Reasons for my disdain
At a recent event, I felt that deep empathy when a young woman gave a passionate testimony of Jesus as part of a prayer, and I sensed discomfort from my “unbelieving” sister who was sitting next to me. More than likely, neither one of them had come to their core belief based on a diligent personal study of God’s Word; rather they acted, and reacted, based on what they had heard from wise men to be the truth, or lack of truth, of God’s Word. After the prayer, I whispered to my sister to consider that the young woman was “evangelizing” because that is what she was taught to do. Perhaps we should be empathetic towards her for having been misled to her particular core belief by the wise men of religion, just as I am empathetic towards my sister for having been misled to her core belief by the wise men of the world.
My deep frustration of mankind stems from the realization that even though religion obviously causes everyone to stumble in their feelings towards one another, no one appears willing to question the original assumption of a literal historical perspective. Even worse, as evidenced by the many well-known past and present atrocities of the church, everyone seems willing to accept that religion by its very nature creates conflict. Yet, for me, it is insane to think that any reasonable person, particularly those who claim to have a heart for God, would logically accept that the “God of love” intended His Word to cause so much violence in this world.
Consider how the image of “us versus them” is still being promoted by the wise men of religion, and Christians are even being encouraged to become a militant in a literal battle against “unbelievers” of their religion. Therefore, whether on a school board, or on social media, or wherever, many Christians perceive that God’s Word gives them the right to force their beliefs on others. Of course, some Christians relish the thought of being persecuted in response to their effort, perhaps because they perceive that Jesus will reward them in heaven for being persecuted (e.g., Matt 5:10-12). However, is the reason for the persecution of Christians in our society a matter of others rejecting a Christian’s “righteous” behavior, or the natural response of others when God’s Word is being imposed on them?
My disdain for religion is fueled by the fact that God’s Word is being employed by some belief systems as a “tool” to promote conflict in our society, yet the remaining Christian leaders are not willing to forcibly speak up and condemn the practice. In particular, man’s wisdom has heightened the intensity level of the conflict by promoting that God’s ultimate solution is a final “world war” between believers and unbelievers. Arguably, Christian “leaders” must recognize that if they do not actively challenge this practice of depicting “Armageddon” as God’s future plan, then they will be considered as tacitly approving the practice. And, just as it is considered a sin when you know the right thing to do and don’t do it, Christian leaders are complicit if they remain silent (James 4:17).
Notably, before Jesus depicts those being persecuted because of Him, He depicts the image of a “peacemaker” (Matt 5:9). So, for every Christian leader, when other “Christian” leaders essentially promote conflict in the Middle East, does sitting on your hands and keeping your mouth shut fulfill the role of a peacemaker, or the role of a “blind” guide? Notably, many have demanded that the leaders of Islam denounce the extreme “militant” branch of its religion, and the same should be happening within Christianity. In the chapter on the End Times, I will discuss the horrific dispensational perspective that is promoting a massive war as God’s plan.
So, whether you are a believer or an unbeliever, can you consider the possibility that you are being a “lemming” by continuing to blindly accept man’s perception that God intended His Word to literally promote conflict in the world? Arguably, given the very fact that religion promotes evolving extremes of both conservative and liberal thinking, should not more people logically realize that the variety of biblical worldviews is clear evidence of a lack of wisdom regarding an absolute truth? Sadly, most Christians are not willing to responsibly question what they have been told, and most unbelievers are simply willing to reject religion’s perception of God’s Word. Understandably, it is extremely difficult to approach God’s Word with an open mind void of preconceptions and the voices of others, and to consider the possibility that God intended to depict a different image than religion’s many versions of a “young woman” which result from approaching scripture as a history book. Perhaps my greatest argument for the “symbolic” perspective of God’s Word is how the new line of thinking totally eliminates religion’s divisive perception of us versus them, and instead the new image of an “old woman” creates a line of thinking that reveals God’s love for everyone, by simply yet deeply building upon God’s consistent message of the good news.
