In real estate, it’s about location. In art, it’s about perspective, because “how” you look at something matters greatly. Magnify an object, and it will often look much different than with the naked eye. Your location also matters, because the earth will look much different from the moon than from your window. Critically, whose eyes are looking at an object matters greatly, because the “receptor” is often considered the ultimate arbiter, such as when “beauty” is defined as being in the eyes of the beholder. However, is “truth” also defined as being in the eyes of the beholder? That is, in your mind, does it only matter what “you” perceive to be the truth, or must you also consider the perspective of others?
I considered that question in a seminary paper on the topic of postmodernism, and concluded that the meaning of an object depends on whether you perceive that its meaning is primarily determined by its creator, or just by your impression of the object. Also, if you belong to a particular group, then how that group perceives the object often determines its meaning, regardless of creator’s intent. Because, if everyone in “your” group claims that the object depicts a young woman, then you are more likely to perceive the same, without even considering what the artist originally intended. Arguably, people are often more concerned about being accepted within a group, than about discerning the intended meaning of an object.
Consider how you can “naturally” perceive an object through your own eyes, such that it seems easy to discern its meaning, however much time and effort is required to consider an object from another person’s perspective, particularly when the other person is “foreign” to your group. For instance, while I can imagine how other Americans perceive our country, it would be challenging for me to consider how others from another country perceive America. Similarly, if you call yourself a Christian, then you can imagine how other Christians perceive God’s Word, but you will be challenged to consider my perceptions, because you likely perceive mine as being foreign.
As argued, religion causes Christians to divide the world into two groups, those who call themselves Christians, and those who do not. Generally, a Christian is perceived as someone who accepts the essentials of scripture, whereas an unbeliever does not. Yet, if you are a Christian, then how do you perceive someone like me? That is, someone who does not accept the essentials of Christianity, rather someone who perceives that scripture is literally a story spoken by the voice of God, and not a history book spoken by the voices of men.
The groupthink of religion perceives that scripture was written to record literal historical events, with the OT being the Jewish bible, and the NT being the Christian message of good news. As such, God’s Word is always perceived as having two distinct testaments; with the OT looking forward to the coming of the messiah, and the NT looking back at the historical account of His coming, and His promise of a second coming. However, what happens when you perceive that God’s Word is literally one continuous story as spoken by a loving Father who is trying to prepare you for your life to come?
In particular, considering the image below, when you approach God’s Word, do you perceive two faces each looking at a cross, or a cross within a larger vase? In other words, is the cross intended to be perceived as the focal point of the entire Bible, or is the cross intended to represent an event that occurs in the larger story of Israel? Which perspective did God intend?
As discussed, I was shocked to discover two realities of God’s Word. The first was the logical realization that the OT alone is sufficient for understanding the mysteries of salvation, and the second is that the NT depicts the fulfillment of the OT story of Israel. Arguably, if you also recognized those two realities, then your perception of scripture would also change over time from the vague images as perceived by your religion to the amazing images of every person’s eternal life. Consequently, my goal is to provide thoughts to consider as you become a disciple of Christ, such that you reconsider the way you currently perceive scripture, and instead reimagine the story of Israel as God’s primary intent for His Word.
Arguably, in order to obtain any spiritual understanding, you must first perceive that the story of Israel is intended as a parable, yet you will certainly never consider that perspective if you perceive that the Bible is primarily intended to be about Jesus and the cross. So, my goal for this chapter is to discuss various images from the OT, and how they are built upon by the NT images. Oddly, yet for a reason that becomes obvious, God employs several methods that create obstacles to the easy perception of the two testaments being one continuous story, so those obstacles, and how to overcome them, are discussed. Importantly, the next chapter will discuss further how the NT depicts the fulfillment of the OT in ways that are not obvious.
Ultimately, my entire effort is based on the premise that God is depicting a vase (i.e. the story of Israel), such that the cross becomes a key element of the story, and not the primary image of His Word. And, when you perceive the realities of scripture that were not readily apparent, then you will also be shocked, and on your way towards a new journey into God’s Word.
Dispensational thinking
The early Catholic church developed a belief system that perceived Israel as a depiction of the OT church; and Peter, having received the keys to the kingdom, was perceived as depicting the first pope of the NT Catholic church. This perspective is commonly called “replacement theology,” where Judaism is considered the “religion” of the OT dispensation, and Catholicism is considered the “religion” of the NT dispensation. Presumably, this apparent concept of religious dispensationalism has existed since the formation of the church during the time of Constantine in the fourth century; however, does the Bible truly promote a dispensational view of religion? Everyone assumes that is the correct perspective, but does the Bible ever state that an OT promise or command was to end at the coming of a messiah? Does the Bible depict Judaism as the OT religion and Christianity as the NT religion? What should be considered to determine if God’s Word is intended to give us two different religions?
