Perception of church
Arguably, many perceive that the concept of a church started with the NT. However, the Greek word “ekklesia” that is often translated as “church” is the same Greek word employed in the Septuagint for the Hebrew word “qahal.” Notably, the NT also employs the word “ekklesia” when restating OT scripture (Ps 22:22; Heb 2:12), so there is likely a common understanding that is being intentionally depicted across the two testaments. Interestingly, the first depiction of a “qahal” is within Isaac’s blessing upon Jacob (Gen 28:3-4); and, much like perceiving how God employs the word adam’, a similar word study of “qahal” and “ekklesia” will reveal that God is depicting a very significant understanding by the image of a church.
Importantly, the Greek word “ekklesia” is the combination of the preposition (ek), meaning “out of,” and the verb (kaleo) signifying “to call;” so, taken together, the word depicts the image of “to call out of.” Obviously, a simple understanding of that word would have further supported an ancient disciple’s perception that God is depicting the promised ingathering. And, with his understanding of the OT images depicting the assembly (qahal) of “holy ones,” he would have perceived the NT image of a “church” as depicting a profound future reality. Yet, unlike the ancient disciple, most modern people settle for their simple perception that the NT image of the church is intended to depict the start of the Christian religion.
Notably, the NT image of the church is considered by some as being the “body” of Christ in some sense (e.g., Col 1:18, 24), so many realize that a deeper meaning of “church” is intended, certainly more than just a group of people who claim to belong to an organized religion. Again, the early church tried to adopt the premise of a “replacement” theology where the Christian church replaces Judaism, but that approach resulted in much confusion over how to meaningfully “reapply” the old Jewish customs to the present-day church. Therefore, a more modern attempt to suggest a deeper meaning of church promotes the concept that the NT is depicting the “invisible” church that consists of the “true” believers. Of course, no one knows how to determine who truly belongs to this invisible group, so many are left with the image of the church as being the visible groups of people who form today’s organized religions. However, my emphatic request is to not allow religion’s easy perception of today’s “church” prevent you from seeking the simple yet deep understanding of becoming a part of the body of Christ and the church of God.
Importantly, even without an understanding of the OT image depicting a qahal, the NT depicts that the church of God had already existed in Judea when Paul sent his first letter (1 Thes 2:14; also Gal 1:22), and James similarly depicts an early image of the church (James 5:14). So, who is being depicted by the NT image of “holy ones” who are being called to join with Judah to become one nation with one heart and one soul (Acts 4:32)? And, based simply on the meaning of the word ekklesia, the question is not only who are the holy ones being called out, but from “where” are they being called out of?
Also, in the formation of the church as depicted during the time of Jesus, Paul’s mission was to go to the gentiles with a stated purpose (Acts 26:17-18). Yet, who are the gentiles being called out of darkness, and how are they being delivered from the authority of Satan to God?
Perception of the gentiles
Based on depictions by Peter and Paul (Acts 3:26; Rom 1:16; 2:9; 11), a popular perception is that the “Jews” were the first to be given the opportunity to repent, yet their rejection meant that the opportunity passed onto the gentiles. Again, as is often the case, religion states the correct words; however, perceiving the image as depicting literal people in the past results in the wrong conclusion. In this instance, religion concludes that the NT image of “gentiles” is intended to depict anyone who is not a Jew, so presumably anyone today who is not a Jew can claim to be a gentile. Yet, while that arbitrary extension of the image of gentiles to you today may support the message of religion, does that method of “application” read meaning into the text? Again, can you just “insert yourself” into the image as a gentile, or should you consider how a disciple of the OT would have perceived the depictions of the Jews being “first”?
