My admission
Importantly, my journey began in earnest only a few years ago; so, just as you cannot imagine what I understand, I certainly cannot imagine the understanding of someone who devoted a thousand years or more towards meditation of just the OT. Notably, I registered my website domain in 2021, which is when I realized that I had sufficient confidence in the idea of promoting the spiritual perspective as being God’s intent for approaching His Word. Yet, while I was thrilled to discover that the latent language of symbolism exists within scripture, that simple revelation did not impact my core beliefs until I thoughtfully considered the implications of the new thinking. Because, just as perceiving the implications of calculus is much more significant than just knowing the answer of an abstract equation, I began to consider the larger images being depicted. And, just as Einstein had to devote time to logically consider the implications of the images before a deeper understanding was revealed, I am only beginning to discover all of the logical reasons to have confidence in my simple understanding of the mysteries of salvation within the kingdom of God.
My point is that I feel naive compared to an ancient disciple who had mediated hundreds of years on just the OT, yet I feel confident in a simple understanding of the OT images that is as obvious as 1+1=2. Therefore, while I admit to not having a deep understanding, at least I realize that the latent language of symbolism even exists. And, before anyone can similarly appreciate how the story of Israel continues into the NT, they must first logically consider the symbolism that is being depicted in the OT. Otherwise, they will continue to perceive scripture as two “disconnected” testaments.
A new language, and a large gap
Admittedly, it is still strange to me how much thought God put into hiding the truth of His Word. His effort goes beyond the latent language of symbolism, as He also obfuscates the matter by giving us part two of His Word 400 years later in the new language of Greek. Because, if He had provided part two in the same language without a large “gap” in time between events, then many of the subtle “shadows” that exist between the two testaments would be more obvious to the reader. Yet again, the ancient disciple had a huge advantage over the modern reader, because he was able to perceive many shadows in the NT by leveraging the Greek translation of the OT, and because he had an intimate understanding of the OT images as the means to perceive the more subtle shadows.
Arguably, there are three methods to perceive that an OT image is being depicted in the NT. The most obvious method is the perception of direct quotes from OT scripture, and those instances should always cause the reader to investigate the context of the OT image. Certainly, an ancient disciple perceived the context a OT verse, such that he understood how and why the NT speaker is using that verse in his discourse. Again, context matters, and arguably every OT verse was originally perceived in the context of the story of Israel, so Paul, nor Jesus, nor any NT speaker would never employ an OT verse in a different context than originally intended. Therefore, if you do not have the same perception of the original context and the intended meaning of the OT verse that is being re-quoted, then your understanding of the associated NT truth should be cast in doubt. As some may claim, the NT is the OT revealed.
The second method to perceive an OT image in the NT is by recognizing the similarity of the images. For instance, many people recognize that the images within the gospel accounts of Jesus depict “shadows” of similar OT images. The NT images that depict His “messianic” fulfillments are fairly obvious, and the images that depict His travels and His “sayings” build upon images originally depicted in the OT. Of course, the very fact that He picks twelve disciples is a shadow of the twelve tribes. Importantly, perceiving a more subtle shadow is dependent on having an intimate perception of the images, because the speakers typically employ different words to depict their particular image. Arguably, because an ancient disciple was intimately familiar with the images depicted within the story of Israel, he would have perceived many shadows that are not obvious to the modern reader, such as how the NT parables are based on OT images, or how the apocalyptic images depicting “beasts” are similar to the images from narrative accounts depicting kings and principalities. However, recognizing the similarity of images is often, if not always, impossible when the images are perceived with a literal historical perspective; because, as an example, how could a literal “beast” ever be perceived as a “king”?
The third method to perceive an OT image in the NT is through the use of the Septuagint, where the Greek translation of an OT Hebrew word is similarly used by a NT speaker. Admittedly, there was debate in my mind whether the Septuagint is God-breathed, but the direct quoting of its wording by NT speakers gives it credibility, and it provides a significant means to perceive the shadows between the testaments that a modern reader does not easily perceive. A key example is how the Greek word “ekklesia” is used in both the Septuagint and the NT to depict the “church” of God. Notably, perceiving how a key word is employed in both testaments is paramount, otherwise you will often miss how a NT speaker is employing a an OT image in a subtle manner.
