First perceptions of God’s Word
Arguably, the early images depicted by God in Job and Genesis should be perceived today as an ancient disciple would have perceived them, because it would be illogical to think that God expects people to have a different understanding over time. Of course, religion has already predisposed you to perceive that Genesis depicts the creation of the physical world and mankind, and that the book of Job depicts why bad things happen to good people. Yet, would an ancient disciple share those perceptions? Notably, both sets of images depict the Lord in the company of others; so, would he perceive those images as a depiction of literal people in heaven?
Consider the images of the Lord’s throne room as depicted in the first two chapters of Job. Presenting themselves before the Lord are the “sons of God,” when Satan comes into their midst (Job 1:6). The Lord is depicted as allowing Satan to cause pain in the life of “righteous” Job, and the Lord later states that Satan “incited” Him to “swallow up” (i.e. consume) Job without cause. So, how does your perception of those images compare with that of an ancient disciple? Would he perceive those images as a depiction of a literal Satan who roams the earth with power to inflict pain that God has allowed? If you think so, then does Satan have that same power today? Of course, religion might tell you that Jesus has become your mediator, so perhaps you perceive that the “accuser” no longer has that power in your life. However, does that mean that there was a literal external Satan inflicting you before you were “saved,” and does that satanic being still inflict unbelievers today? Arguably, religion presents Satan as an external being, or some vague force in this world, but would an ancient disciple have that perception? Notably, still to this day religion cannot provide any meaningful understanding of who is being depicted in Job as the “sons of God,” but could a Jew who was a disciple of God’s Word perceive the meaning? What other images might he consider?
Notably, there is another throne room scene similar to Job’s depicted in the story of Ahab, where the prophet Micaiah describes “all the host of heaven” standing left and right of the Lord (1 Kings 22:19). Amazingly, a “spirit” responds to the Lord’s request to “entice” Ahab to fall, and God allows the spirit to be “a lying spirit in the mouth of all of his (Ahab’s) prophets” (1 Kings 22:22). So, how would a disciple perceive those similar images of the throne room of the Lord? Perhaps he would consider that both scenes in Job and Kings are intended to symbolically depict a spiritual realm that is beyond his natural senses; so, how would that realization impact the way he perceived the other “heavenly” depictions?
Again, many recognize that the OT does not provide a clear depiction of “going to” heaven, yet the OT does provide a number of scenes that depict the heavenly realm. For instance, many are familiar with Isaiah’s vision of the heavenly temple (Isa 6), or Daniel’s vision of the ancient of days sitting on a throne (Dan 7:9), and perhaps some are also familiar with Ezekiel’s heavenly vision (Ezek 40-48). However, consider the scene in Zechariah 3 that depicts Satan standing to accuse Joshua the high priest, and how that image is similar to Job’s depiction of Satan and the sons of God. Notably, Jude provides us with an affirming image (Jude 9); yet, even without Jude’s affirmation, how would an ancient disciple perceive the depiction of Joshua the high priest being in the presence of Satan and the angel of the Lord? Would he perceive that Joshua is intended to depict a literal person; or, would he perceive that Joshua is a symbolic depiction of a “son of Israel,” who is made a “son of God” in the presence of other spiritual elements (Hos 1:10)? Importantly, since Joshua is depicted elsewhere as a “person” in the story of Israel, what conclusions would a disciple draw from these depictions? Would he consider the possibility that the other images of Israel are also intended as symbolic depictions of an unobservable spiritual realm?
As will be argued in the next chapter, an ancient disciple was able to perceive the future hope of the “promised land” as a depiction of “heaven” because he instinctively approached the images symbolically. Importantly, he was encouraged to assume that overall symbolic perspective because of these early images of the Lord’s throne room. Arguably, while we have the benefit of the affirming throne room images in Jude and Revelation, they do not provide any meaningful understanding when they are perceived apart from the OT. Yet, even without the benefit of the NT, an ancient disciple would have logically perceived the first images of Job as depictions of a spiritual reality, and that perception would greatly impact the way he perceived the other early images depicted by God.
