First perceptions of God’s Word
Arguably, the early images depicted by God in Job and Genesis should be perceived today as an ancient disciple would have perceived them, because it would be illogical to think that God expects people to have a different understanding over time. Of course, religion has already predisposed you to perceive that Genesis depicts the creation of the physical world and man, and that Job depicts why bad things happen to good people. However, would an ancient disciple share those perceptions? Notably, both sets of images depict the Lord in the company of others; so, would he logically perceive the images as depictions of literal people in heaven?
Consider the images of the Lord’s throne room as depicted in the first two chapters of Job. Presenting themselves before the Lord are the “sons of God,” when Satan comes into their midst (Job 1:6). The Lord is depicted as allowing Satan to cause pain in the life of “righteous” Job, and the Lord later states that Satan incited Him to “swallow up” (i.e. consume) Job without cause. So, how does your perception of those images compare with that of an ancient disciple? Would he perceive those images as a depiction of a literal Satan whom God has allowed to roam the earth with power to inflict pain? If you think so, then is there a Satanic being who has that same power today? Of course, religion might tell you that Jesus has become your mediator, so perhaps you perceive that the “accuser” no longer has that power in your life. Yet, does that mean that there was a literal external Satan inflicting you before you were saved, and does that satanic being still inflict unbelievers today? And, most importantly, does God still “consume” righteous people today because He was incited by Satan?
Arguably, religion has always been conflicted by the depiction of Satan, but it concludes that Satan is to be perceived either as a literal external being, or as a force that exists in unbelievers and which must be fought in a literal spiritual war. Critically, still to this very day, religion cannot provide any meaningful understanding of who is being depicted in Job by the image of the “sons of God,” but could an ancient disciple of scripture perceive the meaning? What other images might he consider?
Consider the throne room scene similar to Job’s as depicted in the story of Ahab, where the prophet Micaiah describes “all the host of heaven” standing both to the left and right of the Lord (1 Kings 22:19). Amazingly, a “spirit” responds to the Lord’s request to “entice” Ahab to fall, and God allows the spirit to be “a lying spirit in the mouth of all of his (i.e. Ahab’s) prophets” (1 Kings 22:22). So, how would an ancient disciple perceive those similar images of the throne room of the Lord? Arguably, he would consider that both scenes depicted in Job and Kings are intended as symbolism of a spiritual realm that is beyond his natural senses; so, how would that realization impact the way he perceived the other “heavenly” depictions?
Again, many recognize that the OT does not provide any clear depictions of “going to” heaven, however the OT does provide a number of scenes that depict the heavenly realm. For instance, many are familiar with Isaiah’s vision of the heavenly temple (Isa 6), or Daniel’s vision of the ancient of days sitting on a throne (Dan 7:9), and perhaps some are also familiar with Ezekiel’s heavenly vision (Ezek 40-48). Yet, consider the scene in Zechariah 3, where Satan is depicted as standing to accuse Joshua the high priest, and how that image is similar to Job’s depiction of Satan and the sons of God. Notably, Jude provides us with an affirming image (Jude 9); however, even without Jude’s affirmation, how would an ancient disciple perceive the depiction of Joshua the high priest being in the presence of Satan and the angel of the Lord? So, would he perceive that God intended the image of Joshua to depict a literal person; or, would he perceive the image of Joshua as a symbolic depiction of a “son of Israel” who is being made a “son of God” in the presence of other spiritual elements (Hos 1:10)? Importantly, since Joshua is depicted elsewhere as a “person” in the story of Israel, what conclusion would he draw from these depictions? Would he not consider the possibility that the other images of Israel are intended as symbolic depictions of an unobservable spiritual realm?
As will be argued in the next chapter, an ancient disciple was able to perceive the future hope of the “promised land” as a depiction of “heaven” because he instinctively approached the images symbolically. Importantly, he was strongly encouraged to consider that overall symbolic perspective because of these early images of the Lord’s throne room. And, while we have the benefit of the throne room scenes as depicted in both Jude and Revelation, those NT images will never provide God’s intended understanding if they are perceived apart from the OT images. However, even without the benefit of the affirming NT images, an ancient disciple would have logically perceived those first images of Job as being depictions of a spiritual reality, and that perception would have greatly impacted the way he perceived the other early images depicted by God. Because, once you can perceive that God is employing symbolism to send a message, then it eventually becomes very difficult to perceive the images as literal things of this world. Of course, an ancient Jew had an advantage over today’s Christians, because of his language.
