross, and then He will send Him again to provide victory? In the next chapter, I will discuss how the people who blame the Jews for mistakingly believing that Jesus would come to establish a physical kingdom are the exact same people telling you to believe the exact same thing. Fool me once, …
Consider your current perception, or your lack of a perception, of the “eternal destiny” of an ancient Jew. Notably, one of the conspicuous aspects of the OT is the absence of information regarding heaven and hell. Sure, there are depictions of Sheol, but do you understand what that image is representing? Also, there are no depictions of people weeping and gnashing their teeth in hell, but there is the depiction that evil is destroyed. Critically, if the law was intended to judge the Jew’s behavior, then did a Jew expereince eternal consequences for his sins? In particular, are Jews ever depicted as telling other Jews, or non-Jews, that they would go to hell if they did not do something? Also, while there are images of being with God (e.g. Ps 16:11; 23:6; 73:24), there is no depiction of “going to” heaven or hell after death. So, what was a Jew required to do to be with God? Of course, some claim that a Jew was supposed to “believe” in the coming messiah, but where is that requirement depicted? Should you not consider it odd if God does not provide a Jew with even a simple understanding of his eternal destiny?
Supposedly, some believe that there was no afterlife for a Jew, such that his only hope was for God’s “blessings” in this life. Presumably, God’s plan of salvation is “progressive” over two or more dispensations, so a Jew was unlucky to have been born too soon to obtain his ticket to heaven. Others believe that the OT depicts a hope for a future generation of Jews, but arguably that thought would have been perceived to be more depressing rather than encouraging for the ancient Jew. Of course, many recognize that Abraham and the heroes of faith (Heb 11) must have been saved somehow, yet religion is challenged to provide any understanding as to what a Jew perceived to be his destiny after death. Notably, religion similarly perceives that the NT is depicting both heaven and hell in a vague and uncertain sense. Yet, does it make sense that the truth of God’s Word has never been able to provide a clear and meaningful understanding of any person’s eternal destiny, either then or now?
Religion’s inability to provide a meaningful understanding of the afterlife has arguably always resulted in the perception of God as someone who is watching from above and judging who has been naughty or nice. Of course, modern religion claims that even Jesus talks much more about hell than heaven, so the “good news” proclaimed by Jesus is apparently focused more on the avoidance of judgment instead of a hope for the future. Arguably, religion’s perception of a judgmental God forms the worldview for many regardless of when they were born; and, fortunately, I have been able to overcome that insidious image imposed by religion on my imagination early in my childhood. Prayerfully, I hope that my effort will also encourage others to reimagine their perception of the nature of God, and perhaps a disciple from 3,000 years ago can assist you in that effort.
Oddly, I argue that an ancient disciple without any knowledge of the NT had an advantage in perceiving the mysteries hidden within the OT. Because, with just a little bit of urging from his internal prophetic voice, he would have certainly considered the story of Israel as a parable. Notably, the Jews were very familiar with symbolic teaching, as evidenced by the teachings of Jesus. Also, a disciple reading just the OT would not have been deceived by the NT image of Jesus. So, God makes many promises from Genesis to Malachi, and the pertinent challenge is to thoughtfully consider how an ancient disciple would have imagined those promises being fulfilled throughout his eternal existence.
Perception of symbolism, or a literal religion?
Consider how everyone assumes that the images of sacrificial worship and the Mosaic laws are intended to depict the Jewish religion, yet the question is whether a disciple 3,000 years ago, or Jesus, perceived those OT images literally as things of this world, or symbolically as spiritual truths. Of course, as today, there were two types of Jews, those who approached scripture with the same literal historical perspective as today’s religion, and the ancient disciple who instead approached the images as depicting a symbolism of a hidden wisdom.
Presumably, by inference from Paul’s and Jesus’ statements, the Pharisees promoted the literal interpretation by their focus on cleaning the outside of the cup and by their stoning of the prophets, so their “wisdom of the world” formed a religion that dictated customs (i.e. church tradition) with rules for proper external behavior. Consequently, as a Jew, there were strong influences from birth that promoted God’s Word as a rule book for how to respond to God and how to display proper external behavior. Sound familiar?
Arguably, anyone who approaches the OT images with a literal historical perspective should also logically conclude that God’s Word provides no practical value. Because, just as everyone should ask today, an ancient disciple would have questioned how the many odd historical facts of a past people with images depicting the rules for proper behavior and for the worship of a judgmental God could provide any meaningful understanding of his life. Of course, the religion of his day likely claimed that he would be blessed or cursed temporally by God based on his behavior, which is what religion often claims today; however, does that perception provide any meaningful understanding of his future life? Arguably, just as today, the literal perspective of scripture provided no meaningful understanding of life 3,000 years ago, and it likely caused the same confusion in that day as it does today. Yet, if you agree that every adult who has ever walked this earth has wondered what happens after his death, then where do you think his internal prophetic voice would have encouraged him to seek that understanding?
