A premise of my effort is that a person builds their worldview based on their perceptions of the biblical images; however, those perceptions are primarily influenced by their overall perspective of the purpose of God’s Word. And, by approaching the Bible with a literal historical perspective, religion perceives the images as depicting things of this world; however, that perspective arguably leads to confusion and apparent contradictions of the nature of God and His Word. My objective is to use both logic and scripture to demonstrate that approaching God’s Word with a symbolic perspective results in simple yet deep explanations.
I must reemphasize that I did not start my journey with my new perspective, rather my journey started around 2019 with a very strong foundation based on the “worldly” perspective. And since then, my old perceptions were first torn down, and now new perceptions are refining new lines of thinking. Notably, this transformation in my lines of thinking required essentially continuous thoughtful contemplation over several years; and yet, I sense that I am just beginning my journey towards a new understanding. However, I am far enough into the journey that I am able to consider my change of perspective in retrospect. Specifically, in retrospect, what should I have logically considered that would have shortened my journey towards adopting the spiritual perspective?
Three logical reasons
First, by using the fetus scenario, I argued that the most logical purpose for scripture is to provide information primarily intended to prepare us for the next life. Notably, we are told that our warfare is spiritual; yet, since we are not consciously fighting a spiritual war in this life, logically our spiritual war is experienced in the next life. Also, we are given the story of “Israel” as the protagonist who experiences much warfare throughout his extended history. So, it is logical to perceive that scripture, particularly the OT, provides the images of Israel to symbolically depict your individual spiritual existence into the next life. Notably, I am not claiming that it is easy to adopt that perspective, rather that it is logical to consider that perspective as being God’s primary intent. Alternatively, by using the fetus scenario, it is illogical to perceive that the Bible is intended to provide information primarily for this life.
Second, the very existence of spiritual understanding logically demands the need for another perspective. As argued, if Paul tells us that there is spiritual understanding that cannot be perceived by the natural mind, then God’s Word must be perceived differently than with the literal perspective. Because, since the plain sense of the text is discernible by man’s wisdom (i.e. the “perspicuity” of scripture), then the literal perspective cannot possibly reveal the mysterious spiritual understanding; otherwise, why would the Holy Spirit be required? Therefore, since we are clearly told that scripture reveals the mysteries, and we reason that the literal perspective cannot reveal them, then another perspective is logically demanded. Also, Paul’s insight regarding the spiritual gift of prophecy validates that a different perspective exists for approaching scripture.
Third, the symbolic approach should be logically considered because scripture naturally infers that particular perspective. Poetry, parables, and the apocalyptic literature by their very nature are to be perceived symbolically, and there are many inferences that all of scripture is to be perceived symbolically. Jesus Himself scolds His disciples for perceiving literally one of His teachings, and everything Jesus teaches is presented in a form of symbolism. If another perspective is demanded, then a symbolic approach is the most likely.
Of course, man’s pride despises any attempts towards spiritual understanding (i.e. prophecy), so you will find no “scholarly” resources promoting a symbolic perspective. Arguably, the image of Satan stealing the sowed Word depicts that same nefarious aspect of man’s wisdom. Presumably, the Pharisees also argued for a literal interpretation, as man’s wisdom does today, so it is logical to expect significant resistance from the church, and from within yourself, towards any consideration of the spiritual perspective. Yet, as I share my “Monday morning quarterback” experiences of my own personal journey, hopefully you will consider those three reasons why it is logical to approach scripture with a symbolic perspective.
Importantly, I am still stunned by the realization that all of God’s Word is to be perceived with a symbolic perspective, so I can certainly understand why others are reticent, because it is extremely difficult to adopt a different perspective. Notably, in retrospect, the critical question becomes whether you can perceive that the story of Israel is intended as a parable; because, when you can, then you can begin to consider that all of scripture is intended to be perceived symbolically.