A simple word study reveals that the NT image of the gentiles is rooted in OT imagery, where the Greek word translated as “gentiles” is a shadow of the OT Hebrew word employed for “nations” (e.g., Ps 2:1; Acts 4:25). As such, just as intimately perceiving the OT depictions of an “qahal” is necessary to understand the NT depictions of an “ekklesia,” intimately perceiving the OT depictions of the nations is also necessary to understand the NT depictions of the gentiles. Again, if you simply rely on the perceptions as suggested by religion, then you will certainly miss the subtle shadows between the two testaments that God is depicting in His story. So, should you rely on the “recency bias” of the perspective being promoted by modern religion, such that you can conform the image to your benefit, or should you seek to perceive God’s eternal message? Of course, modern religion perceives evangelism as a primary mission of the church; yet, do you not consider it odd that the OT never depicts a similar image of evangelism? Why does God never encourage Israel to evangelize to the other nations? Notably, Jonah is perceived by religion as depicting a reluctant evangelist, but is your message of the good news “yet 40 days, and you too will be overthrown”? Yet, if you do not understand why Jesus refers to the “sign of Jonah” as He does, then you do not understand the image being depicted by the book of Jonah. Because, as with Daniel’s prophecies, religion has transformed the profound prophesy of Jonah into images that promote its modern perception of good news, without any consideration of how an ancient disciple would have perceived the images.
Arguably, you should consider how ancient disciples perceived the images of the gentiles and aliens from the other nations. Because, instead of God instructing Israel to evangelize so that the people from other nations would join the Jewish religion, an ancient disciple would have perceived how God depicts that Israel was to both “possess” and “dispossess” the surrounding nations, and how aliens would “join” themselves to the people of God who were returning from the other nations. So, unless you can meaningfully explain the OT images of possessing and dispossessing the other nations, and how aliens were to join to God’s people, then you do not correctly perceive the NT images of gentiles and the Greeks. Notably, an ancient disciple would not only perceive the NT image of the tribes being called from the nations as the fulfillment of OT prophecy, but also the NT image of the “Greeks” coming to see Jesus would have been perceived as a very subtle shadow with profound implications. Yet, the wonder of that prophetic fulfillment is totally lost on the modern reader thanks to religion’s focus on its message.
Importance of perceiving fulfillment
If there are any prophesies that you do not perceive as being fulfilled by another image elsewhere in scripture, then should your original perception of the prophetic image be questioned? Specifically, does it make sense that God would depict a prophetic image without also depicting its later fulfillment? Notably, there are numerous instances where OT prophetic images are left as “unfulfilled” when perceived with the literal perspective, such as when the nations are to be judged in the valley of Jehoshaphat (Joel 3). So, has that judgment on the nations already occurred without any depictions of fulfillment? If not, then will these nations be judged in the distant future?
Yet, does it make sense that God is “reserving” judgment for specific nations for actions that their ancestors presumably did to the “sons of Judah and Jerusalem” in the distant past? How can God reasonably judge future generations for the actions of their distant forefathers? Of course, the modern reader cannot explain the unfulfilled prophetic images of judgment upon the nations, such that he “must” not care whether or not there has been fulfillment. Notably, there is practically no mention in the NT regarding the judgment of specific nations other than the depictions in Revelation, so should the modern reader not be concerned with the many OT prophetic destinies of nations?
Consider how, thanks to religion, the simple answer of “Jesus” becomes the sole response for all of the OT prophetic images. Consequently, the modern reader does not perceive the need to understand OT prophecy, because presumably Jesus will come again one day to judge the nations however is appropriate. Therefore, even though he has no meaningful understanding of the prophetic images, the modern reader assumes that he can feel safe from the prospect of looming judgment because the prophesies do not apply to Christians today.
Consider whether you should accept religion’s suggestion that Jesus is the answer to every prophetic image, or whether you should thoughtfully consider how an ancient disciple would have perceived the prophetic images of the nations and their later fulfillment. Arguably, given God’s abundant imagery and the prophetic destinies depicted for every nation in the OT, an ancient disciple would have considered all of the imagery, such that he would have gained a high level of confidence in the “world” being depicted, and in the prophetic destinies of the various elements of that world. Notably, the foundation of his understanding of that world would have been based on God’s depictions of the nations that descend from the sons of Noah. Profoundly, God prophesies the future “enlargement” of Israel as far back as during the sons of Noah, and an ancient disciple would have perceived an extremely profound understanding of the depiction of Javan (i.e. the Greeks), notably a nation that arrives late in the biblical story of Israel.
