Perceptions of time and voice in a parable
Arguably, the worst way to approach scripture is to arbitrarily “insert yourself” into a biblical image. However, as discussed in the chapter on hermeneutics, the most common teaching technique encourages you to “apply” the images to your life in some manner. Consequently, people will “relate” to David, or whomever, and they will claim that a verse “speaks to them,” thereby validating their feelings, or explaining an experience. Again, if you perceive that the biblical images are intended as historical records of typical people, then that approach could sound reasonable; however, does God’s Word ever suggest that approach? Importantly, this approach of arbitrarily inserting yourself is put to rest once you consider the possibility that God has given you a mythical story with a message, and not a history book with rules for how to live “this” life.
Whatever leads any disciple to consider the story of Israel symbolically as a parable, the absolutely crucial implication is to recognize how the reader’s perception of both “time” and “voice” must change dramatically with the new perspective. Because, in a parable, the events can no longer be perceived as depictions of literal events on this world’s timeline, and the prophets can no longer be perceived as depictions of literal ancient people speaking to an ancient audience. Yes, there is most certainly a timeline being depicted in the story of Israel, and it is critical to perceive the significant milestones in that timeline. Also, there are many voices in the story of Israel, and perceiving the depicted role or “office” of a voice in a parable is essential in order to correctly perceive the meaning and the significance of what is being stated by that voice. Critically, “how” you approach the images totally changes with a parable.
Ultimately, a reader’s perception of both time and voice must change, because a parable is never intended to be perceived as a story of actual people or actual events, such that the reader realizes that the story teller is sending a “timeless” message. Consequently, the reader must realize that his perception of the message cannot be any different than any other person’s, regardless of when they lived; such that, the reader should not expect the need to “bridge the gap” in time, or culture, in order to perceive God’s timeless message. Also, the “trained” scribe realizes that the intended meaning of any parable will not be discovered by seeking information from external sources that vary over time, rather by seeking the many bits of inferences depicted elsewhere in scripture that never change over time. Consequently, because of the parable’s timeless nature, the reader can easily perceive why God would employ that method to deliver His eternally consistent message of absolute truth.
Consider the enormous significance of the nature of a parable, and whether that sounds like the methodology that a timeless loving Father would employ to communicate to every person, regardless of when they lived, the mysteries of Him, and the mysteries of His plan of salvation for their eternal life. Or, you can continue to assume the perspective that your Father has sent you a history book. The choice is yours to make.
Yet, consider how God’s Word is often deemed “archaic” when perceived in a literal historical manner, consequently there is the perception that “modern” man has the benefit of a wisdom that was not available to an ancient Jew. On the other hand, if God’s Word is perceived to be a mythical story, then a parable does not require natural intelligence to be understood. Rather, a biblical parable requires the reader to have an earnest desire to be shown the hidden wisdom, and the devotion of time to reimagine how the many inferences define the various images. Of course, the primary question becomes whether the reader perceives the correct “object” to lay alongside the parable’s intended symbolism.
In a parable, the meaning of the image becomes “relative” to whatever the reader perceives is the intended parallel object. For instance, if you imagine that the story of Israel is intended as a parable of the church, then you will try to lay the symbolic events of Israel alongside the timeline of the church. Arguably, if you think that God intended to provide an understanding of the life of a cricket, then you will try to lay the symbolic events of Israel alongside the life of a single cricket. Yet, what would a disciple, and someone who was seeking an understanding of his life, likely lay alongside the parable provided by his loving Father? So, if he perceived the parable as a symbolic depiction of the eternal destiny of his spiritual nature, such as depicted by Daniel, then how difficult would it have been for him to reimagine that the images of Israel being led out of Egypt by God, and then being led through the wilderness by God, are intended to symbolically depict his current life being led by God? Or, to reimagine the image of crossing the Jordon and being led into the “promised land” by “Jesus” (i.e. Joshua) is intended to symbolically depict the beginning of his future life?
Importantly, instead of perceiving “literal” ancient prophets, how difficult would it have been for him to reimagine that the priestly prophets are depictions of divine voices within him who are trying to reveal God’s hidden mysteries? Again, an ancient disciple expected symbolism, so how difficult would it have been for him to reimagine that God is depicting a portion of his soul as “Israel,” a name with a meaning that would have significantly impacted an ancient disciple? Does the name God gave Jacob have a significant impact on you? Should it?
