The Bible is a book full of imagery. Certainly there is much imagery in biblical poetry, and the “apocalyptic” writings provide powerful imagery. Biblical parables utilize the literary technique of “parallel” imagery, and Jesus primarily used parables as His teaching technique. Throughout the Bible, and particularly in the OT, there is imagery constantly being presented. The narratives describe people, places, and things with all sorts of imagery. Also, the detailed descriptions of various characters and the graphic destinies of people, tribes, and nations form images in our mind. Even the names of people depict an imagery by their meaning. And it is the purpose and meaning of that imagery that is being challenged. What is God’s purpose for all those images? What is the primary information being conveyed by the images created by the words of the Bible? What wisdom is God trying to impart in us? What does He want us to understand?
According to the fetus scenario, the biblical images that depict events as occurring in this world should logically be perceived as symbolic images depicting our future spiritual world. Alternatively, according to religion and man’s wisdom, the exact same biblical images should naturally be perceived in a literal historical manner. So, one perspective perceives the words in the Bible as symbolic images depicting a spiritual world, and the other perspective perceives the exact same words as literal images depicting this temporal world. What should be considered to logically decide which perspective correctly perceives the intended meaning of the words?
Perhaps you should consider the popular optical illusion where one drawing appears to depict an image of either a young or an old woman. Notably, just like the words of the Bible, the exact same lines and markings create the perception of two dramatically different images. What influences which image is perceived? Is it a matter of your eyes where you need to make an adjustment to your line of sight; much like the illusion where you must somehow force your eyes to adjust their primary focus to perceive a second image? If not your eyes, then is it a matter of your brain, where your brain’s line of thought must make an adjustment in its perspective? I suspect some people find it easy to switch perspectives and alternate between images, while others have a brain that struggles to change its perspective. Presumably, young people are more likely to perceive the image as a young woman, whereas older people are more likely to perceive the image as an old woman. Importantly, even though two dramatically different images are both always present, it is your brain’s primary line of thought that determines which image you perceive. Notably, if you were told in advance that the image depicts either an old woman who is facing one way or a young woman who is facing a different way, then are you not more likely to perceive that particular image? However, assuming the artist primarily intends to convey a particular image, how do you know which is the intended image? Did the artist leave any obvious indication as to which image he intended to depict? If not, what should be logically considered such that one image can be judged more likely to be the artist’s intended image?
Which image is intended?
Let’s assume that the overwhelming majority of people perceive the image as depicting a young woman, so can they claim with high certainty that the artist intended that image? Can they tell a person who perceives the image as an old woman that he is wrong? Presumably, the young woman is easier to perceive and she’s prettier than the alternative, so is it correct to conclude that the artist intended to depict a young woman? What should be considered to discern which image the artist intended? Perhaps aspects of the image itself might infer which image is the artist’s intent. Consider the scenario where one perspective perceives a particular overall image, however various areas within the image appear inconsistent with the overall image. For instance, perhaps the perspective that perceives a young woman has areas which upon closer inspection appear inconsistent or out of place for such an image. Perhaps the area which depicts her ear appears more like an eye, or her bonnet appears inconsistent or confusing in some manner. Conversely, when the image is perceived as an old woman, perhaps all the particular areas within the image appear consistent without confusion. Assuming those results, would it not be logical to assume that the artist intended to convey the image of an old woman since a closer inspection revealed no inconsistencies and did not result in any confusion? In other words, if one image contains many areas which appear inconsistent or cause confusion, then the other image which appears consistent throughout should logically be considered the intended image. Therefore, if the artist’s intended image is not known, then surveying multiple areas within the overall image for inconsistencies might reveal the artist’s intent. Agreed? If so, then even though the majority of people consider the image of the young woman as prettier and easier to perceive naturally, that image would not likely be the artist’s intent if a closer inspection revealed multiple inconsistencies within the image. We will use this same logical reasoning to discern which perspective correctly perceives God’s intended image for His Word.