However, while those three methods enable a modern reader to overcome the obstacle of a new language, it is the large “gap” in temporal time between the two testaments that creates the greater obstacle to perceiving OT images in the NT. Arguably, it is very difficult to perceive one continuous story of Israel across the two testaments because many of the OT images seem to fade from the scene. Notably, there is no longer an apparent emphasis on tribes or nations, instead the focus appears to be on Jesus as the messiah. And the Jews are now depicted as the enemy of God, instead of His chosen people. Therefore, for a casual reader, the NT certainly appears to depict a different story in a much different society, and not a continuation of the OT story of Israel; however, would an ancient disciple perceive the NT images in the same manner?
Since the truth of scripture is timeless, our perceptions today should be the same as those perceived by an ancient disciple. Therefore, if he perceived the images as a continuation of the OT story of Israel, then would God expect a modern reader to perceive His Word any differently? Oddly, for whatever reason, God has placed several obstacles that cause the modern reader to miss the intended continuity between the two testaments, but the obstacles can be overcome. Of course, today’s disciple must become intimately familiar with the OT images, and he must leverage the modern tools that perform word studies in seconds. Yet, most importantly, today’s disciple must consider the perspective of a Jew, and not just religion’s perspective.
Religion’s “modern” perspective
Consider how scripture is being promoted by religion, where the emphasis is on what the Bible means to people today, without any consideration of the perspective of an ancient Jew. Again, while all sleeping Jews recognized the disconnects, religion insists on maintaining its illogical literal perspective because of its primary focus on the image of Jesus. However, religion does not care that its perspective relegates the ancient Jew to an eternal destiny of nothingness, or to the depressing hope that only a future generation will realize God’s promises. All religion cares about is that its modern perspective forms a peace-peace message for you, even if it condemns a Jew.
Early in my journey I realized that, since scripture is timeless, any understanding should be the same whether I was reading scripture before or after my death. Frankly, much of my early understanding is the result of approaching scripture from the perspective as if I had already died, and a similar fruitful effort has resulted from assuming the perspective of someone who only had the OT scripture upon death. Now, because I cared to consider those other perspectives, I clearly perceive scripture as a story from the voice of God depicting a timeless message, just as an ancient disciple would have perceived God’s Word. Alternatively, religion wants you to perceive scripture as the words written by ancient men to ancient people, such that you can “insert yourself” wherever and however you want to derive meaning from the text. Consequently, religion is promoting a very selfish approach, because it attempts to transform God’s Word into a wisdom only for the people of today, without any consideration of the timeless nature of scripture. So, are you willing to condemn a Jew if it means good news for you today?
For some reason, I cared that I did not logically understand the perspective of an ancient Jew, so I made a diligent effort to approach scripture with none of the preconceived notions imposed on me. Amusingly, I am actually applying the rule of hermeneutics that claims that we should read the text as it was read by people at that time, albeit as an ancient disciple who approached scripture with a symbolic perspective. Arguably, when you can perceive how the NT is the continuation of a story that is resuming after a long hiatus, then you will begin to perceive how the NT images actually depict the affirmation and the fulfillment of their shadowed OT images. Notably, for me, it was relatively easy to perceive the story of Israel in the OT, but it was much harder to perceive the NT continuation of that story. However, before we try to appreciate how an ancient disciple perceived the NT images, let’s first summarize how he perceived the OT images.
Recap of Judah and the northern tribes
As a brief recap, after the period of the judges, the story of Israel depicts how God begins His kingdom of saints in the tribe of Judah and the city of Jerusalem, and how the ten tribes were dispersed out of the promised land with the promise to eventually gather them back into one church of God with Judah. Interestingly, God very often recaps various aspects of His story, such as 2 Kings 17:7-23 which provides a recap of the end of season one for the ten northern tribes. Oddly, we are not given any further images depicting the life of captivity for the northern kingdom, other than the image that they had joined themselves with other nations. Instead, the focus at the end of the OT is on the tribe of Judah and the city of Jerusalem.
Consequently, in order to perceive the continuous story of Israel into the NT, the more challenging and perhaps more important understanding is to perceive the story of Judah, particularly the series of events that precipitated the tribe’s condition at the end of part one. Importantly, did an ancient disciple perceive the story of Judah the same as religion does today, where the tribe of Judah is simply imagined as the tribe that fostered Jesus? We will discuss shortly how the NT image depicts the continuation of the story of Judah; however, let’s first consider the much simpler and more obvious matter of the northern tribes. Does the NT depict a fulfillment of the promised ingathering of dispersed Israel?