The Hebrew language
Before more images are discussed, the matter of the Hebrew language must be addressed. Early in my journey, I was made aware of Robert Alter, a professor who is widely regarded as an expert in the linguistic study of Hebrew. I strongly encourage everyone to consider reading some of his efforts, because you will better understand the impact of the modern translations. Importantly, Hebrew words incorporate an imagery that does not exist with English words, so it often requires many English words to try to fully describe the meaning of one Hebrew word. Interestingly, this is why the Hebrew scrolls of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles each had to be divided into two scrolls, because the translation from the Hebrew into Greek required too many words to fit onto one scroll. Importantly, even the use of many English words often does not convey the fullness of the original Hebrew, a deficiency that Robert Alter attempts to mitigate in his OT translation.
A particular thought to consider is how the ancient Jew did not have “books” of scripture, rather much of the communication was verbal. Another important aspect of the Hebrew language is that the vocalization of the words is a form of poetry in itself; such that, just as you remember a “jingle” or perhaps an entire song because of the way the words sound together (think ABCDEFG…), a Jew could recall scripture because the sounds of the words flowed together in his mind much like a jingle. Therefore, because of the imagery and the sounds that are both inherent in the Hebrew language, a Jew was able to memorize much if not all of the OT. Can you imagine the impact on your ability to meditate on God’s Word if you similarly had ready access in your mind to the entirety of the OT scripture? And, by recalling how our imagination prefers to work with images more than words because images are more efficient, arguably a Jew could more easily perceive the images being depicted to discern God’s intended meaning, whereas religion encourages you to memorize the literal words of a verse and try to imagine your own understanding of the words.
However, just as your understanding of English words such as “judgment” or “judgmental” are based on your understanding of the root word “judge,” there are similar concepts for Hebrew words such as the “Lemma” and the root word. And, as you might imagine, understanding the meaning of the “spinoffs” or the root words is often critical in perceiving the imagery being presented. For instance, the Hebrew name of one of the tribes is “Dan,” which means “to judge,” and the Hebrew word for god is “el,” so the name Daniel depicts “judge of god.” Yet, does that perception seem trivial in your mind? Critically, for me, the matter regarding the English translation of words is far from a trivial matter, because finding similar biblical images often requires an understanding of the relationships between words that are frequently hidden by the English translation. Again, a Jew would have had a huge advantage by being able to instinctively perceive how certain words relate to each other, whereas you will have absolutely no idea of the relationship unless you devote significant effort to overcome the obstacle.
Importantly, the very fact that the modern English translation significantly impacts the meaning of scripture adds credibility to the symbolic perspective. Because, since we are told that not one iota of His Word will pass away, arguably there are many iotas and larger elements that are missing within the modern English translation. So, how could God reasonably hold any modern reader accountable for their misunderstanding if even a small portion of His Word was made inaccurate by the literal translation into English? In other words, if I have been given a slightly defective book, then I should be able to use that fact as an excuse for not understanding the truth of scripture – yes?
Again, from my perspective, the many arguments regarding the inaccuracy of scripture as being justification for disbelief are foolish because it is obvious that the English translation is far from perfect, and the trend is to deviate even further from the original text. Yet, in this life, the Holy Spirit can certainly overcome the missing iotas to provide a disciple with enough “resolution” to perceive the images on their journey towards understanding. Critically, for me, it is unreasonable to think that anyone will not receive a full fidelity form of His Word in the next life; because, knowing what I now know, it is a heresy to even consider that everyone will not have the opportunity to experience the intended full wonder of God’s Word.