Hebrew Language
Before more images are discussed, the matter of language must be addressed. Early in my journey, I was made aware of Robert Alter, a professor who is widely regarded as an expert in the study of the Hebrew language. I would strongly encourage everyone to consider reading some of his efforts, because you will better understand the impact of the modern English translation. Importantly, Hebrew words incorporate an imagery that does not exist with English words, so it often requires many English words to try to describe the meaning of one Hebrew word. Interestingly, this is why the Hebrew scrolls of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles each had to be divided into two scrolls, because the translation from the Hebrew into Greek required too many words to fit onto one scroll. Importantly, even the use of many English words often does not convey the fullness of the original Hebrew, a deficiency that Robert Alter attempts to mitigate in his translation of the OT. Sadly, I am unable to efficiently utilize his translation in my studies because it has not been digitized and made available in my Bible study tool from Logos (www.logos.com).
A particular thought to consider is that the ancient Jew did not have “books” of scripture, rather much of the communication was verbal. Another important aspect of the Hebrew language is that the vocalization of the words is a form of poetry in itself; such that, just as you remember a “jingle” or perhaps an entire song because of the way the words sound together (think ABCDEFG…), a Jew could recall scripture because the sounds of the words flowed together in his mind like a jingle. Therefore, because of the imagery and the sounds that are inherent in the Hebrew language, a Jew was able to memorize much if not all of the OT. Can you imagine the impact on your ability to meditate on God’s Word if you similarly had ready access in your mind to the entire OT? And, recalling how our imagination prefers working with images more than words because images are more efficient, arguably a Jew could more easily perceive the images being depicted by God and their intended meaning, whereas religion encourages you to memorize the literal words of a verse and try to imagine your best understanding of the words.
Consider, just as your understanding of the English words “judgement” or “judgmental” are based on your understanding of the word “judge,” there are similar concepts for Hebrew words such as the “Lemma” and a “root” word. And, as you might imagine, understanding the meaning of the “spinoffs” or the root words is often critical in perceiving the imagery being presented. For instance, the Hebrew name of one of the tribes is translated as “Dan,” which means “to judge,” and the Hebrew word for god is “el,” so the name Daniel depicts “judge of god.”
Importantly, this matter regarding the English translation of words is far from a trivial matter, because finding related images often requires an understanding of the word relationships that are frequently hidden by the English translation. Again, a Jew would have had a huge advantage by being able to instinctively perceive how certain words relate to each other, whereas you will have no idea of the relationship unless you devote significant effort to overcome the obstacle.
Notably, the very fact that the modern English translation significantly impacts the meaning of God’s Word adds credibility to the spiritual perspective. Because, since we are told that not one iota of His Word will pass away, arguably there are many iotas and larger elements that are missing in the modern English translation. Consequently, how could God reasonably hold any modern reader accountable for their misunderstanding if even a small portion of His Word was made inaccurate by the translation to English? So, if I have been given a defective book, then can I use that as an excuse for not understanding?
Again, from my perspective, the arguments regarding the inaccuracy of God’s Word as justification for disbelief are foolish because it is obvious that the English translation is far from perfect, and the trend is to deviate even further from the original text. Yet, in this life, the Holy Spirit can certainly overcome the missing iotas to provide a disciple with enough “resolution” to sufficiently perceive the images on their journey towards understanding. Also, it would be unreasonable to think that anyone will not receive a full fidelity form of His Word in our next life; because, knowing what I now know of the amazing images in God’s Word, it is a heresy to even consider that everyone will not have the opportunity to experience the intended full wonder of God’s Word.