Alternatively, please consider the perceptions of the Jew who approached the OT images with a literal historical perspective. Arguably, as occurs today, his perception of the nature of God would be warped into a confusing image, and he would obtain no meaningful understanding of his eternal life. Could anyone, at any time, truly develop a deep passion for reading a rule book with odd stories of a past people? So, let’s consider briefly what would have happened to that earthly Jew, with his literal perceptions of the OT, when the NT was revealed to him. Then, we will consider more extensively how an ancient disciple who approached scripture with a symbolic perspective would have perceived the NT images.
Perception of NT by an “earthly” Jew
Importantly, consider the thinking of a good friend who would proclaim a belief that is commonly held by many Christians. He would often say that the “stumbling block” for the Jews was accepting the “simple” truth of Jesus. In other words, he was claiming that since the truth of religion’s gospel message sounds too good to be true, many Jews were denying the truth because they could not believe that salvation was that simple. So, whereas logical thinking suggests that a claim is probably not true if it sounds too good to be true, supposedly this time is an exception to the logic. However, Christians should seriously reconsider that claim; because, if they understood the OT as any Jew did, then they would realize why the Jews did not “simply” believe religion’s message of salvation.
First, if you were a Jew raised with a literal interpretation of the OT, then you would find the NT to be totally inconsistent with your understanding of what the OT depicts for the future of Israel. Because, while Christians blame the Jews for not believing in Jesus, the Jesus of the NT does not meet the messianic expectations as depicted in the OT. The next chapter will discuss the many end times perceptions that are typically promoted by those with a earthly perspective, however, why did those OT “prophecies” not occur with the coming of Jesus? Again, where does the OT depict that a messiah will come first to die on a cross, and then He will come again later to fulfill the promises of a restored Israel? Also, since God promised that “My servant David” would rule forever, then why did that not occur with the first coming of Jesus? Religion can claim that the NT depicts Jesus as ruling in heaven, but where is that critical image depicted in the OT? Arguably, for a earthly Jew, the NT is perceived to be false prophecy. So, what happened? Did God change His mind without telling anyone why, or is the confusion the result of assuming a literal perspective?
Second, what about the religious practices that God repeatedly commanded the priests to continually fulfill as a “perpetual” requirement? The lamp was to be lit forever, and the feasts were also to be celebrated forever, so what happened to those priestly requirements? Religion claims that the practices ended with the coming of Jesus, but why would God command a practice to be perpetual for all time, and then seemingly imply by His silence that “never mind, I was just kidding,” or “you can stop them now because I forgot that they were to end with the coming of Jesus”? Some will falsely claim that the letter to the Hebrews indicates that the practices were to stop, however arguably even Jesus states otherwise. Yet, temporarily setting aside Hebrews, why would Jesus not take the opportunity at the last supper to state that the old practices are now replaced by the new practice of communion? Or, why would Paul, or any NT writer, not clearly indicate to the Jews that God no longer required them to continue the OT practices that He had explicitly commanded were to last “forever”? Why is the NT presumably silent on an OT matter that was at the heart of worshipping God? Does that make any sense whatsoever? How would a earthly Jew respond to the obvious lack of continuity between the two testaments?
Notably, dispensationalists claim that they perceive how God will keep His promise of restoration for the nation of Israel, and I will argue against that claim. Regardless, their theories do not resolve the conundrum of God’s OT command for the practices to last forever with the lack of guidance in the NT.
The absurdity of the literal historical perspective
Critically, Christians must accept their ignorance of God’s way of thinking, because there are no reasonable explanations for the obvious disconnects that exist between the two testaments. Yet, how can any perspective of scripture be considered God’s intent if it cannot clearly perceive how scripture flows logically from one testament to the other? Of everything that I will state in my effort, perhaps the most important is this recognition of the major disconnects that exist between the two testaments whenever scripture is approached with a literal perspective.