Arguably, every iota adds knowledge to an image that scripture is depicting, and that knowledge was placed there for a reason. However, religion promotes the concept that you only need to understand the essentials of the faith, and that the rest of the knowledge is considered optional, because it was placed there just for “added color” for those who want it. Yet, if God added that knowledge into His Word, then do you truly think you can avoid a full understanding of the images (e.g., 1 John 2:20-21)? For instance, since religion perceives God’s Word as a book of literal historical facts, the meaning of the names of people and places are rarely studied, rather they are simply considered as adding color. So, are the names of the twelve tribes of Israel just coincidences, or did God intend them to provide critical knowledge towards a meaningful understanding of His truth? Similarly, do you consider the particular mother of each son of Jacob, or the position of each tribe around the tabernacle, as just odd facts, or as depictions of important inferences towards a profound understanding? Certainly, some wise men suggest how you might “apply” one of those images to your life, but I truly look forward to that day when your eyes are opened such that you recognize the profound significance of those images.
Of course, many Christians simply imagine that any necessary knowledge will just be “given” to them if it is important, but I would strongly advise your reconsideration of that perspective. Because, if God’s plan was to give you all knowledge all at once sometime in the distant future, then why would He repeatedly and emphatically berate those who do not seek understanding? Notably, for an ancient disciple who expected symbolism and perceived God’s Word as a parable depicting a hidden wisdom, every iota would have been considered important, whether or not its meaning was immediately understood.
Consequentially, we should recognize that an ancient Jew had the benefit of perceiving subtle imagery that is often lost on the modern reader, and the question is whether you consider that loss as being meaningful to you. Arguably, a disciple seeking to perceive the thoughts of a perfect God would consider any loss as being significant. Notably, the English translation hides not just the imagery inherent in each word, but very often the “poetic” nature of the text is also totally lost on the modern reader. And, as many commentators debate, the images in early Genesis are presented in a form of poetry that must be considered by the modern reader.
Perception of creation
Again, you were told that the early images of Genesis depict the creation of the physical world, and perhaps you were also told that much of scripture is a “polemic” against the archaic beliefs of that time. Therefore, since scientific knowledge was primitive 3,000 years ago, presumably God needed to begin His Word with a simple understanding of the physical world. Yet, considering that an ancient disciple expected symbolism, and that he likely appreciated the poetic form of the creation account, would he perceive as you do the depictions of the sun, moon, and stars in the same literal manner? How would he determine the intended meaning of the images being depicted within the creation account?
Recalling the concept of inference to the best explanation, this concept was deemed necessary for gaining an understanding because God rarely provides a vivid description of an image in a single verse. However, sometimes He does, and an ancient disciple would have certainly appreciated the amazing pearl of wisdom provided by God through the voice of Jacob (Gen 37). So, imagine an ancient disciple meditating on the depiction of Joseph describing his dream of the sun, moon, and eleven stars bowing down before him, and particularly when Jacob rebukes Joseph by explicitly asking, “Shall I, and your mother, and your brothers, actually come to bow ourselves down before you to the ground?” Importantly, God even emphasizes the amazing significance of the symbolic understanding by noting that Jacob “kept the saying in mind” (Genesis 37:11; similar Luke 2:19, 51). So, do you also keep the saying in mind, or do you dismiss the image of creation simply as archaic science?
Consider how there are numerous very significant “sayings” or inferences throughout scripture that together form a profound symbolic understanding of the sun, moon, and stars. So, how would an ancient disciple perceive the images of the creation account, and the frequent warnings by God not to worship the “host of heaven” (Deut 4:17; 17:3; 2 Kings 17:16)? Again, you were likely told to perceive the warning as a command not to literally worship the celestial bodies, such that the command does not apply to you because you have the benefit of modern science; however, is the pride in your sense of earthly wisdom literally blinding you from perceiving the intended meaning?
Arguably, without the deception of the literal perspective that you have imposed upon yourself, an ancient disciple would have perceived the warning not to worship the “host of heaven” as a symbolic depiction of spiritual elements that should not be worshipped. Such that, whereas you likely perceive the image of the darkening of the sun and the moon with the stars falling from the heavens as actually depicting a literal temporal event, an ancient disciple would have perceived a profound symbolic understanding of a future reality as developed by the many bits of inferences. So, for you as a “wise” modern reader, consider which perspective of the warning not to worship the host of heaven would likely inspire you to seek a much deeper understanding of images depicting the sun, moon, and stars, and which perspective would likely cause you to experience apathy towards understanding and pride in your own wisdom. Of course, these celestial events are prophesied to occur during the day of the Lord; so, if you were keeping the saying of Jacob in your mind, then which perspective reveals profound insight, and which sounds like foolishness? Will the sons of Jacob one day literally fall from the sky?
