Perceptions of time and voice
Arguably, one of the worst approaches to God’s Word is to “insert yourself” into a biblical image. As discussed in the chapter on hermeneutics, a common teaching technique encourages you to “apply” the images to your life in some manner. Consequently, people will “relate” to David or whomever and claim that a verse “speaks to them” by validating a feeling or by explaining an experience. Again, if you perceive that the images are intended as historical records of typical people, then the approach could sound reasonable; however, does the Bible ever suggest that approach? Importantly, that approach of arbitrarily inserting yourself is put to rest once you consider the possibility that God has given you a mythical story with a message, and not a book of historical facts.
Whatever leads any disciple to consider the story of Israel symbolically as a parable, the absolutely crucial implication is to recognize how the reader’s perception of both time and voice must change dramatically with the new perspective. Because, the events can no longer be perceived as depictions of literal events on this world’s timeline, and the prophets can no longer be perceived as depictions of literal ancient people speaking to an ancient audience. Yes, there is certainly a timeline being depicted in the story of Israel, and it is critical to understand the timeline and the significant milestones in the story. Notably, there are also many voices in the story of Israel, and perceiving the depicted role or “office” of a speaker in a parable is often essential to understand what is being said. Importantly, a reader’s perception of both time and voice must change, because a parable is never to be perceived as a story of actual people or actual events, rather the reader realizes that the story teller is sending a “timeless” message. Notably, I am not saying that God has not depicted “you” in His story, because the story is all about you; however, the challenge is to discover the profound manner in which God has depicted your soul, and how your soul physically manifests itself in this world.
I cannot overstate the significance of the timeless nature of a parable; because, the reader must also realize that his perceived understanding cannot be any different than any other person’s perceived understanding, regardless of when they lived. Consequently, a parable can easily be perceived as the means for God to deliver His message of absolute truth, because of the parable’s timeless nature, and because the intended meaning of all objects within a parable can only be understood by discovering the many bits of inferences depicted elsewhere in scripture. Please consider the enormous significance of the nature of a parable, and whether that sounds like a methodology that a timeless loving Father would employ to communicate the mysteries of salvation to every person regardless of when they lived.
Consider how God’s Word is often deemed “archaic” when perceived in a literal historical manner, consequently there is the perception that “modern” man has the benefit of wisdom that was not available to an ancient Jew. Notably, if God’s Word is intended as a mythical story, then a parable does not require natural intelligence to be understood. Rather, a biblical parable requires the reader to have an earnest desire to be shown the hidden wisdom, and the devotion of time to reimagine how the many inferences define the image being depicted. Of course, the primary question is whether the reader perceives the correct “object” to lay alongside the intended symbolism.
In a parable, the meaning of the depicted image becomes “relative” to whatever the reader perceives is the intended parallel object. For instance, if you think the story of Israel is intended as a parable of the church, then you will try to lay the symbolic events of Israel alongside the timeline of the church. Arguably, if you think God intended to provide you an understanding of the life of a cricket, then you would try to lay the symbolic events of Israel alongside the life of a cricket. However, what would an inquisitive disciple, someone who was seeking an understanding of his life, what would he likely lay alongside the parable provided by his loving Father? And, if he considered the parable as a symbolic depiction of his spiritual nature and his eternal destiny as depicted by Daniel, then how difficult would it have been for him to imagine that the images of Israel being redeemed out of Egypt, and being led by God through the wilderness, are images intended as symbolic depictions of his current life, and that the crossing of the Jordon into the “promised land” is an image intended as a symbolic depiction of the beginning of his future life? Importantly, instead of perceiving literal ancient prophets, how difficult would it have been for him to perceive that the priestly prophets are depictions of divine voices within him who are trying to reveal the hidden mysteries? Again, an ancient disciple appreciated and perhaps expected symbolism, so how difficult would it have been for him to imagine that God is depicting a portion of his soul as “Israel,” a name with a meaning that would have significantly impacted an ancient disciple? Does the name impact you in the same manner? Should it?