Reason for continued famine
Consider how many argue that the “heart” of man is the reason for the continued famine of God’s Word, yet I argue that the religious thinking created by the “wisdom” of man is the root cause. Certainly, there have been billions of people who have had a heart for God, whether or not they ever joined a church. However, once man’s wisdom was given the opportunity to create a “biblical” worldview, the early church put in motion a process that would inevitably result in the continued evolution of the good news. Of course, people raised in religion will perceive that their “modern” perspective is sane because the thinking is based on the wisdom of two thousand years of church history, and because communities of loving people will always have a positive impact on society. Therefore, as certain as death and taxes, there will always be those who have a heart for God, and religion will continue to evolve in its effort to offer a more appealing image to attract those hearts. However, has the “good-hearted” effort of the church only made it more difficult for the people who have a heart for God to personally seek the voice of God?
Consider how there was never a resurgence in the hunger and thirst for God’s voice after the Reformation, such that the desire for personal meditation of scripture has faded into oblivion. Arguably, the desire for mediating on God’s Word might never exist again as it did with the Jews, because why would any sane person mediate on the words of a history book? Of course, some people might claim that they meditate on a verse to derive its meaning, but the meditation arguably just reinforces a wrong understanding of man’s thinking, rather than revealing inferences towards a deeper understanding of the larger images being depicted within scripture.
Consider how there are two types of people who remain in the church. Certainly, there are many who sincerely seek to worship their God, and a strong heart for God can supersede the lack of knowledge necessary to rationalize the decision. Of course, there will also be some who join a church even without a strong heart for God; because, if it could possibly mean their escape from eternal damnation and a better seat in heaven, then better to CYA than risk the alternative, even if the thinking does not make sense. Therefore, whether from a love of God, or from a fear of hell, some people are willing to make a decision to join a religion based on the feelings of their heart, while ignoring the fact that their knowledge does not clearly support the decision. Again, for a Christian, often the lack of knowledge is perceived as a good thing, because the blindness presumably requires a stronger “faith” of the heart to accept what religion is promoting.
Consequently, just like the early Christians, there appears to be no need to seek wisdom from God’s Word, because people today still perceive that “accepting” a belief statement written by some wise men somehow secures their salvation. Religion has always told people what to believe, and that you can presume to be “saved” if you accept its belief statement, while disregarding the fact that neither you, nor anyone else, truly understands the meaning of the abstract doctrine. It is church tradition, which you can decide to either accept or deny. Therefore, Bible study is deemed unnecessary, and it is typically perceived as being difficult. In any case, it will likely just lead to confusion and endless debate, so why bother?
Consider how religions continues to exist, even though the core error of all religious thinking should be logically evident because of the mere presence of the many disparate interpretations amongst its wise men. Because, if you had an internal medical condition, and every medical doctor you visited each provided you with their “best guess” of your condition, and all of the doctors’ perceptions varied, then how confident would you feel with any of their wisdom? Would you not realize that none of them have an “absolute” understanding of what is going on inside of you? Yet, the wise men of religion are doing the same thing by feeding you their particular perceptions; so, why do you continue to give them credibility even though their many perceptions vary? You would not trust medical doctors who are obviously blind to your internal physical condition, so why should you trust spiritual doctors who even admit that they are blind to your spiritual nature?
Consider how the wise men of religion will often provide non-biblical information to support their particular perception, whether other ancient texts, or a presumed “fact of history” not recorded in scripture. However, that practice should precipitate the downfall of the literal historical perspective, because obviously anyone can influence the meaning of a biblical image with selective extra-biblical information, such that it is logically impossible to ever come to an “absolute” truth of any image within God’s Word. Arguably, if a biblical image is manipulated in any way based on information from an outside source, particularly from the preconceived notions of the reader, then an “assumption” is being added to the thinking. And, according to the principle of Occam’s Razor, adding assumptions increases the probability that there is an error in the understanding. Logically, the only biblical understanding that should be deemed an absolute truth is one that is created solely from many inferences of understanding depicted within scripture. However, thanks to the wisdom of man, trillions of hours of effort have been wasted seeking information from other sources to promote a particular understanding, instead of using that time towards diligently seeking understanding within the one source that God has spoken.
Will the madness never stop, or will more people begin to question the obvious blindness of the literal historical approach that the wise men of religion have proposed for centuries? The popular description of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly, yet expecting different results over time. So, how much more time should man’s wisdom be given to come to an absolute truth based on the perspective that God’s Word is a history book? Is two thousand years not enough? Arguably, no one really expects man’s wisdom to arrive at an absolute understanding, such that everyone accepts that they must create their own “personal” image of God based on their particular perceptions and experiences that occur in their life. And, if you are seeking a wisdom of this world, then some variation of modern religion will likely provide an adequate answer. However, if you are seeking God’s understanding of His Word, then how much more time will you concede that your understanding of His Word must come from the blind wisdom of other men?