Perception of adam’
Perhaps one of the greatest deceptions created by the modern English translation is regarding the word “man,” or mankind, because the English translation hides the fact that there are primarily three Hebrew words that are translated as man. Of course, the first mention of man is in the creation account, where God uses the word adam’ to describe His creation (Gen 1:26). Today, many people obviously perceive Adam as the “name” of the first human being; however, I would argue that an ancient disciple would not have imagined the depiction of adam’ in that manner. Because, if you were to study the word adam’, then you would realize that only about 25% of the OT words translated as “man” are actually the word adam’. And, if you were to consider how the word adam’ is employed versus the common word for man, then you will begin to perceive the creation account as an ancient disciple.
Consider how Paul also employs the image of adam’ when he depicts the difference between a natural body versus a spiritual body (1 Cor 15:45-49), and how there are NT verses that quote the OT where the word adam’ is utilized (e.g. Heb 2:6). Also, how God refers to Ezekiel as the son of man (adam’), which is a phrase often used by Jesus. Notably, religion even admits that it does not understand the meaning of the phrase, yet it is at the core of all understanding of yourself. Critically, you will never begin to understand the mystery of your salvation unless you begin to consider God’s depiction of adam’. Because, as Daniel affirms, the first of four kingdoms is the image of the sons of men, while the fourth kingdom that overcomes is the image of the holy saints, the sons of God. Notably, Paul affirms the same concept when he discusses being rescued from the kingdom of darkness and being transferred to the kingdom of the Son of His love (Col 1:13). However, even without Paul’s affirmation of two distinct kingdoms, an ancient disciple would have certainly perceived the image of adam’ as a symbolic depiction of a profound truth within the unobservable world, and not as a literal depiction of an actual person in the world.
Consider how religion employs many “catchy” phrases, such as “God loves you just as you are, but He loves you too much to leave you as you are.” Arguably, the wise men of religion will often recite the correct words, but they are always incorrect in their understanding of their own words. And, in this instance, religion promotes that catchy phrase by claiming that you will somehow be transformed into a better person in this life if you join their belief system, however the transformation is actually depicting the chosen parts of your human soul (i.e. the sons of Jacob) becoming partakers of the “divine” nature (i.e. the sons of God). And, if you were to focus on just the OT as an ancient disciple did, then you would recognize how God’s anointing of David symbolically depicts the beginning of the transformation occurring within the nation of Israel.
Perhaps you can begin to understand my disdain for mankind, particularly the “wise” men of religion, because they should have never allowed the translation of the particular Hebrew word “adam’” into the common English word “man.” That one change hides in plain site the beginning of any understanding towards the mystery of salvation; however, an ancient disciple would have easily perceived the distinction and searched for the reasons why, and how, God employs the word adam’ as He does. Notably, I was practically no where in my understanding until that one deception was revealed.
Affirming images
One of the key milestones early in my journey towards discipleship was an exegetical paper on a parable that I wrote for a seminary assignment. I will discuss the particulars later, but the pertinent point is that I realized through that project how the parables of Jesus are actually depicting scenes from the OT, instead of the typical perceptions assigned by religion. Importantly, not only did I perceive what Jesus is depicting, but I was then also better able to perceive what the OT images are depicting. Most importantly, that realization impacted how I studied scripture; because, instead of trying to interpret the words of verses, I began to seek the “affirming” images that are depicted elsewhere in scripture.
