A premise of my effort is that a person builds their worldview based on their perceptions of the biblical images; however, those perceptions are primarily influenced by their overall perspective of the purpose of God’s Word. And, by approaching the Bible with a literal historical perspective, religion perceives the images as depicting things of this world; however, that perspective arguably leads to confusion and apparent contradictions of the nature of God and His Word. My objective is to use both logic and scripture to demonstrate that approaching God’s Word with a symbolic perspective results in simple yet deep explanations.
I must reemphasize that I did not start my journey with my new perspective; rather my journey started around 2019 with a very strong foundation based on the “worldly” perspective. And since then, my old perceptions were first torn down, and now new perceptions are refining new lines of thinking. Notably, this transformation in my lines of thinking required essentially continuous thoughtful contemplation over several years; and yet I sense that I am just beginning my journey towards a new understanding. However, I am far enough into the journey that I am able to consider my change of perspective in retrospect. Specifically, in retrospect, what should I have logically considered that would have shortened my journey towards adopting the spiritual perspective?
Three logical reasons
First, by using the fetus scenario, I argued that the most logical purpose for the Bible is to provide information primarily intended to prepare us for the next life. Notably, we are told that our warfare is spiritual; however, we certainly are not consciously fighting a spiritual war in this life, so logically our spiritual war is experienced in the next life. Also, we are given the story of “Israel” as the protagonist who experiences much warfare throughout his extended history. So, it is logical to perceive that the Bible, particularly the OT, provides the images of Israel to symbolically depict your individual spiritual existence into the next life. Notably, I am not claiming that it is easy to adopt that perspective, however I am claiming that it is logical to consider that perspective as being God’s primary intent for His Word. Alternatively, by using the fetus scenario, it is illogical to perceive that the Bible is intended to provide information primarily for this life.
Second, the very existence of spiritual understanding logically demands the need for another perspective. As argued, if Paul tells us that there is spiritual understanding that cannot be perceived by the natural mind, then God’s Word must be perceived differently than with the literal perspective. Because, since the plain sense of the text is discernible by man’s wisdom (i.e. the supposed “perspicuity” of scripture), the literal perspective cannot possibly provide the “mysterious” spiritual understanding; otherwise the Holy Spirit would not be required. Therefore, since we are clearly told that God’s Word does reveal the mysteries, another perspective for approaching God’s Word is logically demanded. And Paul’s insight regarding the spiritual gift of prophecy validates the existence of a different perspective of God’s Word.
Third, a symbolic approach should be logically considered because the Bible naturally demands that particular perspective. Poetry, parables, and apocalyptic literature by their very nature are perceived symbolically, and arguably there are many inferences that the entire Bible is intended to be perceived symbolically. Jesus Himself scolds His disciples for perceiving literally one of His teachings; and perhaps everything Jesus teaches is presented in a form of symbolism. If another perspective is demanded, then a symbolic approach is the most likely.
In retrospect, perhaps the critical question is whether you can logically perceive the story of Israel as a parable; because, if you can, then you can begin to consider that at least the OT is to be perceived symbolically. Notably, there are numerous inferences supporting a symbolic perspective of Israel, but you must be looking for those inferences if you want to find them. And once you perceive that the story of Israel is intended as a parable from a loving father, then the change in perception will begin building new lines of thinking.
Notably, I am still stunned by the rather recent realization that the entire Bible is to be perceived with a symbolic perspective; however, only in retrospect can I appreciate the overall logic of adopting that symbolic perspective. Of course, man’s pride despises any attempts towards spiritual understanding (i.e. prophecy), so you will find no “scholarly” resources promoting a symbolic perspective. Arguably, that characteristic of man’s wisdom depicts the same image as Satan stealing the sowed Word in the parable that Jesus states is the most crucial to understand. Presumably, the Pharisees argued for a literal interpretation just as man’s wisdom does today, so it is logical to expect great resistance from the church and from within yourself towards any consideration of the spiritual perspective. However, based on my ability to “Monday morning quarterback” my personal journey, hopefully you can begin to consider those three reasons why it is actually logical to approach God’s Word with a symbolic perspective.
