My admission
Importantly, please realize that since my journey began in earnest only a few years ago, just as you cannot imagine what I understand, I certainly cannot imagine the understanding of someone who devoted a thousand years or more towards meditation of just the OT. Notably, I registered my website domain in 2021, which is when I realized that I had sufficient confidence in the idea of promoting the spiritual perspective as being God’s intent for approaching His Word. Yet, while I was thrilled to discover that the latent language of symbolism exists within God’s Word, that revelation did not impact my core beliefs until I thoughtfully considered the implications of the new understanding. Because, just as perceiving the implications of calculus is much more significant than just knowing the answer of an abstract equation, I began to look beyond the words to consider the larger images being depicted. And, just as Einstein had to devote significant time to logically consider the implications of a series of images before any deeper understanding was revealed, I have only recently discovered the logical reasons to have confidence in my simple understanding of the mysteries of salvation.
My point is to emphasize that I feel naive compared to an ancient disciple who had mediated hundreds of years on just the OT, yet I feel confident in a simple understanding of the OT images that is as obvious as 1+1=2. Therefore, while I admit to not having a deep understanding of the images, at least I realize that the language of symbolism even exists. And, the only way that anyone can similarly appreciate how the story of Israel continues into the NT, they must first logically consider the symbolism that is being depicted in the OT. Otherwise, they will continue to perceive God’s Word as two distinct testaments with major disconnects that cannot be logically explained.
A new language, and a large gap
Admittedly, it is still strange to me how much thought God put into hiding the truth of His Word; yet, His effort goes beyond the latent language of symbolism, as He also obfuscates the matter by giving us part two of His Word 400 years later in the new language of Greek. Because, if He had used the same Hebrew language without a large “gap” in time between events, then many of the “shadows” that exist between the two testaments would be obvious to the reader. Yet again, the ancient disciple had a huge advantage over the modern reader, because he was able to perceive many shadows by leveraging the Greek translation of the OT, and because he had an intimate understanding of the OT images as the means to perceive the more subtle shadows.
Arguably, there are three methods to perceive that an OT image is being depicted in the NT. The most obvious method is the perception of direct quotes from OT scripture, and those instances should always cause the reader to investigate the context of the OT image. Certainly, an ancient disciple perceived the context of an OT verse, such that he understood how and why the NT speaker is using that verse in his discourse. Again, context matters, and arguably every OT verse was originally perceived in the context of the story of Israel. So, would Paul, or Jesus, or any NT speaker ever employ an OT verse in a different context than originally intended? Therefore, if you do not perceive the original context and the intended meaning of a re-quoted OT verse, then your understanding of the associated NT truth should be cast in doubt.
The second method to perceive an OT image in the NT is by recognizing the similarity of the images. For instance, many people recognize that the images within the gospel accounts of Jesus depict “shadows” of similar OT images. The NT images that depict His “messianic” fulfillments are fairly obvious, yet the images that depict His travels and His “sayings” also build upon images originally depicted in the OT. Of course, the very fact that He picks twelve disciples is obviously a shadow of the twelve tribes of Israel. Importantly, perceiving a more subtle shadow is dependent on having an intimate perception of the images, because the speakers typically employ different words to depict their particular image. Arguably, because an ancient disciple was intimately familiar with the images depicted within the story of Israel, he would have perceived many shadows that are not obvious to the modern reader, such as how the NT parables are based on OT images, or how the apocalyptic images depicting “beasts” are similar to the images from narrative accounts depicting kings and principalities. Arguably, recognizing the similarity of images is often impossible when the images are perceived with a literal historical perspective; because, as an example, how could a literal “beast” ever be perceived as a “king”?
The third method to perceive an OT image in the NT is through the use of the Septuagint, where the Greek translation of an OT Hebrew word is similarly used by a NT speaker. Admittedly, there was debate in my mind whether the Septuagint is God-breathed, but the direct quoting of its wording by NT speakers gives it credibility, and it provides a significant means to perceive the shadows between the testaments that a modern reader does not easily perceive. A key example is how the Greek word “ekklesia” is used in both the Septuagint and the NT to depict the “church” of God. Notably, perceiving how a key word is used in both testaments is paramount, otherwise you will often miss how a NT image is a shadow of an OT image.