Alternatively, please consider the perceptions of a Jew who approached the OT with a literal historical perspective. Just as occurs today, his perception of the nature of God would be warped into a confusing image, and he would obtain no meaningful understanding of his eternal life. Could anyone at any time truly develop a deep passion for reading a rule book with odd stories of a past people? So, let’s first consider briefly what would have happened to a Jew with literal perceptions of the OT when the NT was revealed to him. We will then more deeply consider how an ancient disciple who approached God’s Word with a symbolic perspective would have perceived the NT images.
Perception of NT by a “worldly” Jew
First, consider the thinking of a good friend who would proclaim a belief that is commonly held by many Christians. He would say that the “stumbling block” for the Jews was accepting the “simple” truth of Jesus. In other words, he was claiming that since the truth of religion’s gospel message sounds too good to be true, many Jews were denying the truth because they could not believe that salvation is that simple. So, whereas logical thinking claims that something is probably not true if it sounds too good to be true, presumably this time is an exception to the logic. Perhaps Christians should seriously reconsider that perspective; because, if they understood the OT as any Jew did, then they would realize why the Jews did not believe the simple message of salvation. Yet, when challenged with such thinking, my friend would half-kiddingly respond, “do not confuse me with logic or the facts, I know what I believe.” And I suspect that many religious people will similarly prefer to ignore logic and facts rather than consider the possibility that they are being deceived by religion about the message of the OT.
Arguably, it is wrong to assume that a Jew who was raised with a literal perspective of the OT would perceive the NT as Christians perceive it today. Christians look back to the OT, and since they are looking for images that point to Jesus, they typically minimize or essentially ignore all the other OT images. However, for someone who was raised with just the OT, how would the NT appear to him?
First, if you were a Jew raised with a literal interpretation of the OT, then you would find the NT to be totally inconsistent with your understanding of what the OT depicted for the future of Israel. Because, while Christians blame the Jews for not believing in Jesus, the Jesus of the NT does not meet the messianic expectations as depicted in the OT. The next chapter will discuss the end-times perceptions that are typically promoted by those with a worldly perspective, however, why did those OT “prophecies” not occur with the coming of Jesus? Again, where does the OT depict that a messiah will come first to die on a cross, and then He will come again later to fulfill the promises of a restored Israel? If God promised that “My servant David” would rule forever, then why did that not occur with the first coming of Jesus? Religion can claim that the NT depicts Jesus as somehow ruling in heaven, but where is that critical image clearly depicted in the OT? Therefore, for a Jew with a worldly perspective, the NT appears to be false prophecy; so, what happened? Did God change His mind without telling anyone why, or is the confusion the result of assuming a literal historical perspective of His Word?
Also, what about the religious practices that God repeatedly commanded the priests to continually fulfill as a perpetual requirement? The lamp was to be lit forever, and the feasts were to be celebrated forever, so what happened to those priestly requirements? Religion claims that the practices ended with the coming of Jesus, but why would God command a practice to be perpetual for all time, and then seemingly imply by His silence that “never mind, I was just kidding,” or “you can stop them now because I forgot that they were to end with the coming of Jesus”? Some will falsely claim that the letter to the Hebrews indicates that the practices were to stop, yet I will argue that even Jesus states otherwise. So, temporarily putting aside Hebrews, why would Jesus not take the opportunity at the last supper to say that the old practices are now replaced by the new practice of communion? Or, why would Paul, or any NT writer, not clearly indicate to the Jews that God no longer required them to continue the OT practices that He had explicitly commanded were to last “forever”? Why is the NT presumably silent on an OT matter that was at the heart of worshipping God? Does that make any sense whatsoever? Dispensationalists can claim that they perceive how God will keep His promise of restoration for the nation of Israel, and I will argue against that claim in the next chapter; however, I am not aware of any insight that resolves the conundrum of God’s obvious OT command for the practices to last forever with the obvious lack of clear guidance in the NT.
As is often the case with religion, one must accept being ignorant of God’s ways, because there are no reasonable explanations for those disconnects that exist between the two testaments when approached with a literal historical perspective. Consequently, do you become like a Gideon who effectively ignores the OT such that you do not perceive the disconnects, or do you imagine your own version of the OT such that your perception fits neatly with your understanding of the NT? However, how can any understanding of God’s Word be deemed the “truth” if it cannot clearly and logically explain the major disconnects that obviously exist between the two testaments?
