Perception of church
The presumption for many is that the concept of the “church” started with the NT, however the Greek word “ekklesia” that is often translated as “church” (also congregation or assembly) is the same Greek word used in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the OT) for the Hebrew word “qahal.” Notably, the NT also uses the same Greek word “ekklesia” when restating OT scripture (Ps 22:22; Heb 2:12), so there is likely a common understanding of an “assembly” or “congregation” that is being intentionally depicted across the two testaments. Interestingly, the first depiction of a “qahal” is within Issac’s blessing upon Jacob (Gen 28:3-4). Notably, much like the importance of studying how God employs the word adam’, a similar word study of “qahal” and “ekklesia” will reveal that God is depicting a significant understanding by the image of a church.
Importantly, the Greek word “ekklesia” is the combination of a preposition (ek), meaning “out of,” and a verb (kaleo) signifying “to call,” so taken together the word depicts the image of “to call out of.” Obviously, even a simple understanding of that word would have further supported an ancient disciple’s perception that the fulfillment of the promised ingathering is being depicted. And, with his deep understanding of the OT images depicting the assembly (qahal) of “holy ones,” arguably he would have perceived the NT image of a “church” as depicting a profound future reality that will occur in his eternal spiritual life. Yet, unlike the ancient disciple, most modern people settle for their simple perception that the NT image of the church depicts the start of the Christian religion.
Perhaps the most important realization for people today is regarding the perception (deception?) that was formed in the minds of people by the modern church in the fourth century. Because, religion began promoting the perception that salvation is simply based on “joining the church,” such that the purpose of God’s Word was perceived as “how to respond” to God, rather than delivering a message of divine understanding. Yet, if you considered how the “church” decided to keep God’s Word from the people for over a millennia, and instead used that time to convince people of its “wise” doctrinal precepts and “modern” religious traditions, then it should be easier to question man’s original thinking.
Sadly, while the Reformers in the sixteenth century refuted much of the established church tradition, they still maintained the same “wise” literal historical approach to God’s Word to establish their own church traditions. Arguably, the Reformation was not about seeking the truth of God’s Word, rather it was a rebellion against church traditions that obviously went beyond reason, and a manmade movement to create variations of religion with presumably more reasonable traditions. Arguably, while many perceive that the Reformation and the printing press brought God’s Word to the masses, ultimately the masses still relied on the wise men of religion to create their belief system. And, just as my father advised me as a child, still today no one can make sense of the Bible, so everyone must rely on the wisdom of others to discern the truth. However, any belief system that approaches God’s Word with the same literal historical perspective is arguably just a variation of a false belief system.
Notably, there are still Catholics today who perceive that Catholicism is the only true religion, even though the Pope himself realizes that claiming exclusivity to their version of the truth is tenuous at best, such that Christian religions now perceive that they can comfortably agree to disagree if they promote the essentials of the “Christian” faith. However, is the god of this world simply making it easier over time for people to accept any religious understanding based on a blind faith, much like those a millennia ago who simply perceived salvation as a matter of joining the church without any true understanding of God’s Word?
Notably, the NT image of the church is considered by many as being the “body” of Christ in some sense (e.g. Col 1:18, 24), so there is a perception 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 concept of “replacement” theology where Christianity replaces Judaism, but that approach resulted in much confusion over how to meaningfully “apply” the old Jewish customs to present-day church practices. Consequently, a more modern attempt to suggest a deeper meaning of church promotes the concept that the NT image depicts the “invisible” church consisting 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 the easy image of today’s “church” prevent you from seeking the simple yet deep understanding of the concept.
Importantly, even without a deep understanding of the OT depiction of a qahal, the NT depicts that the church of God already existed in Judea when Paul sends 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” being called to join with Judah to become one nation with one heart and one soul (e.g. Acts 4:32)? And, based simply on the meaning of the word ekklesia, who is being called out of where? Notably, 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). So, who are the gentiles being called out of darkness, and 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; Rom 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, religion states the right words, but perceiving the image as depicting literal people in the past typically results in the wrong conclusion. In this instance, religion concludes that the NT image of “gentiles” depicts anyone who is not a Jew, so presumably anyone today who is not a Jew can similarly claim to be a gentile. However, while that “extension” of the meaning of gentiles to people today supports the modern 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?
Notably, 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 used for “nations” (e.g. Ps 2:1; Acts 4:25). And, just as intimately perceiving the OT depiction of an “qahal” is necessary to understand the NT depiction of an “ekklesia,” intimately perceiving the OT depictions of the nations is 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.
Notably, modern religion perceives “evangelism” as a primary mission of the church; yet, do you consider it odd that the OT never depicts a similar image of evangelism? Why does God not 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 will be overthrown”? Arguably, 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. Notably, just like the book of Daniel, religion has transformed the profound prophesy of Jonah into images that support its modern message of good news, without any consideration of how an ancient disciple would have perceived the images. Again, modern religion has created its own perception of the OT images, such that its perception of the NT images can be formed into its simple message of salvation through Jesus.