Arguably, the intended meaning of every iota adds knowledge to the image that God’s Word is depicting, and that knowledge is there for a reason. Yet, religion promotes the concept that you only need to understand the essentials of the faith, and the rest of the knowledge is optional, or just “added color” if you want it. However, if God added that knowledge into His Word, do you think you can avoid a full understanding of the images (e.g. 1 John 2:20-21)? For instance, since religion perceives the Bible as a book of literal historical facts, the meaning of names of people and places are rarely studied, rather they are simply considered as adding color to God’s Word. However, are the names of the twelve tribes of Israel just coincidences, or did God intend them to provide knowledge towards the meaningful understanding of a truth? Similarly, do you consider the particular mother of each son of Jacob, or the position of each tribe around the tabernacle, as just odd facts, or as depictions of important inferences towards a profound understanding?
Presumably, many imagine that any necessary knowledge will just be “given” to them if it is important, but I would strongly advise reconsideration of that perspective. Because, if God’s plan was to give you all knowledge all at once sometime in the distant future, then why would He repeatedly and emphatically berate those who do not seek understanding? Notably, for an ancient disciple who expected symbolism and perceived God’s Word as a parable depicting some reality, every iota would have been considered important, whether or not its meaning was immediately understood.
Consequently, we should recognize that a Jew had the benefit of perceiving an imagery that is often lost on the modern reader, and the question is whether you consider that loss as being meaningful. Arguably, a disciple seeking to perceive the thoughts of a perfect God would consider any loss as being meaningful. Notably, the English translation hides not just the imagery inherent in each word, but very often the “poetic nature” of the text is also totally lost on the modern reader. And, as many commentators debate, the images in early Genesis are presented in a form of poetry that must be considered by the modern reader.
Perception of creation
Again, you were told that the early images of Genesis depict the creation of the physical world, and perhaps you were also told that much of God’s Word is a “polemic” against the archaic beliefs of that time. Therefore, since scientific knowledge was primitive 3,000 years ago, presumably God needed to begin His Word with an understanding of the physical world. However, considering that an ancient disciple expected symbolism, and that he appreciated the poetic form of the creation account, would he perceive the depictions of the sun, moon, and stars in a literal manner? How would he determine the intended meaning of the images depicted within the creation account?
Recalling the concept of inference to the best explanation, this concept was deemed necessary for gaining biblical understanding because God rarely provides a vivid description of an image in a single verse. However, sometimes He does, and an ancient disciple would have certainly appreciated the amazing pearl of wisdom provided by God through the voice of Jacob (Gen 37). Imagine a disciple meditating on the scene of Joseph describing his dream of the sun, moon, and eleven stars bowing down before him, and particularly when Jacob rebukes Joseph by explicitly asking, “Shall I and your mother and your brothers actually come to bow ourselves down before you to the ground?” Importantly, God even emphasizes the amazing significance of the symbolic understanding by noting that Jacob “kept the saying in mind” (Genesis 37:11; similar Luke 2:19, 51).
Notably, there are numerous very significant “sayings” or inferences throughout scripture that together form a profound symbolic understanding of the sun, moon, and stars; so, how would an ancient disciple perceive the images of the creation account, and the frequent warning not to worship the “host of heaven” (Deut 4:17; 17:3; 2 Kings 17:16)? Again, you were likely told to perceive the warning as a command not to worship the literal celestial bodies, such that the command does not apply to you because you have the benefit of modern wisdom; however, are you being blinded by your own wisdom? Arguably, without the deception of the literal perspective that has been imposed on you, an ancient disciple would have easily recognized that the warning not to worship the “host of heaven” is intended as a symbolic depiction of spiritual elements that should not be worshipped. Notably, whereas you likely perceive the images depicting the darkening of the sun and moon with stars falling from the heavens as a literal temporal event, an ancient disciple would have perceived a profound symbolic understanding of a future reality as developed by the many bits of inferences. Therefore, for you as a modern reader, consider which perception of the warning not to worship the host of heaven would likely inspire you to seek a deeper understanding of the sun, moon, and stars, and which perception would likely cause you to experience apathy and pride?