For me, a huge change in my life occurred when I tuned out the voice of man’s wisdom, especially my own, and instead began to hear only the voice of God. And, to no surprise, that voice is continually and logically building a simple yet deep understanding of His Word, just as any reasonably sane person should expect from the God of the universe. Yet, what has become very frustrating is how everyone wrongly assumes that the spiritual perspective blindly assigns symbolic meaning to the biblical images, while at the same time they are willing to accept that their preacher or commentator can arbitrarily assign meaning, presumably because they are perceived as being a trained theologian who can interpret scripture. However, would not Jesus consider them “untrained” scribes if they employ any source but scripture to form their line of thinking?
Critical thinking
For the longest time, the wise men of religion could claim that the events in the Bible happened literally as described. Certainly, there were many unanswered questions, such as who actually wrote many parts of scripture. However, the general sense was that the Bible was historically accurate, even though there was minimal evidence actually supporting many of the biblical accounts. That is, until more recent times, when critical thinking revealed the many illogical conclusions of religion. No longer would the wise men of religion remain unchallenged in their thinking, because the wise men of the world endeavored to seek an unbiased view of scripture, rather than being motivated to defend the “truth” of a particular belief system.
I was not exposed to critical thinking in my religious upbringing, rather I blindly accepted the thinking being provided by my parents and my religious leaders, just like many others who were raised in a religious family. Presumably, most mature Christians continue to avoid critical thinking because they perceive that questioning their faith would indicate a “lack” of faith. However, if you label the Bible as a history book, then should it not be subject to the same critical analysis as any other book that claims to be a record of actual historical events?
From my perspective, historical critical thinking further validates the deficiencies of the literal historical approach to God’s Word. Of course, the wise men of religion are not willing to concede that scripture is historically inaccurate in any sense, and there is often much uncertainty with debatable historical data such that neither side may ever be able to claim absolute victory. However, my intent is not to replay the many modern arguments that attack the historical accuracy of the biblical accounts, or the scientific accuracy of the creation accounts as recorded in Genesis. Instead, I want to focus briefly on just a few key results of critical thinking that even the wise men of religion concede are problematic.
Problem with Daniel’s prophecies
The first problem to consider is regarding the prophetic accuracy within the book of Daniel. Essentially all wise men, regardless of their religious position, perceive that Daniel accurately records actual events that presumably occurred after the Babylonian exile. However, the events recorded in Daniel 12 obviously did not occur as recorded, so the wise men of religion are left with a dilemma. Did Daniel accurately prophesy the earlier events, yet fail to accurately record the subsequent events? If so, would not that make him a false prophet?
Surprisingly, many wise men in religion suggest that Daniel was written after the earlier events, such that he was actually recording past history instead of predicting future events. Of course, that position does not explain the inaccuracy of the later events, but they claim that it explains why he was correct on the earlier events. In other words, Daniel was not just a false prophet, but he was also a deceitful prophet, because he tried to fake prophecy by claiming to write about events before they occurred, when in actuality he was writing after the events.
Here is the major problem with all of this thinking. Even Jesus claimed that Daniel was a prophet, so was Jesus unknowingly mistaken about Daniel, or did He knowingly lie by validating Daniel as a true prophet? Or, was Daniel a true prophet, yet all of the wise men are wrong by arbitrarily linking Daniel’s images to actual events in world history? If so, then Is God trying to make it completely obvious that Daniel was not predicting worldly events, rather he was replaying biblical events that are recorded elsewhere in scripture?
I have already suggested how Daniel’s first dream interpretation is a replay of the four kingdoms depicted in early Genesis, and I will further discuss in the discussion of the end times how Daniel’s other images similarly are replays of biblical events. However, at this point, I must ask a very simple question. Why in the world would Daniel (i.e. God) presumably predict worldly events that have absolutely nothing to do with the biblical stories? Who cares what Alexander or whomever did in world history? In any case, even if God was trying to depict Daniel as an amazing prophet of world events, then why would He allow Daniel to fail so miserably? Is it not obvious what God is doing? Is He not making the wise men appear foolish? Consequently, if the prophecy obviously does not “work” in a literal sense, then should you double-down on the literal historical approach, or should you consider an alternative? Amusingly, instead of recognizing their own foolishness, the wise men of religion are forced to claim that Daniel was a deceitful false prophet. So, are the men that you are following being wise or foolish in their perception of Daniel’s images?