Two essential concepts of logical thinking
Consider the scenario where you are willing to accept the logic that the symbolic perspective is more likely God’s intent. Assuming that pretext, then is that change in perspective all that is required for you to perceive the mysteries? Arguably, many people, even Christians, already perceive that symbolism is prevalent throughout scripture, so why do they not perceive the mysteries? Is anything else required such that a symbolic approach results in the intended understanding?
As discussed in chapter two, your “symbolic” perception of any of the smaller images depends primarily on your perception of the artist’s overall intended image. Therefore, if you perceive that God is symbolically depicting images of this world, then your perception of the smaller images will also be perceived as the things of this world. Arguably, that approach is how every religion was formed, whether Christian or Jewish, where the overall image was first defined, and all of the smaller images were subsequently defined in the “light” of that overall image. Yet, instead of starting with the overall image, what happens if you allow the smaller images to “form” the overall image, such that you allow God to define the image, and not your religion?
I will argue this critical point repeatedly; that is, you must be in full agreement to approach scripture with an open mind, or else you will find it extremely difficult to overcome your old perceptions. And, for me, in retrospect, there are two general concepts of logical thinking that I now consider essential for overcoming any old understanding. I certainly wish that I had appreciated the significance of these concepts much sooner in my journey towards discipleship.
Concept of Occam’s razor
The first concept to consider is Occam’s razor which essentially claims that the simplest explanation is typically preferable over a more complex explanation. Because, logically, if a complex explanation requires more assumptions than a simpler explanation, then the more complex explanation has more chances for error because of the additional assumptions. So, whenever we are attempting to discern understanding, logically we should scrutinize any explanation that appears complex because of the possibility that there is a simpler and consequently a more likely explanation.
Consider how there are many areas of God’s Word that even wise theologians cannot clearly explain with certainty. Some of these areas will be discussed later, but invariably religion must conclude that there are aspects of the kingdom of God that are unknowable in this age. In its defense, religion often supports that conclusion because God depicts that “My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways” (Isa 55:8-9). However, is God depicting that His Word is too complex to be understood, or that His thinking is focused on the “heavens” (i.e. spiritual things), whereas our thinking is focused on the “earth” (i.e. temporal things)? In other words, is God stating that our inability to understand His mysteries is due to a lack of intelligence, or because we not approaching His thoughts with His perspective?
Arguably, aspects of scripture are perceived as too complex to understand because we are attempting to perceive the images as literal things of this world, whereas we should be attempting to perceive the images as symbolic truths of a spiritual world. What should be considered to discern if God is actually telling you that a simple change of perspective is required in order to perceive His line of thinking being depicted by His Word?
Consider again how you currently perceive the Bible. Do you consider it a book depicting literal historical events written by various men a long time ago? If so, how do you resolve the confusing images and apparent contradictions? Perhaps you cannot resolve all of the confusion to your satisfaction, so you must either minimize those particular images, or determine that all of scripture is not trustworthy. Or, perhaps like many, you perceive that there are some aspects of God’s Word which are unknowable this side of heaven. Consequently, perhaps you rely on a very basic understanding of what you perceive is God’s intended purpose for the Bible. Perhaps you summarize the entire Bible simply as God’s love letter to mankind intended to reveal the good news of Jesus dying on the cross for our sins. However, if that is God’s “simple” message, then is it logical to assume that He gave us a history book that causes so much confusion and apparent contradictions? Logically, we should expect God to give us a book with simpler and clearer explanations – agreed? If so, then perhaps you should consider whether that logical sense of something being amiss is God’s way of telling you to consider another perspective.
Consider further the presence of complex theological matters. Logically, the very fact that the concepts are debatable should make you question their common underlying perspective. As mentioned, I considered myself one of those wise theologians who was proud of the fact that I was secure in a deep understanding of God’s Word. Like many apologists, I could easily defend my points of view with various verses from scripture; however, I became concerned that the explanations to many aspects of God’s kingdom were often complex and extremely nuanced. Importantly, I realized that most of the explanations developed by wise theologians relied on non-biblical information, such as other historical records which presumably provided additional understanding necessary to discern the biblical meaning. And, after reading hundreds of theological books on many biblical concepts, I realized that the end result was always the same. Everyone had a particular theory regarding a biblical concept; however, their various complex explanations often required many assumptions, and many assumptions were based on non-biblical sources of information. Whose complex line of thinking should I trust?