Since religion perceives God’s Word as being two testaments depicting two religions, essentially all of the OT symbolism is totally lost on the modern reader, and you are left with warped images of both God and the Jews. For instance, religion will tell you that the OT God literally destroyed nations, women, and children; and, that the OT Jews literally stoned adulterers, sacrificed their sons, and ate their children. Of course, no one could ever reasonably explain God’s actions, but religion does claim that God was concerned about His people following the pagan practices of other nations. However, if you perceive that people literally did those things as described, then presumably they also had the ability to literally call up the dead (Deut 18:10-11). Yet, is it logical to assume that God felt the need to warn people not to call up the dead because that practice was literally possible back then?
The absurdity of claiming that the practice of calling up the dead was literally possible should be considered in the same manner as the absurd perceptions that any of those gruesome images were intended to depict actual literal events. Yet, God often restates those odd prohibitions, so it would be wrong to assume that these were simply pagan practices or superstition; because Saul actually does call up Solomon from the dead (1 Sam 28), and Manasseh actually does many of the prohibitions (2 Kings 21). So, are you blindly accepting religion’s illogical perceptions of the nature of God and the backwardness of the Jews without reasonably considering how an ancient disciple would have perceived those same images? Arguably, instead of simply accepting religion’s perception that an ancient Jew was both archaic in his thinking and immoral in his behavior, you should consider the distinct possibility that an ancient disciple approached those same images symbolically. Because, if a Jew expected symbolism, then should you not at least consider the possibility that God actually gave him symbolism?
Again, I am not claiming a deep understanding of the spiritual truths, but I certainly know what the images are not depicting, and that perception is often the first step towards gaining any understanding. Because, you must first realize that you do not understand something before you perceive the need to seek its true meaning. Notably, I have spent several years diligently digging through the OT for inferences towards understanding, and I am stunned at how much has been revealed. Yet, I laugh at my current understanding because I know that there were many ancient disciples who had devoted hundreds of years to meditation on just the OT, and I specifically mean those who died long before the NT became a reality.
While many people have their own perception of the afterlife, whether it be an image of endless joy, torment, or nothingness; presumably no one shares my perception that, after death, the Word of God will still be the only source of truth towards a deep understanding of a person’s eternal life. Yet, allow me to make the odd statement that an ancient Jew was not forever “disadvantaged” by not having the NT during his life on earth.
Again, for me, it illogical to perceive that God treats people differently depending on whether they lived before or after the cross, so they could not have received the NT any sooner, nor later, than anyone else. This image of dead OT people receiving part two of God’s Word truly is an amazing image to consider. Frankly, I now envy them, not just because they had obtained a deep understanding of the meaning of the OT symbolism, but also because I am beginning to appreciate the amazing joy that they had experienced by having their symbolic understanding of part one clearly affirmed and fulfilled by part two. Of course, a Jew who had assumed a literal perspective of scripture would have been extremely perplexed with the revelation of the NT, a fact that will be discussed shortly.
Importantly, my goal is not to argue for the symbolic meaning of any particular image, rather to demonstrate that an ancient disciple would have logically perceived the early images of God’s Word as depicting symbolism. Because, once you start approaching scripture with a symbolic perspective, then you will logically consider that same perspective for the subsequent images of Israel, and certainly a disciple would have observed how the image of “Israel” is personified. Therefore, instead of perceiving the OT as providing a confusing religion that places the yoke of proper behavior, an ancient disciple would have instinctively considered the symbolism of the story of Israel. And, if he had listened to his internal prophetic voice, then he would have been led to the same inferences within God’s Word that develop a simple yet deep understanding of the mysteries of salvation within the kingdom of God. So, consider again why an ancient disciple would have rejected the literal perspective, and instead accept their internal prophet’s urging to at least “consider” a symbolic perspective.
First, a Jew expected symbolic teaching, and much of the OT is presented as symbolism. And, since he was not deceived by a laser focus on the messiah, he likely perceived “Israel” as the focal point, and he certainly meditated on what those images were intended to depict. Perhaps an odd thought “came into his mind” to consider scripture as a book from a loving father to his fetus in the womb. Arguably, there are many inferences within the OT that should lead any reader to consider the story of Israel as a parable, even I found them well before the fetus scenario revealed the logic of the consideration, so any ancient disciple would have certainly considered approaching scripture with the same symbolic perspective.
Notably, I am not saying that an ancient disciple immediately perceived the story of Israel as depicting a parable of his life, because I also needed convincing. Rather, I am saying that he would have considered approaching the OT with a symbolic perspective, particularly because the OT screams symbolism. Critically, he had to resist the influences of his church tradition and of his own wisdom, both of which settle for an easy literal understanding that can be vaguely shaped into a “peace-peace” message of his own choosing, such as “if you do better than most, then you can also hope for the best.” Yet, just as disciples today, any ancient disciple who devoted the time to dig for the pearls, and meditate on their significance, arguably would have been also rewarded with the gift of prophecy that enabled him to reimagine the images to discern God’s intended meaning of the symbolism. So, in order to weigh our own perceptions of the OT, our goal should be to consider how an ancient disciple would have perceived all of the images in the OT. Yet, let’s first simply consider what he likely perceived from the first images that God depicts in His Word.
Next: Part 2