To be clear, I consider the meaning of “dispensation” as the “principles” that are in place during a particular period of time. Admittedly, having been raised Catholic, my only perception of dispensational thinking was this concept of the OT Jewish religion and the NT Christian religion. Notably, I later become aware of the various modern end times predictions, but those images did not impact my original thinking regarding the dispensations of two religions. Yet, as part of my deep dive, I was exposed to other concepts of dispensationalism where the images within God’s Word are perceived as depicting different eras or epochs throughout time. Presumably, some people perceive that the various covenants God made with Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and others depict promises that were made just for the people at that time. And, if you assume a literal historical perspective, then you might also perceive that God treats people differently depending on when they live.
Frankly, it was hard enough for me to appreciate the existence of the two dispensations of religion, so I never truly considered the more elaborate dispensational thinking. Suffice it to say, I have always been uncomfortable with the notion that God treats people differently depending on whether they died before or after the cross, so that image never made sense to me. Was I “lucky” to have been born when I was? Of course, I was never able to answer that question, because I never understood what happened to people who were born B.C.. So, one of my first quests was to try to understand how a Jew perceived part one of God’s message. Of course, a popular perception today is that the Jews were “under the law,” and that we are now “under grace;” yet, I wanted to appreciate what a Jew would have perceived just from reading the OT. Did a Jew perceive the various dispensations as the wise men perceive today? Notably, this quest to gain a Jew’s perspective occurred very early in my journey; so, I had not yet come to the logical realization that the OT could stand alone, or that the OT would reveal the mysteries of salvation. I had no idea what I would discover.
Your preconceived notions
Before I proceed, I must emphasize my firm belief that the only way anyone can perceive what I perceive is to go on a similar quest. Because, since you have the image of Jesus on your mind, then you will read the OT “looking” for validation of your current understanding. Similarly, since your current perception of an ancient Jew is that he was “under the law,” or that he had a different set of rules, then you will similarly be looking for validation of that understanding. Perhaps the hardest thing for anyone today is to read the OT without their preconceived notions that have been imposed on them by modern religion. It is perhaps impossible to do, but it is absolutely critical that you wipe your slate clean and become blind to all prior perceptions, and instead try to put yourself into the mindset of a person whose only available scripture is the OT.
Notably, religion often claims that a Jew mistakenly imagined that a messiah would come and establish a physical kingdom of Israel, rather than come and die on a cross. However, I would challenge you to draw your own conclusion, because I am not aware of any verse in the entire Bible that even suggests that the Jews had that misunderstanding. Arguably, it would have been reasonable for a Jew to imagine a messianic “victory” of some sort, because God does promise David that an everlasting kingdom will be established (e.g., 2 Sam 7:13), and there are numerous images depicting nations being destroyed (e.g., Zech 12:9). So, you might currently perceive that those messianic images are depicting “future” events because they “apparently” were not fulfilled at the coming of Jesus; however, does the OT depict that God will first send a messiah to die on a cross, and then send Him again to provide victory? In the next chapter, I will discuss how the people who blame the Jews for mistakingly believing that Jesus would come to establish a physical kingdom are the exact same people telling you to believe the exact same thing.
Consider your perception, or your lack of perception, of the eternal destiny of an ancient Jew. Notably, one of the most obvious aspects of the OT is the minimal information regarding heaven and hell. There are references to “Sheol,” but do you understand what the image of Sheol represents? Also, there are no images depicting people weeping and gnashing their teeth in hell, yet there is often the depiction that evil is destroyed. Critically, if the law was intended to judge an ancient Jew’s behavior, then were there eternal consequences for his sins? In particular, are the Jews ever depicted as telling other Jews, or non-Jews, that they would go to hell if they did not do something? Notably, while there are images of being with God (e.g. Ps 16:11; 23:6; 73:24), there is no prevalent depiction of “going to” either heaven or hell after death. So, what did a Jew have to do to be with God? Some may claim that a Jew was supposed to “believe” in a coming messiah, but where is that requirement depicted? Do you not consider it very odd that God apparently did not provide a Jew with even a simple understanding of his eternal destiny?