Yet, while those three methods enable a modern reader to overcome the obstacle of a new language to perceive OT images in the NT, it is the large “gap” in temporal time between the two testaments that causes many to miss the shadows. Arguably, it is difficult to perceive one continuous story of Israel across the two testaments because many OT images seem to fade from the scene. Notably, there is no longer an apparent emphasis on tribes or nations, instead the focus appears to be on Jesus as the messiah. And the Jews are now depicted as the enemy of God instead of His chosen people. Therefore, for a casual reader, the NT certainly appears to depict a different story in a much different society, and not a continuation of the OT story of Israel; however, would an ancient disciple perceive the NT images in the same manner?
Arguably, the truth of God’s Word is timeless, such that our perceptions today should be the same as would have been perceived by an ancient disciple. Therefore, if he perceived the images as a continuation of the OT story of Israel, then would God expect a modern reader to perceive His Word any differently?
The modern nature of religion
Arguably, the modern reader should seriously consider the implications of the manner in which God’s Word is perceived today. Because, according to religion, the emphasis is on what the Bible means to people today, without reasonably considering the perspective of an ancient Jew. Again, the literal perspective would have been logically rejected by all “sleeping” Jews upon realization of the major disconnects with the NT, yet religion insists on maintaining its illogical literal perspective, such that a modern message of the good news can be formed. However, religion does not care that its modern message of salvation relegates the ancient Jew either to an eternal destiny of nothingness, or to the depressing hope that only a future generation will realize God’s promises. All religion cares about is that it has a message for you today, even if it condemns the ancient Jew.
Unlike modern religion, I cared that I did not logically understand the perspective of an ancient Jew, so I made a diligent effort to approach the OT with none of the preconceived notions imposed on me. Also, unlike those who argue against the truth of God’s Word, I approached scripture with an open mind that sought to clarify the inconsistencies, rather than approaching scripture looking to justify an unbelief by finding the many inconsistencies inherent within the literal perspective. Again, there are over 30,000 verses of scripture, so perhaps anyone can find select words that support a particular belief system, or the reasons not to believe. Yet, while there will always be confusion and inconsistencies whenever anyone approaches scripture with a literal historical perspective, the ultimate question is whether you should just accept the problems by responding with a “blind faith” or “no faith,” or whether you should care enough to logically question why those problems exist.
So, do you care to consider the perspective of an ancient disciple, someone who devoted hundreds of years to the study and meditation of God’s Word, or does it just matter what scripture means to you today? In a sense, I am applying the rule of hermeneutics that claims that we should read text as it was read by people at that time, and arguably an ancient disciple approached scripture with a symbolic perspective. Therefore, consider whether God is testing the selfish heart of the modern reader with the obstacles of a new language, the large gap in time, and the many obvious inconsistencies that exist within the modern worldly perspective. Because, if you discovered that your understanding is totally different than would have been perceived by an ancient disciple, then should that realization cause you to question your approach to God’s Word?
Early in my journey I realized that, since God’s Word is timeless, any understanding that I perceived should be the same whether I was reading scripture before or after my death. Frankly, much of my early understanding is a result of approaching scripture from the perspective as if I had already died, and a similar fruitful effort has resulted from assuming the perspective of someone who only had the OT scripture upon death. Now, because I cared to consider those other perspectives, I clearly perceive scripture as a parable depicting a timeless message, just as an ancient disciple would have logically approached God’s Word. Alternatively, religion wants you to perceive that scripture is a bunch of words written by ancient men to an ancient people, such that you can “insert yourself” wherever and however you want to derive meaning from the historical text. Arguably, religion is promoting a very selfish perspective, because it is making the NT into its own understanding for people today, without any consideration or recognition of the timeless nature of scripture.
Arguably, for anyone to truly appreciate how an ancient disciple perceived the NT images, the obstacles imposed by God must be overcome by the modern reader. Because, when you perceive the NT as a story that is resuming after a long hiatus instead of an entirely new story, then you can perceive how the NT images depict the affirmation or the fulfillment of their shadowed OT images, just as an ancient disciple would have perceived them.
Recap of Judah and the northern tribes
As a brief recap, after the period of the judges, the story of Israel depicts how God begins His kingdom of saints in the tribe of Judah and the city of Jerusalem, and how the ten tribes were dispersed out of the promised land with the promise to eventually gather them back into one church of God with Judah. Interestingly, God very often recaps various aspects of His story, such as 2 Kings 17:7-23 which provides a recap of the end of season one for the ten northern tribes. Oddly, we are not given any further images depicting the life of captivity for the northern kingdom, other than the image that they had joined themselves with other nations. Instead, the focus at the end of the OT is on the tribe of Judah and the city of Jerusalem.