Of course, perhaps every Christian does not care to consider the problem with Daniel’s prophecy. Daniel is a difficult book to read, and most preachers simply focus on the images of Daniel not eating the wrong food, and how God saved Daniel and his cohorts from fire and the lion. Those are the “feel good” stories of Daniel that capture the imagination of readers, and most people do not try to understand what Daniel is prophesying. So, while Daniel’s prophecies are an obvious problem without a reasonable explanation, presumably everyone is willing to concede that since Daniel is “only human,” even “inspired” humans can make a mistake. And, if Jesus did not “validate” Daniel as being a prophet, then that explanation might be a reasonable. However, Jesus does claim that Daniel was a prophet, so the problem of Daniel’s apparent prophetic failure is a serious hurdle for those promoting a literal historical approach to the book of Daniel.
Problem with Jesus’ prophecies
The second problem to consider is regarding the prophesies of Jesus regarding His second coming. As recorded in the gospel accounts, Jesus explicitly states that “this generation will not pass away until all these things take place,” and that “there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of man coming in His kingdom” (Matt 16:28; 24:34; Mark 9:1; 13:30; Luke 21:32). Notably, James, John, and Paul similarly state that the time is near (e.g., James 5:7; 1 Thes 4:17; 1 John 2:18). So, it is one thing to claim that “inspired” humans can be wrong in their prophetic utterances, but how do you explain the apparent failure of Jesus to prophesy the future events?
Of course, this topic has been debated extensively, and there are all sorts of ways that man’s wisdom has tried to “redefine” the obvious literal meaning of the texts, such as defining “this generation” to mean the “race” of all Jews. Amusingly, the same people who otherwise demand “strict” adherence to the literal wording are the ones who try to manipulate the meaning of the text. Alternatively, some wise men (i.e. preterists) claim that the prophesied events actually did occur at that time, however in a manner other than a literal temporal fulfillment. Invariably, again by people who otherwise argue for the literal historical approach, the events are “spiritualized” such that preterists can claim that they occurred in a heavenly sense. Presumably, Jesus did come into the hearts of people, and He is somehow reigning in a heavenly Jerusalem. However, again, is it not obvious what God is doing? Is He not making the wise men appear foolish by their arbitrary attempts to manipulate the text?
Of course, just like Daniel’s failed prophecy, Christians do not care about the apparent failed prophecy of Jesus. These matters typically fall into the category of “I don’t understand, but I will ask Jesus when I die.” Arguably, there are hundreds of these instances throughout scripture where the literal historical perspective does not make sense, but invariably Christians either simply ignore the instances, or they accept that the “inspired” writers were not flawless. However, if the writers were not flawless, then how can anyone claim that all of scripture is “absolute” truth if there are many flawed instances? In particular, if Jesus is perceived as being mistaken about Daniel’s prophetic ability, while also being perceived as a false prophet about His own second coming, then how can anyone claim that any biblical verse is absolute truth? However, if you do care enough to not ignore the apparent failed prophecies, and you sense that God’s Word should not have these inconsistencies, then what change in your approach should be considered?
There is a popular story that evangelists often employ in their attempt to persuade people to accept their understanding of salvation. They typically depict a person drowning, yet the person ignores several clear attempts to be saved because he wants to be saved a particular way. So, the question must be asked. Is God doing the exact same thing by clearly depicting the foolish nature of applying a literal historical methodology to His Word? How many times must God make it obvious that His Word is depicting a story that can only be approached in a symbolic manner, just as Jesus consistently demanded of His disciples? It is one thing to be misled by the foolish wise men of religion, but are you also being foolish by ignoring God’s numerous obvious signs that a literal perspective is not His intent?
Problem with “inspired” authors
Ultimately, the source of all difficulty in making sense of God’s Word stems from the perception that the Bible is a collection of texts written by men who were somehow “inspired” by God. Because, once you adopt that perspective, then you have committed yourself to the literal historical perspective of God’s Word. Yet, what are the inherent consequences of making that broad assumption of scripture?