Two concepts of logical thinking
Consider the possibility that a symbolic perspective could provide simple yet deep explanations of concepts such as the trinitarian nature of God, or what it means to be made in that image. If a symbolic perspective can simply explain those concepts using nothing but the images depicted within God’s Word, would not that perspective logically be more likely to be God’s intent. So, do you think God intends His Word to provide you a simple yet deep understanding of the mysteries of this life and the life to come? Does that sound like something a loving father would logically want to provide to his future child? If so, in retrospect, there are two general concepts of logical thinking that I consider essential to appreciate when approaching God’s Word. I certainly wish I had appreciated the significance of these two concepts much sooner in my journey.
Concept of Occam’s razor
The first concept to consider is Occam’s razor which essentially claims that the simplest explanation is typically preferable over a more complex explanation. Logically, if a complex explanation requires more assumptions than a simpler explanation, then the more complex explanation has more chances for error because of the additional assumptions. So, whenever we are attempting to discern understanding, logically we should scrutinize any explanation that appears complex because of the possibility that there is a simpler and consequently a more likely explanation.
Notably, there are many areas of God’s Word that even wise theologians cannot clearly explain with certainty. Some of these areas will be discussed later, but invariably religion must conclude that there are aspects of the kingdom of God that are unknowable in this age. In its defense, religion often supports that conclusion because God states that “My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways” (Is 55:8-9). However, is God stating that His Word is too complex to be understood, or is He highlighting that His thinking is focused on the “heavens” (i.e. the spiritual world), whereas our thinking is focused on the “earth” (i.e. the temporal world)? So, is God stating that our inability to understand His mysteries is due to our lack of intelligence, or because we are using the wrong perspective? Perhaps aspects of God’s Word are too complex to understand because we are relying on our old mind to naturally perceive the images as things of this world, whereas we should be exercising our new mind to perceive the images as truths of the spiritual world. Let’s consider if God is actually telling you that a simple change of perspective is required in order to perceive His line of thinking in His Word.
Let’s first consider how you currently perceive the Bible. Do you consider it a book depicting literal historical events written by various men a long time ago? If so, how do you resolve the confusing images and apparent contradictions? Perhaps you cannot resolve all of the confusion to your satisfaction, so you must either minimize those particular images or determine that the overall Bible is not trustworthy. Or perhaps, like many, you perceive that there are some aspects of God’s Word which are unknowable this side of heaven. Consequently, perhaps you rely on a very basic understanding of what you perceive is God’s intended purpose for the Bible. Perhaps you summarize the entire Bible simply as God’s love letter to mankind intended to reveal the good news of Jesus dying on the cross for our sins. However, if that is God’s intended “simple” message, is it logical to perceive that He gave us a history book that causes much confusion and apparent contradictions? Logically, we should expect God to give us a book with simpler and clearer explanations – agreed? And, if you perceive that God did not intend His Word to cause much confusion and apparent contradictions, perhaps that sense of something being amiss is God’s way of telling you to consider another perspective.
Let’s consider further the presence of complex theological matters. Logically, the very fact that the concepts are debatable should make you question their common underlying perspective. As mentioned, I considered myself one of those wise theologians who was proud of the fact that I was secure in a deep understanding of God’s Word. Like many apologists, I could easily defend my points of view with various verses from scripture; however, I became concerned that the explanations to many aspects of God’s kingdom were often complex and extremely nuanced. Importantly, I realized that most of the explanations developed by wise theologians relied on non-biblical information, such as other historical records which presumably provided additional understanding necessary to discern the biblical meaning. And after reading hundreds of theological books on many biblical concepts, I realized that the end result was always the same. Everyone had a particular theory regarding a biblical concept; however, their various complex explanations often required many assumptions, and many assumptions were based on non-biblical sources of information. Whose complex line of thinking should I trust? Some might suggest that a particular wise man is being led by the Holy Spirit to discern a unique understanding; however, how could I know which one? Was it enough that most theologians coalesced around a particular explanation, even though their explanation was easily debatable because of its complexity? Fortunately, at some point, I was blessed immensely with the realization that the necessity of complex explanations meant that something basic was amiss. Now, I can no longer logically accept that biblical concepts require complex explanations. And lately, as a result of that realization, I am stepping down from my pride and away from my wisdom by allowing myself to be open to a new perspective. And, by approaching God’s Word with a symbolic perspective, I now discover explanations of the same biblical concepts that are much clearer and simpler. And based on the logic of Occam’s razor, the very fact that the new explanations are much simpler makes them more likely to be correct.