Consequently, in order to perceive the continuous story of Israel into the NT, the more challenging and perhaps more important understanding is to perceive the story of Judah, particularly the series of events that precipitated the tribe’s condition at the end of part one. Importantly, did an ancient disciple perceive the story of Judah the same as religion does today, where the tribe of Judah is simply imagined as the tribe that fostered Jesus? We will discuss shortly how the NT image depicts the continuation of the story of Judah; however, let’s first consider the much simpler and more obvious matter of the northern tribes. Does the NT depict a fulfillment of the promised ingathering of dispersed Israel?
Perception of first images of the NT
Consider the odd fact that the gospel accounts of Jesus apparently were not the earliest NT books. Surprisingly, even though the gospel accounts are placed first in our canon, the letter by James and some of Paul’s letters presumably were written before the gospel accounts. And, if you read James and Paul by themselves, they create a very different first impression of the NT. So, imagine waiting hundreds of years for a prophet to reveal the opening message of part two, and you are given the first letters from James and Paul as the opening scene. What is your current perception of those letters, and how would an ancient disciple have perceived the first verses of part two of God’s Word?
Importantly, and only recently realized by me, many of the NT epistles are explicitly written to those who are being called out of the surrounding nations (Rom 1:7; 1 Cor 1:2; 2 Cor 1:1; Gal 1:2; Eph 1:1; Phil 1:1; Col 1:2; 1 Thess 1:1, 4; 2 Thess 1:1; 1 Peter 1:1). Notably, the first verse of perhaps the very first NT Words of God is a call to the dispersed twelve tribes of Israel (James 1:1). Arguably, an ancient disciple would have perceived the letters as depicting the beginning of the ingathering of scattered Israel to join Judah in becoming the church of God.
Consider also how the image of scattered Israel is depicted by the NT use of the word “diaspora” (James 1:1; 1 Peter 1:1; John 7:35), a Greek noun that depicts people who are spread from their homeland. Notably, that same Greek word is used in the Septuagint to translate “nadah,” a Hebrew word which means “to banish,” and the word that is often used in the OT to refer to those who were expelled from the promised land. Certainly, an ancient disciple would have recognized that significant yet subtle shadow between the two testaments.
Arguably, an ancient disciple would have perceived God’s fulfillment of the promised future ingathering of scattered Israel by the depiction of letters being sent to the “dispersed” tribes. However, do you follow religion’s advice to arbitrarily “insert yourself” into the image by simply imagining yourself as a modern recipient of the letters? Should you thoughtfully consider how an ancient disciple would have perceived the images?
Perception of tribes
Notably, most people realize that the distinction of “tribes” was not prevalent around the time of Jesus, just as there are no tribal distinctions that remain today. Again, some might argue that the Jews attempted to maintain a tribal “purity” in some sense; however, while some Jews may still today trace their heritage to a particular tribe, it is illogical to imagine that the ten northern tribes maintained any tribal distinctions while joining with other nations over hundreds of years. Practically every commentator makes reference to the “ten lost tribes” of the northern kingdom, so everyone realizes that the literal perspective of a future ingathering of Jewish tribes makes no sense.
However, James specifically addresses his letter to the twelve tribes (James 1:1), and Revelation clearly depicts the image of tribes as being present during the end times (Rev 7). Tribal distinctions are depicted elsewhere in the NT; with Paul being from the tribe of Benjamin (Rom 11:1; Phil 3:5), and Anna the prophetess being from the tribe of Asher (Luke 2:36). Interestingly, the twelve tribal names are even written on the heavenly gates (Rev 21:12); and Jesus describes how some will be sitting on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt 19:28; Luke 22:30). Of course, many perceive that Jesus’ selection of twelve disciples is obviously intended to depict the image of the twelve tribes of Israel, yet no one likely perceives how certain disciples are subtly depicted as being from a particular tribe. Consider, how do you perceive the images of tribes that are being depicted as existing even in the end-times, and how would an ancient disciple perceive the tribal images that are paramount to perceiving a continuation of the story of Israel into the NT?
Notably, some commentators offer speculations of possible scenarios that attempt to explain how the tribal identities might remain, or how they will be revealed in the end times, yet there is nothing in God’s Word that implies any special undertaking in the identification of who is a Jew. Notably, Paul even tells us that a “true” Jew is not traced by physical descent (Rom 2:28-29). Again, religion can provide no meaningful insight for why tribal distinctions are being depicted in Revelation, so it can only suggest “guesses” at the intended meaning. Notably, religion disregards the concept of “tribes” as being relevant in understanding the “essentials’’ of the faith, yet God obviously considers the image as being essential towards an understanding of the end-times. So, why would God consider the image of tribal identity as being essential, particularly since tribal distinctions are no longer a reality in a temporal sense?