Of course, even I once perceived, as some might suggest, that a particular wise man is being led by the Holy Spirit to discern a unique understanding; however, how could I know which one? Was it enough that most theologians coalesced around a particular explanation, even though their explanation was easily debatable because of its complexity? Fortunately, at some point, I was blessed immensely with the realization that the necessity of complex explanations meant that something basic was amiss. Now, I can no longer logically accept that biblical concepts require complex explanations. And lately, as a result of that realization, I am stepping down from my pride and away from my wisdom by allowing myself to be open to a new perspective. And, by approaching God’s Word with a symbolic perspective, I now discover explanations of the same biblical concepts that are much clearer and simpler. And based on the logic of Occam’s razor, the very fact that the new explanations are much simpler makes them more likely to be correct.
This logical principle of Occam’s razor, that the most likely explanation is often the simplest explanation, has always influenced me by leading me to the perception that God treats people the same today as He did 3,000 years ago; otherwise, His changing over time would add way too much complexity. And, this premise of God’s “simplicity through consistency” has impacted not just my perception that He “saves” all people by the same method regardless of when they lived, but also my perception that His “message” of salvation is always the same. Like many, I had previously perceived the OT as a “relic” of a past religion, but my perception has been changed beyond anything I could ever imagine. Notably, one of the first quests in my journey was to try to understand how a Jew perceived the OT; such that, in retrospect, I realize that I should have been logically questioning my own perception of the OT.
Perception of the OT
Logically, the good news that Jesus began preaching three years before the cross was based solely on the OT images; and Paul tells us that the OT provides sufficient knowledge for salvation (2 Tim 3:15). Therefore, in retrospect, I should have expected that the OT images would reveal more than just historical facts; and, I should have considered sooner the significance of Paul’s explicit claim. If I did, then logically I would have expected the OT images by themselves should reveal a simple yet deep understanding of the mystery of salvation; yet, sadly, I considered the OT as a relic of the past.
Of course, you also have been told how to approach the Bible, so you are likely expecting the OT to reveal information about the Jewish religion, or perhaps how not to also reject God. Obviously, religion emphasizes that the primary purpose of the OT is to both explain the need for a savior, and to predict His coming; however, how does that perspective result in any understanding of the mysteries of God’s kingdom? If you are told to perceive the OT as a book depicting literal history, then how did God reveal the mysteries of salvation to people 3,000 years ago? Again, Paul tells us that the OT alone sufficiently reveals the mysteries; and Jesus rebuked Nicodemus for not understanding the mysteries. Logically, I had to consider who was guiding me in how I perceived the OT. Was I being guided by religion, or by Paul and Jesus?
Notably, I have experienced many significant realizations since I started this effort; however, perhaps the most significant is the perception that the OT alone fulfills God’s purpose for informing His future child. Again, knowing that God does not change over time, then the simplest scenario is that a person living 3,000 years ago experiences salvation exactly as people do today. And that premise of God’s consistency is logically extended to the consistent message of His Word. Therefore, a Jew, with just the OT, should logically be able to gain the same understanding of the mysteries of salvation as people can gain today with both testaments. Of course, we must remember that the Holy Spirit’s gift of prophecy is always required to gain any spiritual understanding, so logically even a person 3,000 years ago could diligently seek the pearls and meditate on them to perceive the intended symbolism of the images. Therefore, realizing that the OT alone provides sufficient understanding of the mysteries of salvation, how should that perception logically impact our overall view of scripture?