The absurdity of the literal historical perspective
Of everything that I will state in my effort, perhaps the most important is the recognition of the major disconnects that exist between the two testaments when God’s Word is approached with a literal historical perspective. As stated, modern religion definitely recognizes the problem, which is why various dispensational theories attempt to resolve the disconnects by claiming that God treats people differently depending on when they live, yet most people recognize that they are grasping at straws by creating images that are not consistent with the balance of scripture. So, do you even recognize that a problem exists? If so, how do you rationalize the disconnect between the two testaments?
Notably, my first effort focused more on scripture to form an argument for the “spiritual” perspective, but I realized that no one could accept that argument because they imagine a different big picture for the purpose and overall message of God’s Word. So, while I could describe in detail how an area of scripture more clearly depicts an eye and not an ear, it would sound like foolishness because everyone perceives that scripture depicts the image of a young woman. I realized, and I hope others would also realize, that it is pointless to debate the meaning of verses when we approach God’s Word with different overall perspectives.
Consequently, I changed the focus of my effort to discuss the larger biblical perceptions, and to present the logical arguments for why a “symbolic” perspective should be considered when approaching the Bible. So, even though you may never in this life agree with my “big picture” perception, that God has given us a book depicting the spiritual life of a person and their eternal destiny, my goals are to create enough doubt in the literal historical perspective such that you will at least consider a symbolic perspective sometime in your future, while also giving you a sense of the new perceptions that will be revealed. Again, you will never even consider another perspective unless you sense that your current perspective is possibly wrong; therefore, I have made the following high-level logical arguments against the literal historical perspective.
First, the literal perspective of OT does not make logical sense because the perception of God is inconsistent with His expected nature. That disturbing perception of God’s nature is obvious to everyone, yet somehow everyone is able to rationalize the inconsistency in their own mind. Notably, some will claim that God purposely acted differently in the OT, which clearly contradicts the image that God is the same everyday. Certainly, God is very active in the story of Israel, but I have not found any biblical evidence supporting the concept that He has acted with different motives over time. Which begs the question, do you know how many people God presumably killed in the flood? The typical estimate is about the same number of people as living today, so how can anyone with a literal perspective ever rationalize or make sense of that image? Do you truly believe that God wants you to imagine that He literally killed billions of people, including “innocent” children? Notably, instead of confusion, the depictions of a vengeful God and the flood inspire hope and thankfulness when the images are perceived with an internal spiritual perspective.
Second, the literal perspective of the NT does not make logical sense because of the lack of practical instructions on how to actually do the commands, and because the basic concepts of salvation are not logically explained. Again, if the commands are intended as present-day requirements, then why does God not logically explain how to walk in the spirit, or how to take up your cross? Also, how can religion claim any true wisdom if a literal perspective results in no meaningful understanding of being born again, eating and drinking the body and blood of Jesus, the nature of sin, or the inheritance being stored in heaven? Religion even admits that it cannot logically explain any of the mysteries of salvation because it claims that God’s Word does not provide the information. Amazingly, not only does religion admit that it cannot logically explain how a person is saved, even worse is the ultimate contradiction regarding the proximate cause of your salvation, half of religion promotes man’s free will, and the other half promotes God’s sovereign election. Importantly, while every religion boldly states its doctrine, no religion can logically claim absolute truth because each religion creates their own “tradition” from their own understanding of select verses, rather than from an understanding of the balance of scripture. Arguably, every doctrine of every religion is debatable because there will always be the presence of inconsistencies resulting from a literal historical perspective that no religion can reasonably explain. Notably, instead of confusion caused by illogical inconsistencies, an ancient disciple would have perceived the NT commands as affirmations of the OT images that depict the mysteries of salvation, because he approached the entire Bible with an internal spiritual perspective.