Obviously, the most significant consequence is that the Bible becomes open to textual criticism, such that scripture’s historical and literary accuracy must be either affirmed or placed in doubt. Of course, the early wise men of religion were not challenged by modern wisdom, such that it was easy for them to convince the masses that scripture was inerrant. Notably, they had the writings of the early church “fathers” whose opinions were deemed sacrosanct, such that church doctrine stood on solid ground for hundreds of years. Interestingly, the Catholic Church still relies on the opinions of the early church fathers to justify their current “traditional” understanding of scripture. Yet, over time, the wise men of the world began to challenge the wise men of religion, and questions arose regarding the accuracy of the texts. In particular, not only would the texts be weighed against non-biblical texts, but the texts within scripture would be weighed against each other.
I must reemphasize that the general thinking of religious people is that they do not accept the basic premise that the Bible can be questioned in any sense. Generally, Christians perceive that anyone who does not accept the inerrancy of God’s Word is an “unbeliever” who is blind to the truth of scripture. Therefore, even though the wise men of religion cannot refute the modern challenges, there is always the perception that an explanation exists, regardless of whether the explanation has yet been realized. Because, in a Christian’s mind, eventually all of scripture will be proven to be true exactly as written. Certainly, that is what I once believed.
Of course, much of the debate focuses on the “historical” facts of Jesus, and whether there actually was a Son of God who walked this earth. Because, for many, it does not matter whether any of the OT images are historically or scientifically accurate, rather the only thing that matters is whether there was a person named Jesus. Such that, according to religion, simply “believing” that the gospel stories are true is sufficient for salvation, and it is considered a heresy to question in any way the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. The historical events of Jesus are all that matter, so even though the biblical authors might have been flawed, they are perceived as conveying the eye-witness accounts of Jesus that cannot be questioned. Logically, all of the disciples were neither liars nor crazy, so the historical accounts must be true. Therefore, for Christians, case closed.
For me, as mentioned, I considered the contrarian opinions of the wise men of the world, and those who logically “deconstructed” scripture that revealed the irrational thinking necessary to blindly believe the literal sense of God’s Word. Notably, many of the wise men of the world typically compare the OT to other ancient texts that presumably indicate that the biblical authors were simply depicting their version of pagan beliefs. The stories of a great flood and of “gods” from the heavens can be found in other ancient belief systems, so the OT is considered the Jewish version of those common “supernatural” beliefs. Similarly, the NT is weighed against the writings of contemporaries, such that the historical accuracy of events are questioned. Critically, the place in time of the NT writings is also considered, and that line of thinking will be found to be the major roadblock towards realizing the absolute truth of God’s Word.
Again, it is easy for Christians to ignore the loud voices who tear down religion, because those wise men are perceived as haters of God. However, I would challenge Christians to consider the views of those who are sincerely trying to make sense of scripture, and who are not simply seeking ways to point out the many absurd aspects of scripture when perceived literally. Arguably, the wise men of religion approach scripture seeking validation of their understanding, rather than trying to understand what scripture actually states. However, what happens when you read scripture without any preconceived theological positions, but rather perform a critical analysis of the texts as you would with any other book? How would an unbiased “expert” perceive scripture?
Consider how experts argue that many of the books were written by multiple authors, and that thought alone should place in doubt the concept of “inspired” authorship. Because, how can you label a text as the book of Isaiah if one person did not write the entire book? Perhaps God could have inspired multiple people to write Isaiah, but God’s Word never implies more than one author. Of course, the same applies to the NT texts, where experts claim that authors were copying from other sources (e.g., “Q”), and that texts like Mark were amended by later writers to “Christianize” the text. Those claims might make you question whether it is even possible to discern a “single” understanding of authorial intent. Also, questions of manuscript authenticity arise, where experts claim that there are many instances of variations in the text. How can anyone claim inerrancy when there are different texts? And certainly, the English translation of the Hebrew and Greek texts adds tremendous potential for variability in understanding, so the motivation of the translators must also be considered by the experts. Logically, if you were to listen to the experts, then you should question whether you are truly reading the “inspired” Word of God. Why should anyone trust ancient texts written by ancient men who were vaguely inspired by God?
Consider again your perception of scripture. Presumably, like me, many of you consider scripture as being the “canon” of 66 sacred texts that were affirmed by the early church. However, I often wondered how a human author could truly hear what the Lord “said” about heavenly thoughts and events, such as Isaiah’s end times depiction of the wolf dwelling with the lamb (Isa 11). How should I interpret Isaiah’s depiction; as literal animals lying together, or as a symbolic image of heaven that the NT somehow later reveals? How could I get into Isaiah’s head to understand what he is depicting?