Consider whether having just the first thirty-nine books of scripture is a disadvantage compared to having all the books. First, we must perceive that we are seeking a spiritual wisdom, and not a worldly wisdom. And, since scripture was limited to the book of Job for the people at that time, logically Job alone is capable of revealing a simple understanding of the mysteries of God. Do you think the Holy Spirit could open up the book of Job to reveal secrets of the kingdom of God? For instance, can you imagine the significance of perceiving the mysteries being revealed in just the first two chapters of perhaps the first book of scripture? Arguably, if you perceive God’s Word as divine, and if you perceive the communication occurring within you as also being divine, then your ability to perceive God’s intended message being depicted in Job is primarily dependent on God. And, arguably, a person receiving a simple yet deep spiritual understanding of just the first two chapters of Job is “wiser” than a person with all of man’s wisdom of the entire Bible. Therefore, while having all the books is perhaps better than having just one or thirty-nine books, the OT alone should be logically expected to be able to reveal a divine understanding of the mysteries of God.
Therefore, not only does Paul make the explicit claim that the OT alone reveals the mysteries, but logic also affirms that we should expect the first books to reveal an understanding of the mysteries of God. Yet, if the OT provides an understanding of the mysteries, then what understanding does the NT provide? We are told that the NT “fulfills” OT prophecy, and it would be logical to perceive that the NT “affirms” an OT understanding; however, it would be illogical to perceive that the NT “changes” an OT understanding. Logically, just as the message of Job is built upon by the rest of the OT, the NT should be perceived as building upon the message of the OT, and not as the beginning of a new message. Therefore, instead of perceiving God’s Word as providing two testaments with different messages, perhaps the perception should be that God has given us a “part one” and a “part two” of one single message. If so, then whatever overall image is being depicted in part one, then logically part two should somehow depict both fulfillment and affirmation of that image. So, what is the overall image being depicted in part one of God’s Word, and what should we logically expect as the fulfillment and affirmation of that image?
Perception of NT
Obviously, the story of Israel and its prophetic future are clearly depicted as the “overall” image in part one; therefore, logically, we should expect that part two would primarily depict a continuation of that same story. Notably, for me, I had never logically considered the NT as depicting a continuation of the story of Israel, yet that continuation became increasingly apparent once I started to look for it. I was shocked to perceive that the OT could stand by itself, and I was shocked again to perceive that the NT depicts a continuation of the story. And, the significance of these two perceptions is profound; because, if you perceive that the story of Israel is intended as a parable of an individual’s spiritual existence, then logically you should perceive the events in part two as depicting the fulfillment and affirmation of that story. Therefore, instead of perceiving the NT as depicting historical facts, such as the coming of Jesus and the giving of the Holy Spirit, the NT images are logically perceived as depicting the future events that happen in every person’s individual life. Obviously, the implications of that new perception are profound.
Consider how the NT images are typically perceived. Perhaps, other than the image of Jesus, the image depicting the giving of the Holy Spirit is the most influential in forming the overall image of religion. Of course, the common perception is that the Holy Spirit was not given prior to Pentecost; however, that perception creates one of the great conundrums of religion. Because, once you set a temporal date for the beginning of a necessary element of salvation, then the question becomes if, and how, people were saved before Pentecost. Consequently, the simple explanation that God treats everyone the same no longer exists, and the perception results in competing views of salvation that cause endless debate. Certainly, the validity of the perception of Pentecost should be logically questioned.
The conundrum created by perceiving Pentecost as a temporal event grows if you perceive that spiritual understanding is only possible with the Holy Spirit. Because, if OT people did not have the Holy Spirit, then scripture must have “returned void” prior to Pentecost. Yet, it would be illogical for God to provide part one of His Word, which is sufficient for understanding the mystery of salvation, and not also provide the Holy Spirit to enable the people to gain the understanding of that mystery. Of course, if your perception is that God simply wants you to perceive the literal meaning of His Word, then you likely do not perceive the need for another perspective that requires the Holy Spirit. However, if you perceive that God gave books to people 3,000 years ago that symbolically depict the mystery of their salvation, then logically He also provided the Holy Spirit to enable those people to gain at least a simple understanding of that mystery.