Perceptions of areas within overall image
However, using the same illusion, let’s first consider what happens if two people, each using a different perspective, were asked to describe a particular area within the image. Can you perceive how they would likely provide two totally different descriptions or understandings? Whereas one person might describe a particular area as a nose, the other person might describe the same area as a cheek. Are both understandings correct, or is the correct understanding only known if you first know the overall image intended by the artist? Therefore, to know the intended understanding of any particular area within an image, you must first know the artist’s overall intent. And once the artist’s overall intent is known, then consequentially the correct understanding of every area is determined; and it would be incorrect to selectively use the understanding of an area from the alternative image. Agreed? If so, then it would be wrong for anyone to use the alternative understanding for any area for whatever reason; even if they dislike the correct understanding, or had always preferred the alternative understanding. Agreed? If so, even though many people always perceived the image as a young woman, if they learn that the artist intended to depict an old woman, then their previous understanding for every area within the image of a young woman would likely be incorrect. Certainly, the sudden realization that potentially all perceived understandings are incorrect would profoundly impact any person, however the magnitude of that impact would obviously depend on how much that person allowed that misunderstanding to influence their core beliefs and overall worldview.
Consider the possibility that the Bible presents a similar illusion where the literal perspective of the words creates perceptions of images of this temporal world, whereas a symbolic perspective of the words creates perceptions of images of a spiritual world. Significantly, just as we learned from the illusion of two women, the correct meaning for any particular “area of words” depends primarily on which overall image is God’s intent. So, consider the potential implication if God actually did give you a book of images primarily intended to prepare you for your spiritual life in the next world. If so, then logically, God is not trying to literally explain the things of this world, so would not your every understanding of any particular words be placed in doubt? Would not your current “literal” understanding potentially be completely overthrown? And if you realize that your entire worldview is based on a wrong understanding of God and His Word, can you even begin to imagine how the correct understanding might impact your answers to the three great questions in life? If you have been told all of your life to interpret the Bible in a literal historical manner, how would you feel if you learned that you were being misled? How would you feel if you learned that your loving spiritual Father has actually sent you a book with information primarily intended to prepare you for your spiritual life in the next world? If true, could there be anything more profound in shaping your understanding of God and yourself?
Which image did God intend?
Logically, the Bible should be perceived primarily as a book from God with symbolic images depicting the next age, however man’s wisdom has determined that God’s Word is to be perceived primarily as a recording of literal historical events of this world. So, based on the logic discussed above, let’s try to discern God’s intention by surveying various biblical images to determine which perspective results in inconsistencies and confusion, and which perspective results in a consistent and clear message. And, to discern which perspective is God’s intent, the discussion will involve two methods of consideration. The first method will review the broad factors that greatly influence how we approach God’s Word. I think of these factors as the “image builders” in my life, and I suspect they similarly influence everyone’s biblical worldview. However, do those image builders lead us to a false perception of God and His Word? The second method will discuss “perceptions” of various biblical images to discern which perspective creates a clear perception that fits with the consistent nature of God. Logically, we should question any perspective that results in any area of inconsistency.
Notably, when I speak of inconsistencies and confusion, I am not referencing instances where there are apparent variations in facts; such as whether or not Jesus told the disciples to travel with a cane. For me, I consider those instances as potential matters regarding inerrancy, yet those matters do not significantly influence one’s perspective of God’s Word. Rather, I am speaking of perceptions that create inconsistencies and confusion compared to the expected “consistent” nature of God and His message. Logically, the way God treats people should always be consistent, and His message should always be consistent; therefore, any perception otherwise is an apparent contradiction that must be clearly resolved. Importantly, I am not saying that God cannot be discriminate in His actions; however, if He does act differently, then the correct perspective must be able to clearly explain how and why He acted differently. Because, by approaching the Bible with God’s intended perspective, arguably every particular biblical image should be perceived clearly and fit consistently with the overall image. Can you imagine perceiving God’s Word without any confusion nor apparent contradiction?