Perhaps this logical principle of Occam’s razor, that the most likely explanation is often the simplest explanation, led me to the perception that the way God treats people today is no different than He did 3,000 years ago; otherwise He would change over time which would add much complexity. And this premise of God’s “simplicity through consistency” has impacted not just my perception that He “saves” all people by the same method regardless of when they lived, but also my perception that His “message” of salvation is the same over time. Like many, I had previously perceived the OT as a “relic” of a past religion, but my perception has been changed beyond anything I could ever imagine. Notably, one of the first quests in my journey was to try to understand how a Jew perceived the OT; however, in retrospect, I should have logically questioned my own perception of the OT.
Logically, the good news that Jesus began preaching three years before the cross was based solely on the OT images; and Paul tells us that the OT provides sufficient knowledge for salvation (2 Tim 3:15). Therefore, in retrospect, I should have expected that the OT images would reveal more than just historical facts; and I should have considered sooner the significance of Paul’s explicit claim. If I did, then logically I would have expected the OT images by themselves should reveal a simple yet deep understanding of the mystery of salvation; yet, sadly, I considered the OT as a relic of the past.
Perception of OT
Of course, you also have been told how to approach the Bible, so you are likely expecting the OT to reveal information about the Jewish religion or perhaps how to not reject God. Obviously, religion emphasizes that the primary purpose of the OT is to explain the need for a savior and to predict His coming; however, how does that perspective result in any understanding of the mysteries of God’s kingdom? If you are told to perceive the OT as a book depicting literal history, then how did God reveal the mysteries of salvation to people 3,000 years ago? Again, Paul tells us that the OT alone sufficiently reveals the mysteries; and Jesus rebuked Nicodemus for not understanding the mysteries. So, I had to logically consider who was guiding me in how I perceived the OT; was I being guided by religion, or by Paul and Jesus?
Notably, I have experienced many significant realizations since I started this effort; however, perhaps the most significant is the perception that the OT alone fulfills God’s purpose for informing His future child. Again, knowing that God does not change over time, then the simplest scenario is that a person living 3,000 years ago experiences salvation exactly as people do today. And that premise of God’s consistency is logically extended to the consistent message of His Word. Therefore, a Jew, with just the OT, should logically be able to gain the same understanding of the mysteries of salvation as people can gain today with both testaments. Of course, we must remember that the Holy Spirit’s gift of prophecy is always required to gain any spiritual understanding, so logically even a person 3,000 years ago could diligently seek the pearls and meditate on them to perceive the intended symbolism of the images. Therefore, realizing that the OT alone provides sufficient understanding of the mysteries of salvation, how should that perception logically impact our overall view of scripture?
Consider whether having just the first 39 books is a disadvantage compared to having all 66 books of God’s Word. First, we must realize that we are seeking spiritual wisdom and not worldly wisdom. Arguably, God’s Word was limited to the book of Job for the people at that time, so logically Job alone is capable of revealing a simple yet deep understanding of the mysteries of salvation. Do you think the Holy Spirit could open up the book of Job to reveal secrets of the kingdom of God? Can you imagine the significance of perceiving the mysteries being revealed in just the first two chapters of perhaps the first book of God’s Word? If you perceive God’s Word as divine, and if you perceive the communication occurring within you as also being divine; then your ability to perceive God’s intended message being depicted in Job 1-2 is primarily dependent on God. And arguably, a person receiving a simple yet deep spiritual understanding of just those first two chapters of God’s Word is “wiser” than a person with all of man’s wisdom of the entire Bible. Therefore, while having 66 books is perhaps better than just having 39 books, the divine understanding of the mysteries of salvation could logically be depicted within the first 39.
So, not only does Paul make the explicit claim that the OT alone reveals the mysteries, but logic also tells us that the first 39 books should reveal a simple yet deep understanding of the mysteries of salvation. However, if the OT provides the understanding of those mysteries, what understanding is provided by the NT? We are told that the NT “fulfills” OT prophecy, and it would be logical to perceive that the NT “affirms” an OT understanding; however, it would be illogical to perceive that the NT “changes” an OT understanding. Logically, just as the message of Job is built upon by the rest of the OT, the NT should be perceived as building upon the message of the OT, and not the beginning of a new message. Therefore, instead of perceiving the Bible as giving us two testaments with different messages, perhaps the perception should be that God has given us a “part one” and a “part two” of one single message. If so, then whatever overall image is being depicted in part one, then logically part two should somehow depict both fulfillment and affirmation of that image. So, what is the overall image depicted in part one of God’s Word, and what should we logically expect as the fulfillment and affirmation of that image?