As will be argued later, the prophetic image within Revelation of Gog and Magog is also depicting the fulfillment of the OT prophetic depiction of Israel joining with the other nations; however, the ability to perceive the shadows between the two testaments of nations such as the Greeks is totally lost on the modern reader. Because, whenever the images are approached with the literal historical perspective, then the obscure images in Revelation are perceived as occurring in the distant future relative to the similar OT images, such that the images must be perceived as something different than the original OT images. Consequently, the images of the nations in Revelation, such as Babylon and the Greeks, cannot be perceived as shadows of the OT images that depict those nations, because common sense would say that those same nations cannot exist in the future since they do not exist today. As such, for the modern reader, any understanding of the apocalyptic images depicting beasts and nations must be based solely on the guesses of wise men, rather than from any understanding of the prophetic images as depicted elsewhere in God’s Word. Yet, for an ancient disciple, instead of simply guessing at the meaning of any NT image, he could logically consider how the apocalyptic image depicts the prophetic fulfillment of a promise to a particular OT lineage. Importantly, his ability to perceive a NT image as “fulfillment” also effectively “affirmed” his original understanding of the OT prophetic image, such that scripture interprets scripture.
The nations and their prophetic destinies are discussed further throughout the remainder of this effort, however my current argument is to emphasize that an ancient disciple would have perceived the image of “nations” as a depiction of the “world” within him, rather than religion’s modern perception that the “gentiles” simply depicts anyone who is not of Jewish descent. Of course, you will similarly perceive the profound significance of that image when you approach God’s story as he did.
Importantly, given the image that the NT depicts the gospel as being proclaimed “first” to Jerusalem (e.g., Luke 24:47), and “then” to all the nations (Acts 1:8), an ancient disciple would have perceived that image as depicting an important shadow of the OT image of the tribe of Judah. The perception of Judah will be discussed shortly, yet the pertinent point is to first note the “holy” nature of those being called out of the nations.
Perception of holiness
Consider your perception of the images that depict “holy” ones. In particular, have your perceptions of holiness been relegated simply to the three images of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit? Notably, the perception that holiness must apply “only” to God appears logical, because scripture states clearly that “you alone are holy” and “there is no one like you” (Rev 15:4; Jer 10:7). Yet, if only God can be holy, then why is a version of the word “holy” depicted almost two hundred times in the NT, while almost five hundred times in the OT? Arguably, the depiction of holiness extends well beyond the image of God; however, do the extended depictions of holiness bring confusion or clarity to your understanding of scripture?
Consider how God commands that you are to be holy, because He is holy (Lev 20:7; 1 Peter 1:16); and, you are to be perfect, because He is perfect (Matt 5:48). Notably, if you assume the literal historical perspective, then you must reconcile how the commands somehow apply to you today. However, as many commentators recognize the obvious, if no one can ever fulfill the command to be holy or to be perfect because everyone sins, then why does God issue an absolute command that is literally impossible for anyone to fulfill in this life? Of course, some argue that God is being sarcastic, but there is no indication of sarcasm being implied. Logically, it is unreasonable to assume that God would ever make a command that is “idealistic” and not also realistic; so, if God can only issue commands that can be reasonably fulfilled by you, then how do you explain His commands to be holy and perfect? Is God placing a yolk upon you, or is religion applying a yolk because of its misperception of when holiness and perfection are to be realized in your life?
Arguably, as I did, religious people sense that they just need to be relatively better than most others, or just “good enough,” to qualify as a saint in the eyes of God. Of course, Catholicism has managed to hijack the image of being a saint by claiming the authority to assign sainthood to certain people, presumably because they have demonstrated a supernatural ability. Also, many Catholics perceive that the line of Popes, and perhaps even the entire priesthood, can be considered “holy” because they have been anointed in some manner. Notably, even many Protestants sense the need to strive for holiness, where there is a predominant perception that the church, as God’s kingdom of “wannabe” saints, are supposed to somehow rule this world. A popular perception is that the “kingdom of God” started with the first coming of Jesus, and that the Christian’s primary role is to further that kingdom reign by bringing their holy biblical worldview into the world. As argued, according to Christians, the world would be a better place if everyone obeyed the moral commands, but their misperception of sin is discussed later.