Perception of first images of the NT
Oddly, the gospel accounts of Jesus were not the earliest NT books, rather the letter by James and some of Paul’s letters presumably were written before the gospel accounts. And, if you read James and Paul by themselves, then they create a very different first impression of the NT. So, imagine waiting hundreds of years for a prophet to reveal the opening message of part two, and you are given the first letters from James and Paul as the opening scene. What is your current perception of those letters, and how would an ancient disciple have perceived the first verses of part two of God’s Word?
Consider how many of the NT epistles are explicitly written to those who are being called out of the surrounding nations (Rom 1:7; 1 Cor 1:2; 2 Cor 1:1; Gal 1:2; Eph 1:1; Phil 1:1; Col 1:2; 1 Thess 1:1, 4; 2 Thess 1:1; 1 Peter 1:1). Also, the very first verse of what could be the very first Words of God in the NT depicts a call to the twelve dispersed tribes of Israel (James 1:1).
Consider also how the image of scattered Israel is depicted by the NT use of the word “diaspora” (James 1:1; 1 Peter 1:1; John 7:35), a Greek noun that depicts people who are spread from their homeland. Notably, that same Greek word is used in the Septuagint to translate “nadah,” a Hebrew word which means “to banish,” and the word that is often used in the OT to refer to those who were expelled from the promised land. Certainly, an ancient disciple would have considered the significance of that shadow between the two testaments.
Arguably, simply by considering the image of letters being sent to Jews who were scattered, an ancient disciple would have perceived the opening letters of part two of God’s Word as depicting the frequently promised ingathering of Israel to join Judah in becoming the church of God. Notably, this is not the first instance of letters being sent to call Israel, so I suspect that an ancient disciple was not surprised that letters are again being depicted (2 Chron 30:1). Of course, the critical matters of “who” these people represent, and “why” they are being called, will be discussed shortly. However, the pertinent point is that, while this image of calling dispersed Israel is blatantly obvious, no one perceives the fulfillment. Notably, as always, religion’s advice is for you to arbitrarily “insert yourself” into the image by imagining that you are a modern recipient of the letters. So, instead of perceiving fulfillment, religion’s approach results again in confusion and the perception of a yolk being applied.
Frankly, I only recently stumbled upon this realization of God depicting His fulfillment, yet it provides one of the strongest points of my argument that scripture is intended as a story. Because, this image depicting the calling of scattered “tribes” only makes sense when it is approached in a symbolic manner.
Perception of tribes
Notably, most people realize that the distinction of “tribes” was not prevalent around the time of Jesus, just as there are no tribal distinctions that remain today. Again, some might argue that the Jews attempted to maintain a tribal “purity” in some sense; however, while today some Jews may still trace their heritage to a particular tribe, it is illogical to imagine that the ten northern tribes maintained any tribal distinctions while joining with other nations over hundreds of years. Practically every commentator makes reference to the “ten lost tribes” of the northern kingdom, such that the literal perspective of a future gathering of Jewish tribes does not make logical sense.
However, James specifically addresses his letter to the twelve tribes, and Revelation clearly depicts the image of tribes as being present during the end times (Rev 7). Tribal distinctions are also depicted elsewhere in the NT; with Paul being from the tribe of Benjamin (Rom 11:1; Phil 3:5), and Anna the prophetess being from the tribe of Asher (Luke 2:36). Interestingly, the twelve tribal names are even written on the heavenly gates (Rev 21:12); and Jesus describes how some will be sitting on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt 19:28; Luke 22:30). Of course, many perceive that Jesus’ selection of twelve disciples is obviously intended to depict the image of the twelve tribes of Israel, however no one likely perceives how certain disciples are subtly depicted as being from a particular tribe. So, how do you perceive the images of tribes that are being depicted as existing at the time of Jesus, and even in the end times; and how would an ancient disciple perceive the tribal images that are paramount to perceiving a continuation of the story of Israel into the NT?