Perception of NT
Obviously, the story of Israel and its prophetic future are clearly depicted as the “overall” image in part one; therefore, logically, we should expect that part two would primarily depict a continuation of that same story. Notably, for me, I had never logically considered the NT as depicting a continuation of the story of Israel, yet that continuation became apparent once I started looking for it. Interestingly, I was shocked to perceive that the OT could stand by itself, and I was shocked again to perceive that the NT depicted a continuation of the story of Israel. And the significance of these two understandings is profound; because, if you perceive that the story of Israel is intended as a parable of an individual’s spiritual existence, then logically you should perceive the events in part two as depicting the fulfillment and affirmation of that parable. Consequently, instead of perceiving the NT as depicting “historical facts” such as the coming of Jesus and the giving of the Holy Spirit, those NT images should logically be perceived as depicting events that happen in every person’s individual life. Obviously, the implications of that new perception are profound.
Consider how the NT images are typically perceived. Perhaps, other than the image of Jesus, the image depicting the giving of the Holy Spirit is the most influential in forming the overall image of religion. Of course, the common perception is that the Holy Spirit was not given prior to Pentecost; however, that perception alone creates one of the great conundrums within religion. Because, once you set a temporal date for the beginning of a necessary element of salvation; then the question becomes if, and how, people were saved before Pentecost. Consequently, the simple explanation of God treating everyone the same no longer exists, and the typical perception results in complex explanations of salvation that create endless debate. Certainly the validity of that perception of Pentecost should be logically questioned.
The conundrum created by perceiving Pentecost as a temporal event is even greater if you perceive that spiritual understanding is only possible with the Holy Spirit. Because, if OT readers did not have the Holy Spirit, then God’s Word must have “returned void” prior to Pentecost. However, it would be illogical for God to provide part one of His Word, which is sufficient for understanding the mystery of salvation; and yet not also provide the Holy Spirit to enable people to gain the understanding of that mystery. Understandably, if your perception is that God wants you to perceive the literal meaning of His Word, then you likely do not perceive the need for another perspective that requires the Holy Spirit. However, if you perceive that God gave 39 books to people 3,000 years ago that symbolically depict the mystery of salvation, then logically He also provided the Holy Spirit to enable those people to gain that spiritual understanding of their salvation.
The perception that the first “indwelling” of the Holy Spirit occurred 2,000 years ago creates tremendous complexity in the understanding of God’s Word. Therefore, the logical principle of Occam’s razor suggests that we should consider the existence of a simpler explanation. And, if a different perspective of Pentecost resolved the confusion with a simpler explanation that was consistent with the overall message; then logically, would not that perspective be more likely God’s intent?
Presumably, the entire work of the Holy Spirit is a mystery beyond human understanding; however, we are told that the OT reveals the mystery of salvation, and that mystery should logically include a work of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, we should expect that part one would reveal that work of the Holy Spirit; however, can a literal historical perspective of the OT images ever clearly perceive that work? Perhaps a symbolic perspective of the story of Israel could reveal a simple yet deep understanding of the Holy Spirit’s role in our salvation. And, once part two is logically perceived as a continuation of the story of Israel, then perhaps the particular role of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost can be understood in its proper context. Notably, religion perceives the image of Pentecost as a stake in “time past” to depict the beginning of their belief system; whereas I now perceive that God intended the image of Pentecost as a stake in “time future” to depict the beginning of His glory coming into the life of “Israel.” Which perception creates confusion, and which perception creates profound understanding of your spiritual future?
Expectations of God’s Word
Perceiving the story of Israel as a parable leads to other logical lines of thinking. For instance, assuming that your loving Father did provide a book depicting your future life, then what characteristics should you logically expect that book to exhibit? Perhaps you should consider that your heavenly Father is providing a book that is intended to inform every soul whom will ever exist; therefore, you should logically expect the book to depict images in non-specific terms. And, arguably, the story of Israel does include many generalizations; such as the “sin of Jeroboam” which is never explicitly described, but rather the image is left somewhat vague because logically “the work of your hands” that you worship will be unique for each person. Also, you should logically expect the book’s references to timing to be general and in formulaic terms because every life is different, and that characteristic is often evident throughout scripture. Finally, in many ways, the narratives of Israel are presented in a mythical style, and that is perhaps the most important characteristic to consider. Why does God obviously depict the story of Israel in a mythical style; and should that style of writing be logically expected?