However, the challenge should be to understand how an ancient disciple would have perceived the image of the gentiles, and not how modern religion simply applies the NT image to people today. Because, instead of perceiving God as calling Israel to evangelize to the nations, such that the other nations would join their religion, an ancient disciple would have perceived how God depicts that Israel was to “possess” and “dispossess” the other nations, and how northern Israel would join themselves with other nations. And, after also considering how the OT images depict people from other nations joining themselves to the returning people of God, an ancient disciple would have perceived the NT image of the northern tribes being called from the nations as the fulfillment of OT prophetic images.
Importance of perceiving fulfillment
Consider, 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 “unfulfilled” when perceived with a literal historical perspective, such as when the nations are to be judged in the valley of Jehoshaphat (Joel 3). Has that judgement on the nations already occurred without any fulfillment depicted in God’s Word, or will these nations be judged in the distant future?
Consider, does it make sense that God is “reserving” judgement for specific nations for actions that their ancestors presumably did to the “sons of Judah and Jerusalem” in the distant past? 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 judgement on 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 judgement of specific nations other than the depictions in Revelation, so should the modern reader not be concerned with the prophetic destinies of nations as depicted in the OT?
Consider how, thanks to religion, the simple answer of “Jesus” becomes the sole image of concern regarding all of the OT prophetic images. Consequently, the modern reader does not perceive the need to understand the many prophetic OT images, because presumably Jesus will come again one day to “judge” however is appropriate. Arguably, the modern reader assumes that he can “feel safe” from the depictions of looming judgement because he has joined a belief system, even though he has no meaningful understanding of the prophetic images.
Consider whether you should blindly accept religion’s suggestion that Jesus is the simple 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 prophetic destinies depicted for every nation in the OT, an ancient disciple would have logically considered all of the imagery, such that he would have gained a high level of confidence in the “world” being depicted, and the prophetic destinies of the various aspects of that world. And, the foundation of his understanding of that world would have been based on God’s depiction of the nations that descend from the sons of Noah. Interestingly, God prophesies the image of a future “enlargement” of Israel as far back as the sons of Noah, and an ancient disciple would have perceived an extremely profound understanding of the image of Javan (i.e. the Greeks), notably a nation that arrives late in the biblical story of Israel.
As will be argued in the next chapter, the prophetic image in Revelation depicting Gog and Magog is also the fulfillment of the OT prophetic image depicting 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, when the images are approached with a literal historical perspective, then the images in Revelation are perceived as occurring in the distant future relative to the OT images, such that the images must be depicting something different than the original OT images. Consequently, the images of nations in Revelation, such as Babylon and the Greeks, cannot be perceived as shadows of the OT images depicting those nations, because common sense would say that those same nations cannot exist in the future since they do not exist today. Therefore, for the modern reader, any understanding of the apocalyptic images depicting beasts and nations must be based solely on the opinions (i.e. guesses) of modern commentators, rather than from an understanding of prophetic images depicted elsewhere in scripture. However, for an ancient disciple, instead of guessing at the meaning of any NT image, he was able to logically consider how a NT apocalyptic image depicts the prophetic fulfillment of 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.
The nations surrounding Israel and their prophetic destinies will be discussed further in the next two chapters, yet my current argument is to stress 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 a Jew. Importantly, given the fact 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 Judah. That 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.
Modern perception of holiness
Consider your perception of the image of holiness. In particular, has your perception of holiness been relegated simply to the images of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit? Notably, the perception that holiness applies “only” to God appears logical, because scripture states that “you alone are holy,” and that “there is no one like you” (Rev 15:4; e.g. 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, and almost five hundred times in the OT? Arguably, the depiction of holiness extends well beyond the image of God; however, does that extended depiction 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, that you are to be perfect, because He is perfect (Matt 5:48). Notably, if you assume a literal historical perspective, then you must perceive these commands as somehow applying to you today. Yet, as many commentators realize, if no one could ever fulfill the command to be holy or be perfect because everyone always sins, then why would God issue an absolute command that is literally impossible for anyone to fulfill in this life? Some argue that God is being sarcastic, yet there is no indication of sarcasm being implied. So, if God can only issue commands that can be reasonably fulfilled, then how do you explain His commands for you to be holy and perfect?
Arguably, religious people sense that they just need to be “good enough,” or relatively better than most others, to qualify as a saint in the eyes of God. Of course, Catholicism has managed to hijack the image of 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 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 rule the world. A popular perception is that the “kingdom of God” started with the coming of Jesus, and a Christian’s role is to somehow further that kingdom reign by bringing their righteousness into the world.
Consider that most Christians rationalize the command for absolute holiness by imagining that they should be “striving to improve” in their morality, and not as a literal expectation that they must actually become holy. Yet, both Paul and Peter depict that godliness is achievable (e.g. 1 Tim 2:2, 10; 4:8; 2 Pet 3:11). So, if godliness is intended to depict an achievable goal for this life, then what happens if you do not “reasonably” approach that level of morality? Notably, scripture states that “bad” people cannot inherit the kingdom of God (e.g. Gal 5:19-21; 1 Cor 6:9-10; Eph 5:5). Presumably, according to many religious people, if you are not made sufficiently “godly” in this life, then you should question your salvation.