Arguably, the perception that the first “indwelling” of the Holy Spirit occurred two thousand years ago creates tremendous complexity in the understanding of God’s Word. Therefore, the logical principle of Occam’s razor suggests that we should consider the existence of a simpler explanation. And, if a new perspective of Pentecost resolved the confusion with a simpler explanation that was consistent with the overall message, then would not that perspective be more likely God’s intent?
Presumably, the entire work of the Holy Spirit is a mystery beyond human understanding; however, we are told that the OT reveals the mystery of salvation, and logically that mystery should include a work of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, we should expect that part one would reveal that work of the Holy Spirit; however, could a literal historical perspective of the OT images ever meaningfully perceive that work? Arguably, the symbolic perspective of the story of Israel does reveal a simple yet deep understanding of the Holy Spirit’s role in our salvation. And, when part two is logically perceived as a continuation of the story of Israel, then the particular depiction of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost can be understood in its proper context. Notably, religion perceives the image of Pentecost as a stake in “time past” that depicts the beginning of their belief system; whereas I perceive that God intended the image of Pentecost as a stake in “time future” that depicts the beginning of His glory coming into the life of “Israel.” Which perception creates confusion, and which perception creates profound understanding of your spiritual future?
Expectations of God’s Word
Perceiving the story of Israel as a parable leads to other logical lines of thinking. For instance, assuming that your loving Father did provide a book depicting your future life, then what characteristics should you logically expect that book to exhibit? Perhaps you should consider that your heavenly Father is providing a book that is intended to inform every soul whom will ever exist; therefore, you should logically expect the book to depict images in non-specific terms. And, arguably, the story of Israel does include many generalizations; such as the “sin of Jeroboam” which is never explicitly described, but rather the image is left somewhat vague because logically “the work of your hands” that you worship will be unique for each person. Also, you should logically expect that the book’s references to timing is general, and in formulaic terms, because every life is different, and that aspect is often evident throughout scripture. Finally, in many ways, the narratives are depicted in a mythical style, and that is the most important aspect to consider. So, why does God depict the story of Israel in a mythical style; and, should that style of writing be logically expected?
Consider your approach if you were trying to describe to a child the inner workings of your body. Certainly you would not attempt to depict the exact details, rather you would likely use generalizations for the sake of simplicity, and exaggeration or hyperbole to accentuate the wonder of certain characteristics, such as depicting the brain as living cells that number greater than the stars in the sky. Therefore, if the images are perceived as symbolically depicting the wonder of your spiritual nature, then you should logically expect that some of the images would appear mythological to challenge your current perceptions.
Notably, many might think that I consider the stories of Israel and Jesus as fiction, yet, that is not how I perceive a myth. For me, a myth has a basis in reality, but a myth is not intended to convey historical facts. Rather, similar to a parable, mythical stories are a literary technique employed by the story teller to build upon the basic existence of a figure to convey a message or concept. In other words, while there was a nation of Israel, and a person named Jesus, God’s intent for every image is to deliver a message. And, given the wonder of what God is trying to convey, we should logically expect that the stories of Israel and Jesus would be written in a mythical style.
Consider how the expectation of a mythical story puts to rest the many arguments that debate the authenticity or inerrancy of scripture. Because, just as people modify the mythical story of Robin Hood to fit their intended message, religion has also modified scripture such that the images better fit its message. Therefore, if the goal is for man to discern the literal meaning of the original text, then those many arguments are valid. However, if God’s intent is for man to discern the symbolic meaning of the text through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, then logically the Holy Spirit can overcome any deviations from the original text to reveal the divine symbolic meaning. Arguably, everyone will receive a pure form of scripture in the next life; however, even today’s slightly modified text is more than sufficient to reveal God’s intended message of His Word.