Notably, some commentators offer speculations of possible scenarios that attempt to explain how the tribal identities might remain, or how they will be revealed in the end times, yet there is nothing in God’s Word that implies any special undertaking in the identification of who is a Jew. Paul even tells us that a “true” Jew is not one traced by physical descent (Rom 2:28-29). Again, religion can provide no meaningful insight for why tribal distinctions are depicted in Revelation, so it can only suggest blind “guesses” at the intended meaning. Notably, religion disregards the concept of “tribes” as being relevant in understanding the “essentials’’ of the faith, yet God obviously considers the image as being essential towards an understanding of the end times. So, why would God consider the image of tribal identity as being essential, particularly since tribal distinctions are no longer a reality in a temporal sense?
The matter of tribal identities will be discussed shortly; yet, as stated earlier, one of the obstacles to perceiving the continuous story of Israel is the large gap in time that God creates between the two testaments. Logically, the gap causes a modern reader to perceive the OT as occurring in distant “archaic” times, whereas the NT is perceived as occurring in modern times. Therefore, because many of the OT images are deemphasized, such as the images of tribes and nations, it is difficult to perceive God’s subtle indications that shadows of OT images are being depicted in the NT. So, does the perception of a large gap in time cause you to miss the shadows of tribes? If so, then
now that you know that approaching scripture with a literal perspective prevents you from perceiving the OT images that are being depicted in the NT, then how should you respond? Should you just ignore the problem, or should you question religion’s modern perspective?
Perception of OT promise to a past generation
According to some dispensational belief systems, God literally promised a particular group of ancient Jews that sometime in the future He would establish Israel back into the promised land. Presumably, most Christians find that image confusing, because common sense would question how the restoration of a future generation provides any meaningful hope to the ancient Jew who presumably received the promise from God. Specifically, if you perceive that the OT is intended to literally depict a nation of people in the past, then how does the depiction of making a promise to a past generation that is actually fulfilled by a much later generation make any sense? Again, has religion convinced you to condemn the ancient Jew so that you can perceive its modern perception of the OT?
Thanks to man’s wisdom, the modern trend by many is to perceive God’s OT promise to Israel as being fulfilled by the future restoration of physical land to the nation of Israel, and the creation of the country of Israel presumably depicts a milestone towards the end times event and the second coming. Notably, the next chapter will argue against the dispensational perception of the end times that intertwines the image of Zionism with a second coming; yet, even if that perception was accurate, then how does the restoration of physical land in the future logically provide the fulfillment of a promise made to specific people who died millennia ago?
The conundrum for religion with its literal perspective is to reasonably explain how ancient people who were scattered are to be gathered together in the future as God promised. Obviously, if the people depicted as being gathered by the NT letters are not literally the same people who were scattered centuries earlier, then how do you make sense of that image? Arguably, it is perhaps the greatest absurdity of end times dispensational thinking to claim that God promised an ancient Jew thousands of years ago that a much later generation in the distant future would receive the fulfillment of the promise. What was the ancient Jew supposed to think? “Wow, good for them, but where does that leave me?” Of course, most Christians do not care what an ancient Jew perceived.
Perception of ingathering a lineage
Yet, would an ancient disciple have been similarly confused by a promise made to a past generation as being fulfilled by a later generation as depicted by the letters of James and Paul? Arguably, an ancient disciple did not perceive the OT images as depicting the historical records of literal people over many generations, rather he perceived the images symbolically as a parable that was intended to provide a deep understanding. And, after logically considering the many images, such as how God frequently depicts “seed” over many generations, and how the early images depict a spiritual realm, and how God depicts death as sleeping, and how the dead are depicted as being gathered to their fathers, or buried in their fathers’ tombs; an ancient disciple considered that the images are symbolically depicting the “generations” over time of spiritual elements. Arguably, none of the images make any sense, nor provide any wisdom, if you perceive them as depicting literal people at a particular time in the past; however, the images logically reveal a hidden wisdom when the story of Israel is approached as a timeless parable that symbolically depicts spiritual truths over many generations.
Consider how God makes many inferences to the destiny of the “lineage” of an entity, such as when a particular lineage is cut off or anointed. Arguably, the entire concept of lineage would have been perceived by an ancient disciple as being a critical aspect of God’s thinking. As depicted by the many prophesies and the detailed imagery, God obviously cares much about the destinies of all the nations and their subsequent generations of seed. Certainly, one might expect God to care about the twelve tribes of Israel, but why does He similarly provide enormous amounts of imagery depicting the character and destinies of the many surrounding nations? Frankly, I barely know three generations of my ancestral line, and I certainly do not care about the ancestral line of others. So, if I perceive no logical reason to pursue that ancestral understanding, then why would God care so much about depicting the lineage and the eternal destiny of every nation in the OT?