Of course, religion rationalizes the command for holiness by claiming that Christians should be “striving” to improve their morality, rather than actually being holy in an absolute sense; however, both Paul and Peter depict that a form of godliness is achievable (e.g., 1 Tim 2:2, 10; 4:8; 2 Per 3:11). So, if godliness is perceived as a goal, then one must feel a sense of judgment or pending doom if they do not approach that level of morality. Notably, scripture also depicts that “bad” people cannot inherit the kingdom of God (e.g., Gal 5:19-21; 1 Cor 6:9-10; Eph 5:5); so, while religion’s perception is that holiness is not required, religion creates the sense that if you do not become sufficiently “good” in this life, then you should question your salvation. Presumably, you can be good enough, and not really be holy.
Yet, most of Paul’s letters are written to those who are called “saints” or “holy ones,” where he employs the Greek word “hagios” (Rom 1:7; 1 Cor 1:2; 2 Cor 1:1; Eph 1:1; Phil 1:1; Col 1:2; 1 Thes 3:13). Critically, this image of a “saint” is depicted approximately sixty times in the NT alone, and saints are even depicted as being resurrected at the time of the crucifixion (Matt 27:52). Therefore, this NT image of saints is far from a trivial image, however religion cannot explain these explicit depictions of holiness. Again, religion may argue that believers are somehow “made holy” when they die, but religion cannot provide any meaningful understanding how that occurs other than the vague image of being washed clean. So, while religion can claim that absolute holiness is not possible before death, that claim is apparently contradicted by God’s Word; because, God clearly commands that you are to be holy, and scripture clearly depicts that holy ones are present at the time of Jesus. So, how do you rationalize the NT images depicting holiness as existing apart from God? Or do you just ignore the image?
OT depiction of holiness
Importantly, the image of holiness is also clearly depicted in the OT, particularly when depicting the images of the holy Levitical priesthood, and the holy things or places; things such as the holy oil, utensils, vessels, and garments, and places such as the holy temple, mountain, hill, and city. Notably, while the image of the Holy Spirit is not an obvious depiction in the OT, both David and Isaiah reference the Holy Spirit, and Daniel is depicted as having the spirit of the Holy God (Ps 51:11; Is 63:10-14; Dan 4:8-9, 18). Yet, perhaps the most important OT image to consider regarding holiness is the depiction of holy ones, and particularly the depiction of the “Holy One” of Israel.
Consider the obvious shadows of the NT image of “saints” or “holy ones” that appear in verses from Psalms and Daniel (Ps 16:3; 34:9; Dan 7:18-27). The verses employ the Hebrew word “qaddis,” the word that is translated in the Septuagint by the Greek word “hagios,” which is the word that Paul employs to depict the image of saints, while Daniel employs the word to depict the “saints of the highest One” who receive and possess God’s kingdom forever. Of course, theologians generally argue that Daniel’s image must depict an “end times” prophecy that is “somehow” destined for a future fulfillment; however, David also employs the same word to depict images of holy ones who are in the land, and holy ones who do, or should, fear the Lord. As such, given these OT images, an ancient disciple would have certainly perceived that God’s Word depicts the existence of “saints” during the time of David, which arguably would have dissuaded him from considering a literal perspective, but does it similarly dissuade you? Or, do you again simply ignore it?