Consider that most of Paul’s letters are written to those who are called “saints” or “holy ones,” the translation of 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, the image of a “saint” is depicted approximately sixty times in the NT, 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, yet 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 scripture; 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 apart from God?
OT depiction of holiness
Consider how 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). However, perhaps the most important OT images to consider regarding holiness are the depictions 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,” a word that is translated in the Septuagint by the Greek word “hagios,” which is the same word that Paul employs to depict the image of saints. Notably, Daniel’s employment of the word depicts that the “saints of the highest One” will receive and possess the kingdom forever. Theologians generally argue that Daniel’s image depicts an “end-times” prophecy that is destined for future fulfillment; however, David 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. So, given the OT images, an ancient disciple would have certainly perceived that God’s Word depicts the existence of “saints” during the time of David.
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 an undefined 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). Notably, just like the NT images of saints, religion cannot reasonably explain how these OT images can depict holiness as existing apart from God.
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. Because, if you only believe that “God” Himself can be holy, and that only He can be considered the “Holy One of Israel,” then it is understandable why these images cause confusion and apparent contradiction. Because, how can anyone be considered “holy” in this life?
However, would the symbolic perspective of an ancient disciple have resulted in the same confusion? How would he perceive those who are being depicted as holy ones, and the saints who are depicted as existing at the time of David? And, would he perceive the “Holy One of Israel” simply as an image of God, or would the image of a holy “one” provide significant insight into the mysteries of his salvation? In particular, how would an ancient disciple have perceived the image of a messiah?
Perception of a messiah
Consider your perception of the image of a messiah. As many generally understand, the Hebrew word “masiah” literally means “anointed one,” and the Septuagint translates the word to “christos,” which is translated to English as “Christ.” Arguably, 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 the image of “messiah” as applying solely to Jesus, the image is actually employed throughout the OT.
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 suggested by modern religion. Particularly, 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 would have perceived the image of “messiah” as a profound depiction of God’s activity within the nation 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 perpetual “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 consequential result of being anointed with “holy” oil is that the recipient is considered holy (e.g. Ex 40:9). Of course, one should expect that only holy things can serve before the presence of the Lord in the holy of holies within the temple.
Another perception of being “anointed’ by God is the concept of being “chosen” to serve a purpose, such as King Cyrus being anointed with the purpose to build the Lord a house in Jerusalem. Arguably, the primary image of being anointed for a purpose is the priesthood, where the tribe of Levi is “consecrated” or “set apart” to serve God’s will. Notably, scripture 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, such that the entire “lineage” of David is depicted as being anointed (e.g. Ps 18:50).
Consider, why would God depict David and his seed as being anointed, particularly if Jesus is the sole fulfillment of God’s promise to deliver a savior from within the tribe of Judah? Importantly, 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? Consider, if you 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? Arguably, while an ancient disciple would have perceived that “another” messiah in the lineage of David would be forthcoming in the story of Israel, his perception was based on the anointing that God had performed on the “house” of David within the tribe of Judah, and not on a few verses that infer the promise of a future savior.
Perception of “My servant”
Consider your perception of the “messianic” prophetic images, particularly Isaiah’s prophecies of “God with us” (i.e. Immanuel) and the “suffering servant.” Of course, religion argues that the prophecies, particularly the prophetic images in Isaiah 53, are intended to depict Jesus, such that only He can be considered the fulfillment of the prophecies. Yet, would an ancient disciple perceive Isaiah’s images as depicting a messiah in the distant future?
Arguably, Isaiah’s depictions of both the Immanuel and the suffering servant prophecies imply that the events 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 maturity, so religion’s claim of Jesus being the exclusive fulfillment is certainly suspect in that instance. 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? Importantly, the nature of verb “tense” in the Hebrew language makes an absolute conclusion impossible, because one could argue that a future tense is just as valid as a past or present tense. Yet, if you were an ancient disciple, then arguably Isaiah’s context would more than likely cause you to consider the images as depicting near-term events rather than distant future events.
Consider how 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 depictions, God refers to His servant as David, Jacob, and Israel; consequently, those 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 are also obviously not pointing solely to Jesus. Notably, when Isaiah depicts the branch that will come from Jesse, one of the characteristics of the spirit that will rest on him is “the fear of the Lord,” a characteristic that obviously would not apply to Jesus (Is 11:1-3). So, while religion may claim that Isaiah 53 points solely to Jesus, the overwhelming inferences elsewhere all suggest that the image of a servant depicts another reality. Certainly, an ancient disciple would not have perceived these prophetic images as solely depicting a distant future messiah.
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 using their knowledge to either advance the kingdom of God, or to cause moral decline in the kingdom. Arguably, as discussed earlier regarding the perception of a lineage that exists over many generations, God’s depiction of “My servant” refers to the lineage of the house of David and his seed, and not simply a particular person in time. Obviously, from a literal historical perspective, that perception does not make sense; however, 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 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 stumble, and that 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 fulfilled in 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 perceive the image of “My servant” as depicting a lineage that fulfills the anointed office of the shepherd of Israel over many generations, and not as a depiction of a particular person at a particular time.
Next: Part 6