Consider your approach if you were trying to describe to a child the inner workings of your body. Certainly you would not attempt to provide exact details, but rather you would use both generalizations for the sake of simplicity and perhaps hyperbole or exaggeration to accentuate the wonder of certain aspects. For instance, you might describe the brain as having living cells that numbered greater than the stars in the sky. Therefore, if the story of Israel is intended to symbolically depict the wonder of your future spiritual existence, then logically you should expect some of those images to appear “mythological” to challenge your current simple understanding of your spiritual reality. Notably, mythical stories are not intended to record the exact details of literal historical events, but rather the author purposely uses the style of writing to convey an amazing message or concept. Therefore, given the wonder of the information that God is intending to convey, we should also logically expect that the story of Israel would be written in a mythical style.
Notably, the logic of expecting a mythical story puts to rest many arguments that debate the authenticity or inerrancy of God’s Word. Because, just as people will modify the mythical story of Robin Hood to fit their intended message, certainly God’s Word has been modified so that the images better fit religion’s perception of the intended message. Therefore, if the goal is for man to discern the literal meaning of the original text, then the arguments regarding authenticity and inerrancy of the text are valid. However, if the goal is for man to discern the symbolic meaning of the text through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, then logically the Holy Spirit can overcome any deviations from the original text to reveal the original symbolic meaning. Arguably, everyone will receive a pure form of God’s Word in the next life; however, even today’s slightly modified text cannot logically cause the divine message of His Word to return void in this life.
Of course, I suspect many Christians are aghast by my implication that the biblical stories are intended as myths. Their perception might be that I consider the stories of Israel and Jesus as fiction, however that is not how I perceive a myth. For me, myths have some basis in reality; however, a mythical story is not intended to convey historical facts. Rather, a myth, similar to a parable, is a technique used by the story teller to build upon the basic existence of a figure to convey a message or concept. In other words, while there was a historical nation of Israel and a person named Jesus, God’s intent for every biblical image is to deliver a message.
Importantly, if you perceive that God’s intent is to provide a detailed historical account, then you will likely perceive the need to defend the details of the biblical images. Consequently, you must defend the Bible as someone who tries to defend the mythical accounts of Robin Hood; however, has anyone ever won an argument debating the accuracy of a mythical story? So, did God intend His style of writing to create confusion and endless debates, or did He intend His style to depict the wonder of something that is impossible to easily appreciate in human terms? Consider whether God wants you to demonstrate your faith by debating the accuracy of stories that are obviously written in a mythical style, or by logically seeking to understand the intended meaning of those mythical images.
Personally, I find great rest in the logical realization that I am not expected to believe nor defend the literal meaning of God’s Word. No longer will I ever need to try to resolve endless debates by studying hundreds of theological books; and no longer will I feel the presence of any animosity with others who argue against my particular perception. Perhaps more importantly, I will no longer feel the discomfort of trying to convince others of my message of the good news; even though I knew that my perspective was debatable.
Notably, I better understand why people perceive what they perceive. I was also told how to approach the Bible, so my perceptions were similar to most. Also, I certainly understand why no one perceives what I perceive. Frankly, I find it overwhelming at times when I consider what I perceive, so I certainly do not expect anyone to blindly accept my potentially profound perceptions as truth. Importantly, as I should state often, I do not want you to believe what anyone claims to be the truth. However, I do want you to consider the logical reasons why another perspective is more likely God’s intention.
Summary of Occam’s razor
Hopefully you can better appreciate how the logical thinking of Occam’s razor should greatly influence your approach to God’s Word. First, by recognizing that complex explanations are likely evidence of an incorrect perspective, you should logically seek another perspective. And, by logically reasoning the simplest expectation of God, that He is consistent over time in both His treatment of people and His message; then the lines of thinking will reveal simpler explanations of the mysteries of salvation, and the profound perception of scripture as being one continuous story over two parts. Consequently, because of these new lines of thinking originating from the logic of Occam’s razor, the biblical events are no longer perceived as depictions of temporal events in the past, but rather they are logically perceived as shadows of spiritual events that will happen in your individual future existence. The entire approach to God’s Word should logically change based on the principle of preferring simplicity over complexity.