Perception of adam’
Perhaps one of the greatest deceptions created by the modern English translation is regarding the word “man,” or mankind, because the English translation hides the fact that there are primarily two Hebrew words that are translated as man. Of course, the first mention of man is in the creation account where God uses the word adam’ to describe His creation (Gen 1:26). Today, many people obviously perceive Adam as the name of the first human being; however, I would argue that an ancient disciple would not have imagined the depiction of adam’ in that manner. Because, if you were to study the word adam’, then you would realize that only about 25% of the OT words translated as “man” are actually the word adam’. And, if you were to consider how the word adam’ is employed versus the common word for man, then you will begin to perceive the creation account as an ancient disciple.
Consider how Paul uses the image of adam’ when discussing the difference between a natural body versus a spiritual body (1 Cor 15:45-49), and there are NT verses that requote the OT where the word adam’ is utilized (e.g. Heb 2:6). Also, God calls Ezekiel the son of man (adam’), which is a phrase often used by Jesus. Notably, religion even admits that it does not understand the meaning of the phrase, yet it is at the core of all understanding of yourself. Critically, you will never understand the mysteries of your salvation until you begin to understand God’s depiction of adam’. Because, as Daniel affirms, the first of four kingdoms is the image of the sons of adam’, while the fourth kingdom that overcomes is the image of the holy saints, the sons of God. Notably, Paul affirms the same concept when he discusses being rescued from the kingdom of darkness and being transferred to the kingdom of the Son of His love (Col 1:13). However, even without Paul’s affirmation of the two kingdoms, an ancient disciple would have surely perceived the image of adam’ as a symbolic depiction of a profound truth within the unobservable world, and not as a depiction of a literal person in the world.
Consider how religion uses many “catchy” phrases, such as “God loves you just as you are, but He loves you too much to leave you as you are.” Arguably, religion often recites the correct words, but they are typically incorrect in their understanding of the words. In this instance, religion promotes that catchy phrase by claiming that you will somehow be transformed into a better person in this life if you join their belief system, but the transformation is actually depicted as the chosen parts of your human soul (i.e. the sons of Israel) becoming partakers of the “divine” nature (i.e. the sons of God). And, if you were to focus on just the OT as an ancient disciple did, then you would also recognize that God’s anointing of David symbolically depicts the beginning of that kingdom transformation in the life of Israel.
Perhaps you can begin to understand my disdain for mankind, particularly the “wise” people of religion, because they should have never allowed the translation of the particular Hebrew word “adam’” into the common English word “man.” That one change alone hides in plain site the beginning of any understanding towards the mystery of salvation; however, an ancient disciple would have easily perceived the distinction and searched for the reasons why, and how, God employs the word adam’ as He does. Notably, I was practically no where in my understanding until that deception was revealed.
Affirming images
One of the key milestones early in my journey towards discipleship was my first exegetical paper that I wrote for a seminary assignment. I will discuss the particulars later, but the pertinent point is that I realized how the parables of Jesus were depicting scenes from the OT. Importantly, not only did I perceive what Jesus is describing, but I was then able to better perceive what the OT images are depicting. That realization changed how I studied scripture from trying to interpret words to seeking “affirming” images elsewhere in scripture.
Importantly, I sense that my journey truly started when I discovered the process of seeking the image in the OT that is being affirmed in the NT. Critically, while the OT provides the necessary information to reveal a mystery, the “proof” for me was when a NT image affirmed the understanding. However, I always wondered how an ancient disciple would have obtained a similar high level of confidence in his symbolic understanding without the NT, because I had never perceived a particular OT image being affirmed by another image elsewhere in the OT. Notably, I felt that I was given an advantage over an ancient Jew, because he did not have the same benefit of the NT affirmations during his life on earth; however, that perception changed dramatically not long ago. Because, when I focused on just the OT, I found one of the most important affirmations that any ancient disciple would have cherished with all of his heart.