Supposedly, some believe that there was no afterlife for a Jew, such that his only hope for blessings were in this life. Presumably, God’s plan of salvation is “progressive” over two or more dispensations, so a Jew was unlucky to have been born too soon to obtain a ticket to heaven. Others believe that the OT depicts a hope for a future generation of Jews, but arguably that thought would have been more depressing than encouraging for an ancient Jew. Of course, many recognize that Abraham and the heroes of faith (Heb 11) must have been “saved” somehow, yet religion is challenged to provide any understanding as to what a Jew perceived to be his destiny after death. Notably, religion similarly perceives the NT as depicting both heaven and hell in a vague and uncertain sense. So, does it make sense that the truth of God’s Word has never been able to provide a clear and meaningful understanding of any person’s eternal destiny?
Arguably, religion’s inability to provide a meaningful understanding of the afterlife has always resulted in the depiction of God as someone who is watching from above and judging who has been naughty or nice. Notably, modern religion claims that Jesus talks more about hell than heaven, so the “good news” proclaimed by Jesus, according to religion, is apparently focused more on the avoidance of judgement than on a hope for the future. Religion’s depiction of a judgmental God forms the biblical worldview for many regardless of when they were born, and fortunately I have been able to overcome that insidious image imposed on my imagination by religion early in my childhood. I pray that my effort will guide others to reimagine their perception of the nature of God, and perhaps a disciple from 3,000 years ago can assist in that effort.
Oddly, I argue that an ancient disciple without any knowledge of the NT had an advantage in perceiving the mysteries hidden within the OT. Because, with just a little bit of urging from his internal prophetic voice, he would have certainly considered the story of Israel as a parable. Notably, the Jews were very familiar with symbolic teaching, as evidenced by the teachings of Jesus. Also, a disciple reading the OT alone would not have been deceived by the apparent NT focus on Jesus. So, God makes many promises from Genesis to Malachi, and the challenge is to consider how an ancient disciple imagined those promises would be fulfilled in his eternal existence.
Perception of symbolism, or a literal religion?
Consider how everyone assumes that the images of sacrificial worship and the Mosaic laws were intended to depict the Jewish religion, yet the question is whether a disciple 3,000 years ago, or Jesus, perceived those OT images literally as things of this world, or symbolically as spiritual truths. Of course, as today, there were two types of Jews, those who approached God’s Word with a literal historical perspective, and the ancient disciple who instead approached the images as depicting symbolism of a hidden wisdom.
Presumably, by inference from Paul’s and Jesus’ statements, the Pharisees promoted a literal interpretation by their focus on cleaning the outside of the cup and their stoning of the prophets, so their “wisdom of the world” formed a religion that dictated customs (i.e. church tradition) with rules for proper external behavior. Consequently, as a Jew, there were strong influences from birth that promoted scripture as a rule book for how to respond to God and how to display proper external behavior. Sound familiar?
Arguably, anyone who approaches the OT images with a literal historical perspective should also logically conclude that God’s Word provides no practical value. Because, just as everyone should ask today, an ancient disciple would have questioned how the odd historical facts of a past people with images depicting the rules for proper behavior and for worship of a judgmental God could provide any meaningful understanding of his life. Of course, the religion of his day presumably claimed that he would be blessed or cursed temporally by God based on his behavior, which is what religion often claims today; however, does that perception provide any meaningful understanding of his future life? Presumably, just as today, the literal perspective of God’s Word provided no meaningful understanding of life 3,000 years ago, and it likely caused the same confusion in that day as it does today. Yet, if you agree that every adult who has ever walked this earth has wondered what would happen after his death, then where do you think his internal prophet would have encouraged him to seek that understanding?
Sadly, since religion perceives God’s Word as being two testaments depicting two religions, essentially all of the OT symbolism is totally lost on the modern reader, and you are left with warped images of both God and the Jews. For instance, religion will tell you that God literally destroyed nations, women, and children, and that the Jews literally stoned adulterers, sacrificed their sons, and ate their children. Of course, no one could ever reasonably explain God’s actions, but religion does claim that God was concerned about His people following the pagan practices of other nations. However, if you perceive that people literally did those things as described, then presumably they also had the ability to literally call up the dead (Deut 18:10-11). Yet, is it logical to assume that God felt the need to warn people not to call up the dead because that practice was literally possible back then?