Logically, I perceive that God’s intent for His Word is based on the line of thinking originating from the fetus scenario. Whereas I had illogically perceived that the Bible was written for this life, now the images are perceived as information intended to prepare me for the next life. Logically, I perceive that the next life includes spiritual warfare, therefore, I should expect God’s Word to provide an understanding of that warfare. And logically, I should expect the need to adopt a different perspective to gain that spiritual understanding, and I should perceive how God’s Word infers the perspective of symbolism. Logically, instead of perceiving two distinct testaments, I now perceive God’s Word as consisting of a part one that depicts the complete message of salvation, and a part two that fulfills and affirms that message. Logically, the simplest explanation for the purpose of God’s Word is that He is using the continuous story of Israel as a parable to provide me a simple yet deep understanding of the many aspects of the spiritual world within me and to prepare me for my future world.
Notably, much of my new line of thinking originates from my consideration of the fetus scenario, yet I have no recollection of what inspired me to perceive myself as a fetus. Does the image of a fetus in the womb fit with your perspective of this life? Can you perceive how God could perceive you as a future child? If so, please realize that the fetus must logically consider the purpose for the information and the perspective that his father is using to convey that information. Are you being logical in your perception of the purpose of God’s Word, and are you logically approaching His Word with the perspective that He intended? Certainly, my new perspective results in lines of thinking that are totally different than before; however, instead of complexity and vagueness, I now perceive simplicity and clarity. Logically, I prefer simplicity over complexity; and I sense that God prefers the same.
The logical reasoning of the fetus scenario is a very recent realization of God’s purpose for His Word, and it is only in retrospect that I can appreciate the two concepts of logical thinking that led me to consider that scenario. I just discussed how the logical concept of Occam’s razor influenced my approach to God’s Word, and now I will discuss how the second logical concept influenced my ability to discern the symbolic meaning of His Word.
Concept of inference to the best explanation
The second concept of logical thinking that I deem essential when approaching God’s Word is the procedure of inference to the best explanation. My understanding of this procedure suggests that an explanation can be considered to be correct when the balance of information consistently points to that explanation. In other words, while no single piece of information explicitly states nor totally provides the explanation, the abundance of bits of information all pointing in the direction of a particular explanation gives that explanation credibility. For example, if you are told that something looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck; then you are confident in your perception that it is a duck even though it is not wearing a sign explicitly claiming “I am a duck.” Ideally, many bits of information will clearly point to an understanding, and certainly no bits of information should cause confusion or apparent contradiction. Let’s consider why this same procedure of inference to the best explanation is absolutely necessary when attempting to discern the meaning of the biblical images.
As argued, instead of pursuing a literal understanding of words from a few verses, the objective should be to attempt to perceive every biblical image symbolically in the context of the overall image. Obviously, the first step is to discern the overall image, and my argument is that the overall image of Israel symbolically depicts the life of a human soul into the next life. Again, I needed many years of thoughtful effort to overcome my old understanding and perceive that new overall image, so I certainly understand why that overall image is difficult to initially perceive, just as many people have difficulty in perceiving the image of an old woman. However, if you can consider that symbolic perspective, then the next step would be to seek the intended meaning of the images based on that new overall perspective. And my contention is that the symbolism of every biblical image is provided by the many bits of information inferred throughout scripture.
Notably, some of the early church fathers are infamously known for their haphazard “spiritualization” of the Bible. Apparently, they would often take a biblical image, such as a temple utensil, and “assign” a symbolic meaning in some manner that supposedly revealed a deep spiritual truth. Obviously, assigning your own meaning to any biblical image is a form of “eisegesis” which should be discouraged; yet arguably, everyone is guilty of this practice, although they do not realize their error. Because, if God intended the images to be perceived symbolically, then assigning your own “literal” understanding to an image is still a form of eisegesis. Arguably, you must only allow scripture to lead you to the understanding of every image, and not your own or anyone else’s preconceived notions; because, your greatest obstacle to understanding the symbolic meaning of any image is your old understanding.
For instance, if you can only imagine literal metals at the mention of gold and silver, will you ever even attempt to imagine the symbolic meaning of what God values? Yet, if you can begin to seek the bits of information that provide insight into God’s intended symbolic meaning for gold and silver, perhaps you will grow in your confidence of God’s intended depiction of His kingdom’s economy. Critically, this change in your approach towards Bible study from memorizing and interpreting verses to digging for pearls is perhaps the only way your mind is renewed, because you will begin to perceive the images as God intended.