So, do you even recognize the existence of major disconnects? If not, is it because you are a Gideon who effectively ignores the OT, such that the disconnects are not your concern? Or, is it because you imagine your own version of the OT, such that your particular perceptions fit neatly with your understanding of the NT? However, in either instance, do you even recognize that you are actually ignoring your God-given common sense? Arguably, you will never feel the need to consider another perspective unless you first acknowledge the sense that your current perspective could be wrong. Therefore, consider the following logical arguments that briefly highlight the absurdity of the literal historical perspective.
First, the literal perspective of the OT does not make logical sense because the perception of God is inconsistent with His expected nature. Primarily, how can God tell you to love your enemies, while He literally destroys the “wicked” in the OT? Of course, the mere existence of evil is a conundrum for religion, but the manner in which God responds to evil in the OT even contradicts the NT images. So, does God change over time?
Second, the literal perspective of the NT does not make logical sense primarily for two reasons; because of the lack of practical instructions to fulfill the commands, and because of the lack of irrefutable understandings for the basic theological concepts. Specifically, if the NT commands are intended as present-day requirements, then why does God not logically explain how to walk in the spirit, or how to take up your cross? And, how can any religion claim any true wisdom if the literal perspective results in no meaningful understanding of being born again, eating and drinking the body and blood of Jesus, the nature of sin, or the inheritance being stored in heaven? Yet, while you might be able to accept being ignorant of God’s thinking, does it make sense that God would not even provide the wise men of religion at least a rudimentary understanding of His mysteries, instead of the very confusing and always debatable messages?
Again, religious people accept their ignorance of God’s ways, therefore the warped image of God of the OT and the many inconsistencies of the NT are often minimized in their minds. However, while neither testament makes sense on its own, what amazes me is how every Christian is apparently willing to accept the absurd conclusion that the two testaments were each written by two totally different Gods. How else could you explain the existence of the major disconnects regarding the commands and promises to Israel?
Sadly, because religion is focused on what scripture means to people today, I also did not appreciate the major disconnects; that is, until I considered the perspective of an ancient Jew. And, if you are unwilling to thoughtfully consider the different perspectives of others, then you will remain blind to one of the most obvious problems with the literal historical perspective.
Eyes that see, ears that hear
Arguably, anyone who was raised with just the OT had a huge advantage over the religious people of today, because any Jew who approached scripture with a literal perspective would have certainly recognized the major disconnects when he received the NT. Of course, an ancient disciple who approached the OT with a symbolic perspective was already perceiving the hidden wisdom, while those with a literal historical perspective were forming their own understanding of the OT images. Hopefully, after being stunned by the realization that God’s revelation of part two resulted in those major disconnects, they recognized their own spiritual blindness, such that they reconsidered their perception that Rabbi Paul was a wack job for promoting a symbolic perspective of the OT. Arguably, every “sleeping” Jew who approached scripture with a literal perspective would have questioned his religious thinking when he was presented with the NT. However, Christians who imagine their own version of the OT will never experience that same stunning realization, so they could be oblivious to the disconnect for a very long time.
Arguably, the biblical image depicting this stunning realization by a “wise” Jew is the story of Paul. Certainly, there is a reason why God depicts Paul as the Pharisee of Pharisees, someone who obviously thought that he had a deep understanding of the OT based on a literal perspective. However, if I may ask some obvious questions, why does Paul not proclaim many of the things claimed by religion? If the simple message of salvation is the good news of Jesus, then why does Paul not clearly make that claim? Also, if the OT was the old religion, and the NT church is to be the new religion, then why does Paul not make that critical fact clear? Why does Paul never state that the old religious practices are no longer valid, notably practices that he had devoted his life to performing, and practices that are depicted as still occurring in the NT? So, what revelation changed Paul’s lines of thinking since he obviously already understood the literal truth of the OT? Of course, religion may claim that Paul learned new truths that were not evident in the OT, but Paul states that the god of this world uses a veil to blind mankind to the true meaning of the OT, and not that the NT reveals a new understanding.
Critically, if you cannot perceive the meaning of Paul’s veil, then how do you know whether or not you are being blinded by it? Similarly, if your understanding of the OT images has never dramatically changed, then does that mean that the veil never existed in your life, or that the veil still exists in your life, but you do not yet perceive it? Again, how can a blind person know they are blind if they never experienced sight? Do you still say “I see,” or have you been made blind to your old understanding (John 9:39-41)? Was not Paul made blind before he could see?