The matter of tribal identities will be discussed shortly; yet, as stated earlier, one of the obstacles to perceiving the continuous story of Israel is the large gap in time that God creates between the two testaments. Logically, the gap causes a modern reader to perceive the OT as occurring in distant “archaic” times, whereas the NT is perceived as occurring in more modern times. Therefore, because many of the OT images are deemphasized, such as the images of tribes and nations, it is difficult to perceive God’s subtle indications that shadows of OT images are being depicted in the NT. So, does the perception of a large gap in time cause you to miss the shadows of tribes?
Consider, if you now know that approaching the Bible with a literal perspective prevents you from logically perceiving the OT images that are being depicted in the NT, then how should you respond? Should you just ignore the problem, or should you question your perspective? Specifically, since the image of an ingathering of “ancient tribes” in modern times does not make sense literally, should you consider whether the image made sense to an ancient disciple who approached the story as a parable and not as historical fact? Alternatively, if you are unwilling to consider another perspective, yet you recognize that a problem exists, then how do you rationalize the image of an ingathering of tribes that Paul and James are clearly depicting by addressing their letters specifically to those who were scattered hundreds of years earlier?
Modern perception of OT promise to a past generation
According to some dispensational belief systems, God literally promised a particular group of ancient Jews that sometime in the future He would establish Israel back into the promised land. Presumably, most Christians find that image confusing, because common sense would question how the restoration of a future generation provides any meaningful hope to the ancient Jew who presumably received the promise. Specifically, if you perceive that the OT is intended to literally depict a nation of people in the past, then how does the depiction of making a promise to a past generation that is actually fulfilled by a much later generation make any sense? Again, has religion convinced you to condemn the ancient Jew so that you can perceive its modern perception of the OT?
Thanks to man’s wisdom, the modern trend by many is to perceive God’s OT promise to Israel as being fulfilled by the future restoration of physical land to the nation of Israel, and the creation of the country of Israel presumably depicts a milestone towards that end-times event and the second coming. Notably, the next chapter will argue against the dispensational perception of the end times that intertwines the image of Zionism with a second coming; yet, even if that perception was accurate, then how does the restoration of physical land in the future logically provide the fulfillment of a promise made to specific people who died millennia ago?
The conundrum for religion with its literal historical perspective is to reasonably explain how ancient people who were scattered are to be gathered together in the future as God promised. Obviously, if the people depicted as being gathered by the NT letters are not literally the same people who were scattered centuries earlier, then how do you make sense of that image? I will argue this point further in the next chapter, but it is perhaps the greatest absurdity of end-times dispensationism to claim that God promised an ancient Jew thousands of years ago that a much later generation in the distant future would receive the fulfillment of the promise. What was the ancient Jew supposed to think? “Wow, good for them, but where does that leave me?”
Perception of ingathering a lineage
Would an ancient disciple have been similarly confused by a promise made to a past generation as being fulfilled by a later generation as depicted by the letters of James and Paul? Arguably, an ancient disciple did not perceive the OT images as depicting the historical records of literal people over many generations, rather he approached the story of Israel as a parable that was intended by God to provide an understanding. And, after logically considering the many images, such as God’s frequent depictions of “seed” over many generations, and how the early images depict a spiritual realm, and how God depicts death as sleeping, and how the dead are gathered to their fathers or buried in the tombs of their fathers; an ancient disciple would have considered that the OT images are symbolically depicting the “generations” over time of spiritual elements. Arguably, none of the images make sense, nor provide any wisdom, if you perceive the OT images as depicting literal people at a particular time; however, the images logically reveal a hidden wisdom when the story of Israel is approached as a timeless parable that symbolically depicts spiritual truths over many generations.
Consider how God makes many inferences to the destiny of the “lineage” of an entity, such as when a particular lineage is cut off or anointed; and arguably, the entire concept of lineage would have been perceived by an ancient disciple as being a critical aspect of God’s thinking. As depicted by the many prophesies and detailed imagery, God obviously cares much about the destinies of all the OT nations and their subsequent generations of seed. Certainly, one might expect God to elaborate on the twelve tribes of Israel, but why does He similarly provide enormous amounts of imagery depicting the character and destinies of the many surrounding nations? Frankly, I barely know three generations of my ancestral line, and I certainly do not care about the ancestral line of others. So, if I perceive no logical reason to pursue that ancestral understanding, then why would God care so much about depicting the lineage and the eternal destiny of every nation in the OT?