Perhaps as expected, there is not a single verse that explicitly states the complete symbolic meaning of an image; instead, the understanding of any and all symbolism comes only by accumulating the bits of information related to that image, and together those bits provide an inference to the best explanation. Consequently, you must consider all of God’s Word to build clarity around a symbolic understanding, while resisting the tendency to rely solely on your natural understanding. Obviously, there is no value in assigning meaning when none has been provided; therefore, the only necessary understanding is from the information provided in God’s Word, and not from extra-biblical sources.
Similarly, you should resist the popular tendency of assigning meaning to the images in the parables of Jesus and the apocalyptic literature. Because, if you cannot find the source OT image that Jesus or an apocalyptic writer is using, then you are blindly guessing at the symbolic meaning. Arguably, every image in Daniel is a replay of an image depicted elsewhere in the OT, and not a prophecy of battles between literal worldly nations. Therefore, if you intimately understood the images depicting the stories of Israel, then the similar images in Daniel and Revelation would become evident without the need for any information beyond God’s Word.
Certainly, with this new approach, you would no longer simply perceive the biblical images as literal people, places, and things; but rather you would try to discern their intended symbolic meaning by seeking the many bits of information. How much diligence do you think would be required to learn the intended symbolism? If significant effort was required to discover the symbolic meaning, how much joy would you experience after discovering your first hidden pearl where a verse provides particular insight towards the symbolic meaning of an image that has been on your mind? Would you begin to approach the Bible totally differently; no longer reading it like any other book of literature, but rather diligently seeking pearls that reveal new understanding. Would you ever again reach for a commentary to gain understanding, or would you begin to meditate on how a new insight better defines an image. How would you feel if you realized that verses you had largely dismissed as insignificant actually provide insight into revealing a mystery of your future spiritual world? Can you even begin to imagine how profoundly impacted you would be if you began to perceive that the purpose of God’s Word is to symbolically reveal your individual spiritual world into the next age? Would time in God’s Word become your most exciting activity? Could there be anything more important than seeking that understanding?
Which image?
Let it be said, Satan likes that you can easily perceive the two-image illusion as depicting the image of a pretty young woman, and God currently allows that lying spirit to exist in your world. Again, please consider how Jesus depicts the birds who steal the sowed Word from reaching your heart. Because, if discerning God’s intended images requires your diligent effort and the Holy Spirit’s assistance, then perhaps Satan’s primary method of theft is to simply give you false images that you can easily discern with your own natural mind, and vague images that you can personally shape to your own particular preferences. Therefore, by instinctively perceiving the “easy” literal sense of the Bible with your natural mind, are you allowing yourself to be distracted from pursuing the true images that God intended you to perceive? There are most definitely two perspectives being portrayed by God’s Word; one approach perceives a series of literal images as interpreted by your own understanding, and the other approach perceives a series of symbolic images as depicted by God. Which perspective is likely to be the distraction, and which perspective is likely to reveal the mysteries?
From my experience, my prior worldly perspective often led me to complex explanations which caused confusion and apparent contradictions, whereas I have found no hint of confusion or contradiction when perceiving God’s Word from the spiritual perspective. Now I can perceive the images being consistently repeated and built upon neatly throughout the entire Bible, so I must reemphasize the significance of no longer finding confusion or apparent contradictions. Because, if there was even just one contradiction within Einstein’s theory of relativity, then who would be willing to give it any credibility? Similarly, if there was just one perceived contradiction within God’s Word, then everything viewed with that particular perspective should be cast in doubt. Yet, even though religion with its worldly perspective results in much confusion and apparent contradictions, many are willing to blindly ignore the inconsistencies. That willingness to blindly ignore inconsistencies is considered illogical in secular matters, so is it logical to ignore those inconsistencies in religious matters?
Logically, you should also prefer simplicity over complexity, and you should appreciate the fact that God wants everyone to come to the same understanding of His Word. Because, by approaching God’s Word with no preconceived understanding of the images, everyone should allow scripture alone to provide the information that infers the symbolic meaning of any image. And, if everyone allowed that same process of replacing their old understanding with God’s intended meaning, then perhaps everyone would share God’s understanding of a person’s eternal existence.