Could God have simply said to Paul, “start approaching the OT in a symbolic manner, and I will teach you what the symbolism represents by leading you to the many inferences that provide understanding, such that you can be my prophet who not only affirms the mysteries of salvation that are hidden in the OT, but also a prophet who reveals the fulfillment of the many OT promises.” Arguably, Paul is being depicted as receiving new eyes and ears (i.e. the gift of prophecy), such that he could perceive the OT images symbolically instead of just perceiving them as literal rules and historical facts. And, just an any ancient disciple blessed with the gift of prophecy, he would have meditated on those images to reimagine their symbolic meaning while relegating his prior natural understanding. So, let’s consider how an ancient disciple would have perceived the key images of the story of Israel, and how he would have subsequently perceived the NT images. Importantly, would he perceive the same disconnects between the two testaments, or would he perceive the NT as being an obvious continuation of the story of Israel?
The primary images depicted in the OT
In order to understand how an ancient disciple perceived the revelation of the NT, it is critical to first consider how he perceived the primary images that God depicts in the OT. And, if I had to guess, there are two OT images that God depicts more often than any other to form His primary message. The first image is His frequent depiction of Israel being brought “out of Egypt,” a phrase that is explicitly stated around 150 times, and an image that is depicted in various forms hundreds of times. God’s overly excessive reference to that single event arguably depicts that He considers the exodus as one of His greatest achievements in the life of Israel. The second image is the frequent depiction of “dispersed” Israel being called back as promised from the surrounding nations to their inheritance of land (e.g. Jer 30:3). Arguably those are the bookends of the OT story of Israel, the exodus out of Egypt, and the ingathering of dispersed Israel back into the promised land as one nation. Certainly, there are many “deviations” within Israel’s journey between those bookends, and God vividly depicts both their deviations from the narrow path, and His actions during the different periods of Jacob’s journey. However, the primary image being depicted at the end of the part one of God’s Word is Israel’s “future” restoration into the land as one nation.
There are many OT prophetic images depicting a restoration of Israel, yet the images at the end of the OT depict the “Jews” (i.e. Judah) building the second temple and establishing the city of Jerusalem, while the scattered ten tribes of northern Israel are still being held captive in the surrounding nations. Yet, if you perceive that the OT is intended to depict the Jewish religion, or to predict the coming of Jesus, then do you even perceive the image of the promised ingathering? Arguably, I suspect that most Christians have little appreciation for the fact that the OT is all about the future restoration of Israel. Undoubtedly, ask any Christian, and they would claim that the primary purpose of the OT is to predict the coming of Jesus. Again, that perception of the OT certainly fits the message of religion, but are you being blinded by the wise men of religion?Hopefully, instead of holding securely onto that veil, you will consider the perspective of an ancient disciple, such that you can reimagine your perceptions of the OT. So, if you were to consider the mindset of a Jew, then what would you discover?
The ultimate cliffhanger
As much as I have despised the responsibility to be the one to expend the effort to try to effectively promote consideration of the symbolic perspective, there is no doubt that my effort has been rewarded immensely with both profound understanding and great appreciation of the wonder and joy that results from immersion into God’s Word. And lately, the effort to consider how an ancient disciple experienced the same understanding and appreciation has produced stunning results. In particular, consider the ancient disciple who had immersed himself into the OT for hundreds of years, perhaps a thousand years, before the NT was revealed to him.
Consider how an ancient disciple was literally left “hanging” at the end of part one, and how he had to wait hundreds of years for part two. So, try to recall your level of excitement awaiting the opening episode for season two of your favorite show, and then magnify that sense of anticipation to a level at the furthest reaches of your imagination, and that perhaps estimates how an ancient disciple must have also felt about 2,000 years ago. However, do you perceive the cliffhanger as he did?
Again, whereas religion depicts the 400 years of God’s silence between the two testaments as a period of time awaiting the coming messiah, an ancient disciple had many additional thoughts in mind. Because, having immersed himself into the story of Israel, he was awaiting a prophet to reveal the opening message for part two, and a complete part two that depicts how the promises made in part one would be fulfilled. Notably, I suspect that he had a good sense of what would be revealed, because the OT provides many depictions of the end times.
Next: Part 4