Consider how God frequently depicts the image of a vine or trees, images that by themselves inspire the thought of many generations of seed, and images that both Jesus and Paul build upon in their sayings. Notably, religion cannot reasonably explain the depiction of branches being cut off or thrown into the fire, because religion can only perceive the image as depicting literal people being cast into hell. Arguably, none of Paul’s or Jesus’ images can make complete sense if you perceive them as depicting literal people over time, because how can a branch be reattached if it has been cast into hell?
Arguably, the images that depict God’s activity over many generations, such as the image of branches being pruned or cast into the fire, would have made perfect sense to an ancient disciple, because he approached the images as depictions of an unobservable spiritual realm, and not as depictions of literal people. Certainly, God disciplines the nation whom He loves, often with fire, and His stated methods of discipline on the sons of adam’ from all of the nations will be discussed later. Yet, the important realization is that “discipline” does not result in eternal condemnation, rather discipline leads branches to godly repentance and restoration to the vine. Of course, perceiving God’s images that depict the repentance and restoration of spiritual elements is paramount towards gaining an understanding of the mysteries of the salvation.
Importantly, an ancient disciple logically considered the implications of a spiritual lineage that exists over many generations, and how God repeatedly employs the image of lineage to depict His activity within each and every nation. And, in order to fulfill His promise of a certain land to Abraham, for whatever reason God chose the lineage of Israel out of all the nations to display His glory. Notably, most of scripture is a series of images that depict God’s activity to fulfill His promise of land through the particular “lineage” of Abraham as traced through Issac to Jacob. Consider the frequent instances where a future or past generation is depicted as being “present” or referred to in some sense, even though they are obviously not physically present (e.g. Deut 29:14-15). As expected, religion with its literal historical perspective cannot reasonably explain those images, yet those images further support an ancient disciple’s logical perception of a spiritual lineage, where God can provide fulfillment to a future generation of seed even though the original promise was made to the past fathers of the lineage.
A spiritual perspective of God’s promise
Arguably, the OT is primarily the story of Israel’s relationships within the twelve tribes, and God’s activity to fulfill His promise to restore His chosen people to His promised land as one nation. And, if you can perceive the story of Israel as a parable depicting the eternal life of a particular portion of your soul through a lineage of many generations, then you can also logically understand how the promises that God made to Abraham, Issac, and Jacob can be “inherited” by the subsequent generations of their line of “spiritual” descendants.
Notably, I understand that it must sound bizarre to consider that God symbolically depicts your soul as a world consisting of many nations made from the element of adam’, and that the twelve tribes of Israel depict a certain portion of your soul that He has selected for a particular destiny. Yet, since I have become so comfortable with the perspective, I cannot perceive the images any differently anymore. And the primary reason that I am so comfortable with the new perspective is because it works every time. Importantly, all of the confusing images and apparent inconsistencies literally disappear once the images are approached with the internal spiritual perspective. Yes, the images are often unclear, because it is arguably impossible to truly imagine the deeper spiritual truths this side of death. And yes, the resulting logical understanding is totally different, and extremely sobering, particularly when compared to the “peace-peace” message of religion. However, all of scripture now makes sense, and not just the parts of my choosing. And, in this instance, a past promise that is fulfilled by a future ingathering can only make sense when the image is perceived as depicting a spiritual reality, and not the literal gathering of physical people.
Therefore, by assuming a spiritual perspective of the story of Israel, an ancient disciple would have logically perceived that the promise God made to a past generation is being fulfilled by the depiction of Paul and James “calling out” the exiles, the churches, the saints, and those who are called to be saints. Importantly, the word translated as saints can also be translated as “holy ones,” and that image obviously bears consideration. Who are the “holy ones” who are called “godly” and partakers of the divine nature? Religion likes to “soften” that wording by claiming that the images are simply encouraging a worthy goal; however, there is definitely an image of holiness being depicted that cannot be glossed over. Yet, before we consider the critical image of holiness, another key image to consider is regarding the depiction of a church. How do you perceive the image of a church, and how would an ancient disciple perceive this large image often depicted within God’s Word?
Next: Part 5