Retrospectively, I now realize that my journey into God’s Word truly started when I discovered this process of seeking the OT image that is being affirmed in the NT. Because, while an OT image depicted the necessary information to reveal a mystery, the proof of the correct understanding was obtained only when a NT image affirmed that same understanding. Yet, I began to wonder how an ancient disciple would have obtained a similar high level of confidence in his symbolic understanding without the affirming NT image, because I had never experienced an OT image being affirmed by another image elsewhere in the OT. Notably, I began to feel that I was given an advantage over an ancient Jew, because I thought that he did not have the same benefit of the NT affirmations during his life on earth; however, that perception was soon to be changed dramatically. Because, when I focused on the OT images of the end times, I found one of the most important affirmations that any disciple would have cherished with all of his heart.
Daniel’s affirmation; a nail in religion’s coffin
So, how did a Jew perceive the “end times” apocalyptic images within Daniel, Ezekiel, Zechariah, and the other prophets? Certainly, the wise men typically insist that Daniel’s prophecies depict events of the world, but it seemed odd to me that God would make prophecy so vague that we had to guess what nations or times are being depicted. As such, in my study of Daniel, I realized that the image of King Jeroboam was the object being depicted as the fourth beast (Dan 7), and that one insight changed everything. Because, I then began to consider Daniel’s images as depicting events from the story of Israel, rather than literal events of world history. And the most amazing realization occurred when I considered the images being depicted in Daniel’s first dream interpretation.
As Daniel interprets Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, he depicts the king as the “king of kings” whom God had given sovereignty over sons, beasts, and birds, and that depiction is obviously a shadow of the creation account. It did not take long to perceive the second “inferior” kingdom as a shadow of Eve, the third kingdom as a shadow of the serpent who rules over the earth, and the fourth kingdom as a shadow of the future kingdom of the sons of God. Importantly, by perceiving how the images depicted in early Genesis are being affirmed elsewhere in the OT, this realization meant that an ancient disciple could have obtained, even without the NT, a high level of confidence in his symbolic understanding. Importantly, the depiction of a “king of kings” who “rules over sons” provides profound insight, such that I could reimagine Matthew’s affirming image that depicts the four sets of generations. Yet, let’s just consider how an ancient disciple perceived Daniel’s dream interpretation.
Profoundly, Nebuchadnezzar was losing sleep because he was asking the same great questions of life as every person ponders (Dan 2:29); however, how would religion’s perception that the images depict future world events provide any wisdom towards an understanding of his particular future life? Daniel states that God reveals the “profound and hidden things” (Dan 2:22), and the mysteries that will occur during “the end of the days” (Dan 2:28). So, which wisdom is more likely being depicted; odd world events that create debate and provide no wisdom, or an affirmation of the profound yet hidden nature of a person and his destiny? Importantly, why would Nebuchadnezzar, or anyone, lose sleep over what will happen in this world 100’s of years from now? Critically, what thoughts of your heart do you think God is wanting to reveal to you (Dan 2:30)?
Arguably, by perceiving Daniel’s vision as an affirmation of the spiritual nature of every person and his eternal destiny, the literal approach to scripture is put to death for every disciple. Because, the moment you perceive Daniel’s vision as God’s affirmation of the symbolic perspective of the creation account, then you must similarly relegate all of your prior perceptions of the images being depictions of the world around you, and instead reimagine all of the images with the same “internal” perspective. As I will argue, there are other affirming images in the OT that provide an ancient disciple with a high level of confidence in the symbolic perspective. Importantly, for me, while I had high confidence in the symbolic approach with just the ability to perceive affirming images depicted in the NT, any remaining doubt was totally erased, because I had realized that even an ancient disciple with just the OT also had access to affirming images that would have similarly erased any doubt of approaching scripture with a symbolic perspective.
Now, I know that very few people will consider Daniel’s dream interpretation as “proof” of the validity for approaching God’s Word with a symbolic perspective, yet hopefully it will cause some to at least reconsider religion’s literal approach. Because, consider the implications of the two approaches to the book of Daniel, and to all of scripture. Whereas one approach suggests that you need to read commentaries written by wise men to consider their opinion of prophecy, the other approach argues that you must search only within God’s Word to discover the prophetic understanding. Therefore, while you might currently perceive that I am a wack job, which perspective is promoting scripture, and which perspective is promoting man’s wisdom? Critically, which perspective is “guessing” at the meaning?