Again, most religious people accept ignorance of God’s ways, therefore the many confusing, inconsistent, and sometimes contradictory images are considered a non-issue because, in most people’s minds, they perceive that they will be given any necessary understanding in heaven if the truth is important. Instead, Christians perceive that the only necessary understanding is a belief in the “essentials” of the faith, even though the simple message of salvation defies common sense by being too good to be true. Even the perception of a second coming to establish a physical kingdom in this world defies common sense by assuming that, while the Jews were fooled, the next time will be different. Yet, while the wise people of religion are able to suppress their God-given common sense, what truly amazes me is how every Christian is apparently willing to blindly accept that the two testaments were written by two totally different Gods. How else can you explain the major disconnects between the two testaments?
The handwriting is on the wall, and it clearly indicates that you should be questioning the literal historical approach to God’s Word. Certainly, most people participate in a religion because of their upbringing, and it is extremely difficult to challenge those core beliefs within yourself. Yet, if you were a scientist, then you would certainly be asking questions of religion’s thinking, because no true scientist would ever blindly accept any line of thinking as “truth” that resulted in such confusion and inconsistencies. Notably, as many of my cohorts would often tease me by saying “that ain’t right,” I am a stickler for the truth, and it has always been in my nature to question a concept until I feel comfortable with an understanding. That inquisitive aspect of my nature is apparently more unique than I realized, because Christians are apparently willing to blindly accept the simple answer of religion rather than thoughtfully consider the handwriting on the wall.
Fortunately, religion is dying a slow death in all developing countries as people thoughtfully question their religion, yet all people will still create a false image of God with or without religion. Notably, if my goal was simply to topple religion, then this effort would just be another argument about the absurdity of religion. However, unlike others who argue against religion, I am arguing for the truth of God’s Word, not against it. My argument is different, because I am giving you the logical reasons to consider a totally new perspective for approaching God’s Word that reveals the mysteries of salvation without any confusion or inconsistencies. So, if you do not yet appreciate the logic for approaching God’s Word with a symbolic perspective, then hopefully the two types of ancient Jews can provide some important thoughts to consider.
Eyes that see, ears that hear
Arguably, anyone who was raised with just the OT had a huge advantage over the religious people of today, because any ancient Jew would have certainly recognized the major disconnects in his literal perspective when he received the NT. So, whereas an ancient disciple who approached the OT with a symbolic perspective was already gaining an understanding of the hidden wisdom, those with a literal historical perspective were holding onto their own understanding of the OT. Hopefully, after being stunned by the realization that the NT revelation resulted in major disconnects between the two testaments, they recognized their own spiritual blindness, and they reconsidered their perception that Rabbi Paul was a wack job for promoting a symbolic perspective of the OT. Arguably, every “sleeping” Jew who approached God’s Word with a literal perspective would have certainly questioned his religious thinking when he was presented with the NT images. However, Christians who imagine their own version of the OT will never experience that same stunning realization, such that even after death, they could be oblivious to the disconnect for a very long time.
Arguably, the biblical image depicting this stunning realization by a “wise” Jew is the story of Paul. Certainly, there is a reason why God depicts Paul as the Pharisee of Pharisees, someone who obviously thought that he had a deep understanding of the OT based on a literal perspective. Yet, if I may ask some obvious questions, why does Paul not proclaim many of the things claimed by religion? If the simple message of salvation is the good news of Jesus, then why does Paul not clearly make that claim? Also, if the OT was the old religion, and the NT church is to be the new religion, then why does Paul not make that critical fact clear? Why does Paul never state that the old religious practices are no longer valid, notably practices that he had devoted his life to performing, and practices that are depicted as still occurring in the NT? Notably, Christ opened Paul’s mind to the OT scripture, not to new truths. So, what revelation changed Paul’s lines of thinking since he obviously already understood the literal truth of the OT? Religion may claim that Paul learned new truths that were not evident in the OT, but Paul states that the god of this world uses a veil to blind mankind to the true meaning of the OT, and not that the NT reveals a new understanding.
Consider, if you do not perceive the meaning of Paul’s image depicting a veil, then how do you know whether or not you are being blinded by it? And, if your understanding of the OT has never dramatically changed, then does that mean that the veil never existed in your life; or that the veil still exists in your life, but you do not yet perceive it? Again, how can a blind person know that they are blind if they never experienced sight? Do you still say “I see,” or have you been made blind to your old understanding (John 9:39-41)? Again, was not Paul made blind before he could see?