If you listen to the experts, regardless of their theological position, then it is necessary to understand “why” each author wrote what he did. Of course, it is difficult to accomplish that task if the author is not clearly identified, but that does not stop the experts who argue that the time period is critical to understanding the meaning of any text. Because, if the author is only “inspired” to write the text, then apparently the text is influenced by the author’s unique biases and the culture of the times. Therefore, without knowing the historical context, experts argue that the true meaning of the text cannot be affirmed.
Notably, I had accepted that the authors were perhaps “naive” in the sense that they might not fully understand what they were writing. In my mind, since Moses was not a modern scientist, he could only describe the events of creation in simple archaic terms. Likewise, since Isaiah apparently did not know about the future events as depicted in the NT, his descriptions of the end times might have been limited by his early understanding. The same thinking could be applied to the NT authors, where Paul could only write about the things as he understood them, so his perceptions might be in conflict with the later gospels. Because, if the author is simply inspired, then each writer was influenced by his particular perception of the world as he understood it at the time. Therefore, God’s Word is perceived as a collection of texts written by various individuals who each share their “current” understanding of the truth as influenced by their surroundings.
Consider the consequences of assuming this perception of God’s Word. As argued, this perception ensures the absence of absolute truth, because any text can be influenced by the reader’s unique perceptions of the author’s intent. And, as evidenced by the many different versions of religion, God’s Word can be “applied” to justify any “biblical” worldview. If you like the “prosperity” gospel message, then it can be found. If you like the Calvinist’s message of double predestination, then it can be found. If you like the message of a great end times war between believers and unbelievers, then it can be found. Whatever message you like, you can likely find it by manipulating certain verses to your heart’s content. It does not matter what the balance of scripture declares, because you found what you wanted in a part of scripture, and that part can be transformed from a truth “at that time” to a version of that truth as perceived by someone “today.”
Perhaps the most critical consequence of perceiving the Bible as being various texts written by “inspired” men is the concept of time. As a reader, the perspective forces you to imagine that the author is writing about events in his time, such that the prophets were writing about ancient Israel, and the NT authors are writing about events two thousand years ago. Consequently, when Paul or Jesus make a statement or a commandment, while that statement or command certainly applied to the people living at that time, by extension the same statement or command “relatively” applies to future people depending on the perception of the reader. Understandably, the present-day applications of OT statements and commands vary to a much larger degree because the OT was written in “archaic” times, such that there is a larger “gap” in understanding to be overcome. Yet, while those approaches to scripture sound reasonable to a point, could God ever intend that His Word would one day be perceived as being “archaic,” and that the application of His truth would be “variable” depending on the current times? Arguably, that is the perception of all the wise men, regardless of their theological position, and everyone follows along with the same line of thinking. However, have the masses been led away from the one absolute truth of God’s Word by all of the wise men of religion throughout time, and by the “experts” of this modern world?
The great misperception
I am fascinated by the growth that has occurred in the perceptions of man’s wisdom in just my relatively short lifetime. The perception of the universe has been transformed well beyond perceiving the sun as the center of the everything, and the perception of reality is being transformed from the deterministic laws of Newton to the probabilistic laws of quantum physics with the added uncertainty regarding the significance of spacetime. The wise men are in a quest to discover the “theory of everything.” Presumably, if such a theory exists, then it would be the foundation of all perceptions.
I was blind to the nature of the world around me, and my perceptions have been changed dramatically by science, but nothing compares to the dramatic changes that have occurred to my perceptions of the nature of the world within me. And those changes only occurred because, instead of perceiving the Bible as texts written by ancient men about times in the past, I began to perceive God’s Word as a story from the voice of a loving Father, just as scripture claims to be.
Consider what happens when you begin to perceive scripture as coming from the voice of God instead of ancient men. The first obvious effect would be that you would no longer even begin to consider any other source of understanding. Instead of trying to get into Isaiah’s head by researching extra-biblical sources, would you not seek an understanding of Isaiah based solely on the information that your Father has depicted in the story? So, does it matter how many people wrote the book of Isaiah, or how God depicts the persona of Isaiah? And, instead of trying to get into Paul’s or Peter’s head from extra-biblical information, should we not only consider how God depicts them in the story of Israel? If so, by extension, none of the biblical images should be automatically perceived as depicting historical events that can be compared to other texts, but rather solely as a story from the mind of God. Consequently, if your mind was wiped clean, and you were placed on an island with a basic understanding of the world and the Bible as your only source of information, then what perception would be the logical result?