Daniel’s affirmation; a nail in the coffin for religion
Not long ago, I decided to try to perceive the images of the “end times” from the perspective of a Jew. How did an ancient disciple perceive the apocalyptic images within Daniel, Ezekiel, Zechariah, and the other prophets? Of course, modern man insists that Daniel’s prophecies depict events of the world, but it seemed odd to me that God would make prophesy so vague that we had to guess what nations or times are being depicted. And, at some point in my search, I perceived the image of King Jeroboam as the object being depicted as the fourth beast (Dan 7), and that one insight changed my perspective of Daniel. I will further discuss Daniel in the next chapter, but the important realization is that I began to consider Daniel’s images as depicting events from the story of Israel, and not as literal events of the world. And the most amazing realization occurred when I perceived the images being depicted in Daniel’s first dream interpretation.
As Daniel interprets the king’s dream, he describes Nebuchadnezzar as the “king of kings” whom God had given sovereignty over sons, beasts, and birds, and that depiction obviously has shadows of the creation account. It did not take long to perceive the second “inferior” kingdom as a shadow of Eve, the third kingdom as a shadow of the serpent who rules over the earth, and the fourth kingdom as a shadow of the future kingdom of the sons of God. Importantly, by realizing that the images depicted in early Genesis are being affirmed elsewhere in the OT, this realization meant that an ancient disciple without the NT could have obtained a high level of confidence in his symbolic understanding. Notably, the depiction of Nebuchadnezzar as being a “king of kings” who “rules over sons” provided additional profound insight, such that I was able to reimagine Matthew’s affirming image of four sets of generations. However, let’s just consider how an ancient disciple would have perceived Daniel’s dream interpretation.
Consider that Nebuchadnezzar was losing sleep because he was asking the same great questions of life as every person ponders (Dan 2:29), yet how would religion’s perception that the images depict future world events provide any wisdom towards an understanding of his particular future life? Daniel states that God reveals the “profound and hidden things” (Dan 2:22), and the mysteries that will be at “the end of the days” (Dan 2:28). Therefore, which is more likely the wisdom being depicted; odd world events that simply create debate and provide no wisdom whatsoever, or an affirmation of the simple yet deep understanding of the profound yet hidden nature of a person and his destiny? Why would Nebuchadnezzar, or anyone, lose sleep over what will happen in this world 100’s of years from now? What thoughts of your heart do you think God is wanting to reveal to you (Dan 2:30)?
Arguably, by perceiving Daniel’s vision as an affirmation of the spiritual nature of every person and his eternal destiny, the literal historical approach to God’s Word is literally put to death in the mind of every disciple. Because, the moment you perceive Daniel’s vision as God’s affirmation of the symbolic perspective of the creation account, then you must similarly relegate all of your prior perceptions that imagined the biblical images as depictions of the world around you, and instead reimagine all of the images with the same internal spiritual perspective. Arguably, there are other “affirming” images within the OT that similarly provide an ancient disciple with a high level of confidence in the symbolic perspective, and I will discuss Daniel’s affirming image of the four beasts in the next chapter. Importantly for me, while I had a high confidence level in the symbolic approach with just the ability to perceive affirming images in the NT, any remaining doubt was erased when I realized that even an ancient disciple with just the OT had access to affirming images that would have similarly erased any doubt of approaching scripture with a symbolic perspective.
I suspect that very few people will consider Daniel’s dream interpretation as “proof” of the validity for approaching God’s Word with a symbolic perspective, yet hopefully it will cause some of you to at least reconsider the literal historical approach. More than anything, consider the implications of the two approaches to the book of Daniel, and consequently all of scripture. One approach suggests that you need to read commentaries written by wise men to consider their opinion of the various prophecies, and the other approach argues that you must search only within scripture to discover the prophetic understanding. You can call me a wack job all you want, but which perspective is promoting scripture, and which is promoting man’s wisdom?