Consider the possibility that God could have simply said to Paul, “start approaching the OT in a symbolic manner, and I will teach you what the symbolism represents by leading you to the many inferences that provide understanding, such that you can be my prophet who not only affirms the mysteries of salvation that are hidden in the OT, but also a prophet who reveals the fulfillment of the many OT promises.” Arguably, Paul is being depicted as receiving new eyes and ears (i.e. the gift of prophecy), such that he could perceive the OT images symbolically instead of just perceiving them as literal rules and historical facts. And, just an any ancient disciple blessed with the gift of prophecy, he would have meditated on those images to reimagine their symbolic meaning while relegating his prior natural understanding. So, let’s consider how an ancient disciple would have perceived the key images of the story of Israel, and how he would have subsequently perceived the NT images. Importantly, would he perceive the same disconnects between the two testaments, or would he perceive the NT as an obvious continuation of the story of Israel?
The primary images depicted in the OT
In order to understand how an ancient disciple perceived the revelation of the NT, it is critical to have an understanding of how he perceived the primary images that God depicts in the OT. And, if I had to guess, there are two OT images that God depicts more often than any other to form His primary message. The first image is the frequent depiction of Israel being brought “out of Egypt,” a phrase that is explicitly stated around 150 times, and an image that is depicted in various forms hundreds of times. Arguably, God’s excessive reference to that event depicts that He considers the exodus as His greatest achievement in the life of Israel. The second image is the frequent depiction of “dispersed” Israel being called back from the surrounding nations to their inheritance of land as frequently promised (e.g. Jer 30:3). Arguably those are the bookends of the OT story of Israel, the exodus out of Egypt, and the promised ingathering of Israel into the promised land as one nation. Certainly, there are many deviations in Israel’s journey between those bookends, and God vividly depicts those deviations from the narrow path and His actions during the different periods of Jacob’s journey. Yet, Israel’s future restoration into the promised land as one nation is undoubtedly the primary image at the end of the OT.
Notably, while there are many OT prophetic images depicting a future restoration of Israel, the images at the end of the OT depict the “Jews” (i.e. Judah) building the second temple and establishing the city of Jerusalem, while the ten tribes of northern Israel are being held captive in the surrounding nations. Yet, if you perceive that the OT is intended to depict the Jewish religion or to predict the coming of Jesus, then do you even perceive the image of the promised ingathering? Arguably, I suspect that you perceive the OT simply as a relic of a past religion as I did, and that you have little appreciation for the fact that the OT is all about the future restoration of Israel. Ask any Christian, and undoubtedly they would claim that the primary purpose of the OT is to predict the coming of Jesus. Hopefully our ancient disciple will cause you to reconsider that perception of the OT.
The ultimate cliffhanger
As much as I have despised the responsibility to be the one to expend the effort to try to effectively promote consideration of the spiritual perspective, there is no doubt that my effort has been rewarded immensely with both profound understanding and great appreciation of the wonder and joy that results from immersion into God’s Word. And lately, the effort to consider how an ancient disciple experienced the same understanding and appreciation has produced stunning results. In particular, consider the ancient disciple who had immersed himself into the OT for hundreds of years, perhaps a thousand years, before the NT was revealed to him.
Consider how an ancient disciple was literally left “hanging” at the end of part one, and how he had to wait 100’s of years for part two. So, try to recall your level of excitement awaiting the opening episode for season two of your favorite show, and then magnify that sense of anticipation to a level at the furthest reaches of your imagination, and that is perhaps how an ancient disciple must have felt about 2,000 years ago. However, do you perceive the cliffhanger as he did?
Again, whereas religion depicts the 400 years of God’s silence between the two testaments as simply a period of time awaiting the coming messiah, an ancient disciple would have had many additional thoughts in mind. Because, having immersed himself into the story of Israel, he would have been awaiting a prophet to reveal the opening message for part two, and a complete part two that depicts how the promises made in part one would be fulfilled. Notably, I suspect that he had a good sense of what would be revealed, because the OT provides many depictions of the end times.
Next: Part 4