Consider the many other OT images that depict holy ones, and not just images of the holy priesthood, but also images of those who are in the assembly (qahal) of holy ones (e.g., Ps 89:5, 7). Again, theologians can only guess at the meaning of the images that depict holy ones before the Lord, and they generally argue that the images depict a vaguely defined category of “angelic” beings who presumably serve God in some unknown manner. Yet, the image of “holy” ones also includes references to those who are the “sons of God” (e.g., Gen 6:4; Job 1:6; Ps 89:6; 29:1), and those who are “godly” (e.g., Ps 12:1; 30:4; Ps 37:28). Of course, just like the many NT depictions of saints, religion cannot reasonably explain how these OT images can depict any holiness as existing apart from God. So, should you just accept that these images are confusing when perceived literally?
Again, and again, and again, there are numerous images of holiness being depicted throughout scripture, yet the wisdom of man is totally clueless in its understanding of the images. Certainly, if you believe that only “God” Himself can be holy, and that only He can be considered the “Holy One” of Israel, then it is understandable why these images do cause confusion and apparent contradiction. Because, how can anyone truly be considered “holy” in this life?
However, did an ancient disciple who approached God’s Word with the symbolic perspective similarly experience confusion? How did he perceive those who are depicted as holy ones, and the saints who are depicted as existing at the time of David? And, did he perceive that the “Holy One” of Israel is simply a depiction of God, or did the image of a holy “One” provide significant insight into the mysteries of his eternal salvation? In particular, how would an ancient disciple have perceived the critical image of a messiah?
Perception of a messiah
Consider your perception of the image of a messiah. As many will generally understand, the Hebrew word “masiah” literally means “anointed one,” and the Septuagint translates the word to “christos,” which is then translated to English as “Christ.” Importantly, religion has created the perception that Jesus is depicted as the one and only messiah, such that the Jews were presumably anxiously awaiting His coming. Yet, while many perceive that the image of “messiah” applies solely to Jesus, the image is actually employed throughout the OT to designate other anointed ones.
Again, my goal is not to convince you of the symbolic meaning of any of the images, rather to give you some thoughts to consider as you approach the images. Because, if you were to assume the perspective of an ancient disciple, then you would perceive the images totally differently than as is suggested by modern religion. In particular, whereas religion tells you that all of the OT promises were “fulfilled” by the coming of Jesus as “the” messiah, an ancient disciple would have found that perspective as totally missing the point of the OT images.
Arguably, an ancient disciple perceived the image of “messiah” as the profound depiction of God’s activity within the story of Israel, and not solely as an image awaiting a future fulfillment. Importantly, the first depiction of a messiah is when the image is applied to the “anointed” Levitical priesthood (Lev 4). Also, God instructs Moses to anoint (using the verb form of masiah) the priests, the tabernacle, and the altar with its utensils (e.g., Ex 40:9-15). Importantly, the end result of being anointed with “holy” oil is that the recipient is considered holy (e.g., Ex 40:9), as one should expect because only holy things can serve before the Lord in the holy of holies within the temple.
An aspect of being “anointed” is the concept of being “chosen” to serve a purpose, such as King Cyrus being anointed to build a house for the Lord. Another depiction of being anointed for a purpose is the image of the priesthood, where the tribe of Levi is consecrated or “set apart” to serve God’s will. Notably, God’s Word frequently refers to the Lord’s “messiahs” (i.e. anointed ones), yet not just when depicting images of the holy priests. Critically, the image of anointed ones (messiah) is also applied to David and his descendants, where the entire “lineage” of David is depicted as being anointed (e.g., Ps 18:50).
However, why would God depict that David and his seed are anointed if Jesus is intended to be the sole fulfillment of God’s promise to deliver a savior from within the tribe of Judah? Particularly, if you do perceive that Jesus is the only anointed one (i.e. messiah), then how do you explain all of the other OT images depicting God’s messiahs? Critically, would an ancient disciple perceive the fulfillment of the Genesis 49 prophecy as being a “future” messiah, or would he perceive the anointing of David and his “seed” as depicting the prophetic fulfillment? Arguably, an ancient disciple perceived that another messiah from the house of David would be forthcoming in the story of Israel, because he perceived that God had already anointed His servant; that is, the lineage of David. Interestingly, God depicts Jesus as my beloved son, yet do you realize that David’s name literally means “beloved”? Is his name simply a coincidence?