As stated, my goal is to give you the reasons to consider the symbolic perspective as you approach God’s Word. Arguably, I cannot “prove” the spiritual perspective is correct because there is no single “magic bullet” that anyone could accept as absolute proof. My certainty in the spiritual perspective is the result of accumulating 100’s of inferences towards that understanding, but any one of those inferences does not prove anything. I regard the situation much like rain drops revealing a hidden picture, and the only way you can perceive the picture of the old woman is by similarly going through the experience of having that picture revealed to you drop by drop. Of course, that would require you to devote time in scripture, and even more time for meditation to reimagine how a new understanding fits with the other images. Unfortunately, everyone has already solidified their own understanding, so my presumption is that very few people will be willing to devote the effort to dig for the pearls and reimagine all of the images. At least not in this life.
Perceptions of generations and death
Let’s resume how an ancient disciple would have perceived a couple other key images depicted in the OT, starting with the Hebrew word “toledot,” which is typically translated as “generations.” If I was a betting man, then I would wager that you perceive the frequent listing of genealogies in the OT as a “Jewish” tradition, presumably to trace their heritage to ensure religious purity or their national pedigree. However, if you are assuming that the Jewish people thought it was important to record their heritage, then are you forgetting that the Bible was written by God? Perhaps you can understand why the genealogy of Jesus is important, but why would God devote so much time to the depiction of the generations of many others, even the generations of non-Jews?
Importantly, the first use of the word “toledot” is in the creation account where we are told that “these are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created” (Gen 2:4). So, knowing that an ancient disciple did not perceive the image of the “host of heaven” as literally depicting the things in the sky, and that the depiction of land or earth is also symbolic, consider how he would have perceived God’s proclamation of creation. Notably, Paul will later discuss walking in the day and night, so is Paul talking about literal times of the day, or is he affirming deep spiritual truths that were first revealed in the creation account (1 Thes 4)?
So, why does God frequently list the “generations” of a man and his descendants (i.e. “seed”)? Please realize that an ancient disciple would have instinctively considered the symbolism by the many inferences of generations being depicted within a house, a tribe, or a nation; whereas you probably simply perceive that the houses, tribes, or nations wanted to record their heritage. Again, we have the benefit of the affirming images of Revelation that reveal that there are still the same house, tribal, and national identities being depicted in the end times; yet, even without that affirming image, an ancient disciple would have certainly recognized that the many listings of generations was intended to depict how the “lineage” of a house, tribe, or nation existed over a period of time. Importantly, some lineages are “cut off,” while other lineages receive eternal promises; therefore, please do not just dismiss these lists of generations as a strange Jewish tradition, but understand that there is a symbolism being depicted by God that will never be apparent with the literal historical perspective. Arguably, God does “stereotype” in great detail the character and the eternal destinies of houses, tribes and nations, and the question that should be asked is “why?”
Consider also, why would God depict that a man is “gathered to his fathers” or “sleeps with his fathers” when he dies? Why are people who die often referred to as sleeping, both in the OT and NT? Are you blindly assigning your simple understanding of a physical death, thereby causing you to miss a deep spiritual truth? Notably, Paul makes odd comments about “sleep” when he discusses what many perceive to be a “rapture” of physical beings; because, if sleeping is akin to physical death, then how do dead people “do their sleeping at night” (1 Thes 5:7)? How does a dead person “do” anything?
Arguably, if you consider that God is not simply depicting “seed” as physical descendants, and that spiritual elements do not just die and cease to exist, then you will begin to reimagine what it means to experience “generations” and “sleep” throughout your eternal spiritual life. Notably, if you expect to perceive literal things, then you will only imagine literal things, and you will likely suspend any further thinking. Yet, if you expect symbolism, then you will seek understanding of the images by digging for the bits of inferences that point to an understanding, and you will engage your thought process to reimagine how God is depicting those images to reveal the hidden wisdom. And, based on all of the symbolism being depicted in the OT, you will eventually consider the possibility that the story of Israel is intended as a parable.
Next: Part 3