As stated, my goal is to provide the logical reasons to consider another perspective as you approach God’s Word. Arguably, I cannot easily “prove” that the symbolic perspective is correct, because there is no single “magic bullet” that anyone could accept as absolute proof. Instead, my certainty in the symbolic perspective is the result of accumulating numerous inferences towards that understanding, but any one of those inferences does not prove anything. I regard the situation much like rain drops revealing a hidden picture, where the only way that you can perceive the picture of the old woman is by similarly going through the experience of having that picture revealed to you drop by drop. Of course, that would require that you devote time for reading scripture, and thought energy for meditation to reimagine how an understanding fits with the other images. Unfortunately, since everyone has already solidified their own understanding, very few people will be willing to devote the effort to dig for pearls, and to reimagine all of many images. That is, at least not in this life.
Perceptions of generations and death
Let’s resume how an ancient disciple would have perceived other key OT images, starting with the Hebrew word “toledot,” which is typically translated as “generations.” I suspect that you perceive the frequent listing of genealogies as a “Jewish” tradition, presumably to trace their heritage to ensure religious purity or their national pedigree. Yet, if you are assuming that the Jewish people thought that it was important to record their heritage, then are you forgetting that scripture was written by God? And, while the genealogy of Jesus is obviously important, why would God bother to depict the generations of many other characters, even the generations of non-Jews?
Consider the first instance of the word “toledot” in the creation account, where we are told that “these are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created” (Gen 2:4). So, knowing that an ancient disciple did not perceive the image of the “host of heaven” as literally depicting the things in the sky, and that the depiction of land or earth is also symbolic, how would he have perceived God’s proclamation of creation? Notably, Paul also depicts walking in the day and night, so is Paul depicting literal times, or is he affirming deep spiritual truths that are first revealed in the creation account (1 Thes 4)?
Consider why God frequently depicts the generations of a man and his descendants (i.e. seed). Please realize that an ancient disciple would have instinctively considered the symbolism by the many generations being depicted within a house, a tribe, or a nation; whereas you will probably simply perceive that the houses, tribes, or nations wanted to record their heritage. Again, we have the benefit of the affirming NT images of Revelation that reveal that there are still the same house, tribal, and national identities being depicted in the end times; yet, even without that affirming image, an ancient disciple would have certainly recognized that the many listings of generations were intended to depict how the “lineage” of a house, tribe, or nation had existed over a period of time. Importantly, some lineages are “cut off,” while other lineages receive eternal promises; therefore, please do not just dismiss the lists of generations as being a strange Jewish tradition, but understand that there is a symbolism being depicted by God that will never become apparent with the literal perspective. Arguably, God does “stereotype” in great detail the character and the eternal destinies of houses, tribes and nations, and the question that should be asked is “why?” Or, “so what?”
Consider why God would depict that a man is “gathered to his fathers” or “sleeps with his fathers” when he dies. Notably, people who die are often referred to as sleeping, both in the OT and NT. However, are you blindly assigning your simple understanding of a literal physical death to the image of sleep, thereby causing yourself to miss a deep spiritual truth? Because, Paul makes several comments about “sleep” when he discusses what many perceive to be the “rapture” of literal people; however, if sleeping is akin to physical death, then how do the dead people “do their sleeping at night” (1 Thes 5:7)? How does a dead person “do” anything?
Of course, if you expect to perceive only literal things, then you will only imagine literal things, and you will likely suspend any further thinking, because why would you meditate on an image that appears “obvious”? Alternatively, if you expect symbolism, then you will seek to understand the images by digging for the bits of inferences, and you will engage your thought process to reimagine “how” and “why” God is employing those images to reveal the hidden wisdom. And, in this instance, if you were to consider that spiritual elements do not die and cease to exist, such that God is not simply depicting generations of seed as physical descendants, then you will begin to reimagine the significance that your spiritual elements will experience many generations and periods of sleep throughout your eternal life.
Arguably, if you consider all of the symbolism being depicted in the OT, then you will eventually realize that the story of Israel is intended as a parable, and you will begin to perceive why God stereotypes particular houses, tribes, and nations; and why the depiction of generations within each particular entity is significant to God, and important wisdom for you.
Next: Part 3