Perception of “My servant”
Consider your perception of the “messianic” prophetic images, particularly Isaiah’s prophecies of the suffering servant and “God with us” (i.e. Immanuel). Of course, religion argues that the prophecies, particularly the prophetic images in Isaiah 53, are depicting Jesus, such that only He can be considered the fulfillment of the prophecies. However, did an ancient disciple perceive that Isaiah is depicting a future messiah, or that the Immanuel and the suffering servant prophecies were events that were to occur within the OT story of Israel? Notably, the fulfillment of the Immanuel prophecy is explicitly depicted as occurring before a certain child of Isaiah’s time reached an age of maturity, so religion’s claim of Jesus as being the exclusive fulfillment of prophecy is certainly suspect in that instance, but does that reality impact your perception of the images?
Certainly, Jesus is later depicted as also fulfilling the prophecy, yet does that mean that the prophecy was not initially fulfilled in Isaiah’s time? Presumably, the nature of verb “tense” in the Hebrew language makes an absolute conclusion impossible, because one could argue that a future perfect tense is just as valid as a past tense. However, if you were an ancient disciple, then the context of Isaiah’s depiction would likely cause you to perceive that the Immanuel prophecy is promising a near-term fulfillment rather than a distant fulfillment. Yet, is the promise of “God with us” depicted as being fulfilled within the story? Arguably, it is, but can your eyes perceive the fulfillment; or, are you being blinded by religion’s modern perspective?
Of course, many commentators recognize that Isaiah depicts the image of a “servant” multiple times prior to the popular depiction in Isaiah 53, yet invariably no one can confidently identify who is being depicted as the servant. Among the many references, God calls His servant as David, Jacob, and Israel; consequently, those explicit depictions of God’s servant cannot be pointing solely to Jesus (Is 37:35; 41:8; 44:1-2, 21; 45:4; 48:20; 49:3). And, God later refers to “My servants,” so those plural references obviously cannot be pointing solely to Jesus. Also, when Isaiah depicts that a branch will come from Jesse, one of the characteristics of the spirit that will rest on him is “the fear of the Lord,” which is a characteristic that realistically would not apply to Jesus (Is 11:1-3). Therefore, while religion may claim that Isaiah 53 points to Jesus, the overwhelming inferences elsewhere all suggest that the image of a servant is depicting another reality. Certainly, an ancient disciple would not have perceived these prophetic images as solely depicting a distant future messiah as being the only servant of God. So, yet again, is religion hiding or revealing the wisdom of God?
Consider how the story of the tribe of Judah obviously focuses on the “lineage” of the house of David, where his seed of kings are depicted as employing their knowledge to either advance God’s kingdom, or to cause the moral decline of the kingdom. Arguably, as was discussed earlier regarding the perception of a lineage that exists over many generations, God’s depiction of “My servant” partly refers to the lineage of the house of David and his seed, and not simply as a particular person in time. Obviously, from a literal perspective, that perception does not make sense; yet, from a symbolic perspective, the perception of a spiritual lineage that comprises the “office” of a servant over many generations makes perfect sense. And, if you considered the possibility that the messianic prophecies are being fulfilled within the “lineage” of David, then you would be more inclined to look for the images that depict their fulfillment.
Certainly, most of the kings of Judah do stumble, and that sad depiction will send shivers down your spine when you realize the significance of the image. However, the reigns of Hezekiah and Josiah are particularly unique, where both kings are subtly depicted as fulfilling various aspects of messianic prophecy. I will defer to you to find those subtle depictions, yet the obvious depiction is that both kings provided the first opportunities for Israel to worship God with their sacrifices. Importantly, when you perceive how the messianic prophecies are being fulfilled within the OT, then you will also consider how the NT image of Jesus is intended to depict “another” messiah in a line of kings. Critically, just as an ancient disciple, you will then perceive the image of “My servant” as depicting a lineage that fulfills the anointed office of shepherd within the story of Israel, and not as the depiction of a particular person at a particular time as required by the literal historical perspective.
Next: Part 6