Consider how God frequently depicts images of a vine or trees, images that inspire the thought of many generations of seed, and images that Jesus and Paul build upon in their sayings. Notably, religion cannot reasonably explain the depiction of branches being cut off or thrown into the fire, because religion can only perceive the image as depicting literal people being cast into hell. Arguably, none of Paul’s or Jesus’ images can make complete sense if you perceive them as depicting literal people over time, because how can a branch be reattached if it has been cast into the fire of hell?
Arguably, the images that depict God’s activity over many generations, such as the image of branches being pruned or cast into the fire, would have made perfect sense to an ancient disciple, because he approached the images as depictions of an unobservable spiritual realm, and not as depictions of literal people. Certainly, God disciplines the nation that He loves, often with fire, and His stated methods of discipline on the sons of adam’ from all of the nations will be discussed later. Yet, the important realization is that “discipline” does not result in eternal condemnation, rather discipline leads the branches to “godly” repentance and to restoration of the vine. Of course, perceiving how God’s images depict the repentance and restoration of spiritual elements is paramount towards gaining an understanding of the mysteries of the salvation.
Importantly, an ancient disciple considered the implications of a spiritual lineage that exists over many generations, and how God repeatedly employs this image of a lineage to depict His activity within each and every nation. And, in order to fulfill His promise of a certain land to Abraham, for whatever reason God chose the lineage of Israel out of all the nations to display His glory. Critically, most of scripture is the series of images that depict God’s activity to fulfill His promise of land to the one lineage of Abraham as traced through Issac and Jacob.
Consider the many instances where a future or past generation is depicted as being “present” in some sense, even though they are obviously not physically present (e.g., Deut 29:14-15). As expected, religion with its literal perspective cannot reasonably explain those images, because why would God not give one generation a heart to know, nor eyes to see, nor ears to hear, yet provide those capabilities to a later generation (Deut 29:4)?
Arguably, these images further support an ancient disciple’s logical perception of a spiritual lineage, where God can provide fulfillment to a future generation of seed even though the original promise was made to the past fathers of the lineage.
A spiritual perspective of God’s promise
Arguably, the OT is primarily the story of Israel’s relationships within the twelve tribes, and God’s activity to fulfill His promise to restore His chosen people to His promised land as one nation. And, if you can perceive the story of Israel as a parable depicting the eternal life of a particular portion of your soul through a lineage of many generations, then you can also logically understand how the promises that God made to Abraham, Issac, and Jacob can be “inherited” by the subsequent generations of their line of “spiritual” descendants.
It must sound bizarre that God symbolically depicts your soul as a world consisting of many nations made from the element of adam’, and that the tribes of Israel depict a certain portion of your soul that He has selected for a particular destiny. Yet, I have become so comfortable with the new perspective, I can no longer perceive the images any differently. And, the primary reason that I became comfortable with the new perspective is because it works every time. Importantly, all of the confusing images and apparent inconsistencies literally disappear once the images are approached with the symbolic perspective. Yes, the images are often unclear, because it is arguably impossible to truly imagine the deeper spiritual truths this side of death. And yes, the resulting logical understanding is totally different, and extremely sobering, particularly when compared to the “peace-peace” message of religion. However, all of scripture now makes sense, and not just the parts of my choosing. And, in this instance, a past promise that is fulfilled by a future ingathering can only make sense when the image is perceived as depicting a spiritual reality, and not the literal gathering of physical people.
Therefore, by assuming a spiritual perspective of the story of Israel, an ancient disciple would have logically perceived that the promise God made to a past generation is being fulfilled by the depiction of Paul and James “calling out” the exiles, the churches, the saints, and those who are called to be saints. Importantly, the word translated as saints can also be translated as “holy ones,” and that image obviously bears consideration. Who are the “holy ones” who are called “godly” and partakers of the divine nature? Religion likes to “soften” that wording by claiming that the images are encouraging a worthy goal; however, there is definitely an image of holiness being depicted that cannot be glossed over. However, before we consider the critical image of holiness, another key image to consider is regarding the depiction of a church. So, how do you perceive the image of a church, and how would an ancient disciple perceive this important image that is often depicted within God’s Word?
Next: Part 5