Consider how many times you have heard a teacher state that “we are Israel” in some sense. Notably, the early church fathers tried desperately to claim how the NT church is somehow related to OT Israel, however the symbolism was rightfully dismissed as being subjective. Yet, everyone recognizes that the OT promises to Israel must somehow apply to us today, or else why would you even read the OT. Arguably, no one knows how to handle the OT promises to Israel, because everyone perceives the promises as being made to a nation in the past, as opposed to promises being made to a nation in the story.
Consider, if you started with a clean mind, would you base your understanding on the last 25% of the Bible? If not, then when you pick up a “chronological” Bible, would you start at the letters of Paul that preceded the gospel accounts? Certainly not, you would logically start with the first words. So, if you lived at a time when you only had the first book of the Bible, whether it be Genesis or Job, then your perception would be based solely on the images being depicted. And, if you truly perceived the words as being “divine” text, then you would likely perceive the symbolism being depicted. Arguably, if you were given just the OT, or even the entire canon, then you would perceive the nation of Israel as the primary image of the story. And the only question you should consider is “what” can be laid alongside the story of Israel such that “all” of the smaller images contribute to a simple yet deep understanding that is consistent within the overall image.
Over the next four chapters of this effort, my goal is to provide insights that resulted from my assuming a new perspective of the story of Israel. However, I truly struggled with whether I should have ended my effort with just a statement of the new perspective. Because, I am not trying to convince you of my understanding, but rather to encourage you to consider the new perspective. I should just say that the story of Israel is a parable of your individual spiritual existence, and allow you to draw your own understanding from the images being depicted. Arguably, if you simply approach every biblical image with that single “spiritual” perspective, then you will arrive at the exact same conclusions of this life and the next as I depicted in Chapter 3. Notably, I needed tens of thousands hours of meditation on nothing else but God’s Word to logically develop my perceptions, and I know that you will certainly struggle to overcome your current perceptions. Therefore, my hope is that this effort provides insights into the new lines of thinking such that you might find it easier to consider approaching scripture with the spiritual perspective.
Please recognize that I consider myself still rather new to God’s Word. This effort has taken much longer than expected because I find myself wanting and needing to dig deeper. Frankly, I envy the many wise men who have an intimate knowledge of God’s Word, however I just wish they considered how their understanding is changed with the spiritual perspective. Notably, I have greatly enjoyed watching the videos of James Tabor (www.JamesTabor.com), because of his deep knowledge of scripture, and how he develops particular perceptions of images that are often notably different than those suggested by religion. Of course, he approaches the images from a critical historical perspective so he misses the intended message, but he attempts to employ scripture to interpret scripture, just as Jesus depicted the trained scribe who is not far from the kingdom. I will likely watch all of his videos, while wishing that I was sitting with him to suggest a different perspective of the images being depicted. My greatest hope is to develop the same “expert” knowledge of God’s Word, because I am looking forward to the amazing perceptions that will be revealed when the images are approached with the intended perspective.
As argued, the great misperception of the literal historical perspective is that Jesus and scripture overall are perceived as literally depicting objects of the physical world, rather than symbolically depicting the elements within a person’s spiritual world. Consequently, by perceiving the biblical images with any variation of the worldly perspective, everyone inevitably creates their own unique understanding of God and His Word. However, there is always a vagueness or inconsistency in that understanding which causes doubt, and that doubt requires “believers” to have a blind faith, and leads “unbelievers” to have no faith.
So, do you accept that God intended His Word to create uncertainty, or do you believe that He intended His Word to reveal the mysteries, such that you perceive simple yet deep answers to the three great questions of life? Only you can choose whether you will continue to follow the wisdom of man, or to consider another perspective of God’s Word.
The next chapter will argue how the great misperception of the literal historical perspective results in the concept of two “dispensations” of religion. Alternatively, I would like you to reimagine how the NT images are a depiction of the continuing story of Israel, such that your understanding of the message of good news can become an image of what Jesus proclaimed at the beginning of His ministry.