The absurdity of claiming that the practice of calling up the dead was literally possible should be applied in the same manner to the absurd perceptions that any of those gruesome images were intended to depict literal events occurring in a temporal sense. However, God often restates those “odd” prohibitions; so, it would be wrong to assume that these were simply pagan practices or superstition, because Saul actually does call up Solomon from the dead (1 Sam 28), and Manasseh actually does many of the prohibitions (2 Kings 21). So, are you blindly accepting religion’s illogical “literal” perceptions of the nature of God and the “backwardness” of the Jews without reasonably considering how an ancient disciple would have perceived those same images? Arguably, instead of blindly accepting religion’s perception of an ancient Jew as being archaic in thinking and immoral in behavior, you should consider the perceptions of an ancient disciple who approached those same images symbolically. Because, if a Jew expected symbolism, then should you not at least consider the possibility that God actually gave him symbolism?
Again, I am not claiming a deep understanding of the spiritual truths, but I certainly know what the images are not depicting, and that perception is often the first step towards gaining any understanding. Because, you must first realize that you do not understand something before you can perceive the need to seek its true meaning. Notably, I have spent several years diligently digging throughout the OT for inferences towards understanding, and I am stunned at how much has been revealed. Yet, I laugh at my understanding because I know that there were many ancient disciples who devoted hundreds of years to meditation on just the OT, and I specifically mean those who died long before the NT became a reality.
Consider how many have their own perception of the afterlife, whether it is some form of joy, torment, or nothingness; and, presumably no one shares my perception that, after death, the Word of God will still be the only source of truth towards a deep understanding of a person’s eternal life. Yet, allow me to make the odd statement that an ancient Jews was not forever “disadvantaged” by not having the NT during their life here on earth. Again, I find it illogical to perceive that God treats people differently depending on whether they lived before or after the cross, so they could not have received the NT any sooner, nor later, than anyone else. For me, this image of dead OT people receiving part two of God’s Word is an amazing image to consider. Frankly, I now envy them, not just because they had obtained a deep understanding of the meaning of the symbolism, but also because I am beginning to appreciate the most amazing joy that they must of felt by having their symbolic understanding of part one clearly affirmed and fulfilled by the images depicted in part two. Of course, a Jew who had assumed a literal perspective would have been extremely perplexed with the revelation of the NT, a fact that will be discussed shortly.
Importantly, my goal is not to convince you of the symbolic meaning of any of the images, rather to demonstrate that an ancient disciple would have logically perceived the early images of God’s Word as symbolism. Because, once you start approaching scripture with a symbolic perspective, you will logically consider that same perspective for the subsequent images of Israel, and certainly a disciple would have observed how the image of “Israel” is personified. Therefore, instead of perceiving the OT as providing a confusing religion that places the yoke of proper behavior, an ancient disciple would have instinctively considered the symbolism of the story of Israel. And, if he listened to his internal prophetic voice, then he would have been led to the same inferences within God’s Word that develop a simple yet deep understanding of the mysteries of salvation within the kingdom of God.
Consider again the reasons why an ancient disciple would have rejected the literal perspective, and instead accept their internal prophet’s urging to “consider” a symbolic perspective. First, a Jew expected symbolic teaching, and much of the OT is presented as symbolism. And, since he was not deceived by a laser focus on a messiah, he likely perceived “Israel” as the focal point, and he certainly meditated on what those images were intended to depict. Perhaps an odd thought “came into his mind” to consider scripture as a book from a loving father to his fetus in the womb. Arguably, there are many inferences within the OT that should lead any reader to consider the story of Israel as a parable, even I found them well before the fetus scenario revealed the logic of the consideration, so any ancient disciple would have certainly considered the same symbolic perspective. Notably, I am not saying that he immediately perceived Israel as a parable of his spiritual life, I certainly needed convincing. Rather, I am saying that an ancient disciple would have easily considered approaching the OT with a symbolic perspective, because the OT screams symbolism. However, he would have had to resist the influences of his church tradition and his own wisdom, both of which settle for an easy literal understanding that can be vaguely shaped into a “peace-peace” message of his choosing, such as “if you do better than most, then you can hope for the best.” Yet, just as today, arguably any ancient disciple who devoted the time to dig for the pearls, and meditate on their significance, would have been rewarded with the gift of prophecy that enabled him to reimagine the meaning of the symbolism. So, in order to weigh our own perceptions of the OT, our goal should be to consider how an ancient disciple would have perceived all of the OT images. Yet, let’s first simply consider what he likely perceived from the first images that God depicts in His Word.
Next: Part 2