Importantly, if you perceive that God’s intent is to provide a detailed historical account, then you will likely perceive the need to defend the details of the biblical images. Consequently, you must defend the Bible as someone who tries to defend the mythical accounts of Robin Hood; however, has anyone ever won an argument debating the accuracy of a mythical story? So, did God intend His style of writing to create confusion and endless debates, or did He intend His style of writing to depict the wonder of something abstract that is impossible to easily appreciate in human terms? Critically, does God want you to demonstrate your faith by debating the accuracy of stories that are obviously written in a mythical style, or by seeking the intended meaning of those mythical images.
Personally, I find great rest in the logical realization that I am not expected to believe, nor defend, the literal interpretations of scripture. No longer will I try to resolve endless debates by studying hundreds of theological books, nor feel any animosity among those who argue against my particular perception. Importantly, no longer will I feel the discomfort of trying to convince others of my literal perceptions of the good news, while knowing that my perceptions were not irrefutable.
Notably, I understand why people perceive what they perceive, because I was similarly told how to approach scripture, so my perceptions were similar to many. Consequently, I understand why no one perceives what I perceive. Frankly, I often find it overwhelming when I thoughtfully consider what I perceive, so I have never expected anyone to blindly accept my perceptions. Critically, as I should state often, I do not want you to believe what anyone claims to be the truth, including my own claims. However, I do want you to thoughtfully consider the logical reasons why another perspective is more likely God’s intent, and then for you to allow the voice inside you to logically lead you to the perceptions that God intended you to perceive, and not what someone else told you to perceive.
Summary of Occam’s razor
Hopefully you can better appreciate how the logical thinking of Occam’s razor should influence your approach to God’s Word. First, by logically reasoning that the existence of complex explanations is potential evidence of an incorrect perspective, you should consider whether another perspective can result in simpler explanations. Second, by logically reasoning that the simplest perception of God is that He is consistent both in His treatment of people, and in His is message of salvation, then that perception results in the expectation that scripture is one continuous story spread over two parts. Consequently, because of these profound perceptions that result from the principles of Occam’s razor, the biblical images are no longer perceived as depictions of past events, rather they are perceived as shadows of events that will happen in everyone’s spiritual existence. Logically, the entire approach to God’s Word should change based on the principle of preferring simplicity over complexity.
Logically, I now approach God’s Word based on the lines of thinking that developed from considering the fetus scenario. Whereas I had perceived that the Bible was written for this life, now I perceive that scripture is primarily intended to prepare me for the next life. Logically, I perceive that my spiritual war will be experienced in the next life; therefore, I should expect that scripture would provide an understanding of that warfare. Logically, I should expect the need to adopt a non-literal perspective to gain that spiritual understanding, and I should perceive how God’s Word infers the perspective of symbolism. Logically, instead of perceiving two distinct testaments, I now perceive scripture as consisting of a part one that depicts the complete message of salvation, and a part two that fulfills and affirms that message. Logically, the simplest explanation for the purpose of scripture is that God is employing the story of Israel as a parable to provide me an understanding of the spiritual world that exists within me, and to prepare me for my future battles in my next life.
Notably, much of my new line of thinking originates from my consideration of the fetus scenario, yet I have no recollection of what inspired me to perceive myself as a fetus. Does the image of a fetus in the womb fit with your perspective of this life? Can you perceive how God could perceive you as His future child? If so, please realize that the fetus must logically consider both the purpose for the information, and the perspective that his father is employing to convey that information. So, are you being logical in your perception of the purpose of God’s Word, and are you logically approaching scripture with the perspective that He intended? Certainly, my new perspective results in lines of thinking that are totally different than before; however, instead of complexity and vagueness, I now perceive simplicity and clarity. Logically, I prefer simplicity over complexity; and I sense that God prefers the same.
The logical reasoning inspired by the fetus scenario is a rather recent perception for considering God’s purpose for His Word, and it is only in retrospect that I can appreciate how I was led to consider that scenario. So, I just discussed how the logical concept of Occam’s razor influenced my approach to God’s Word, and now I will discuss how the second logical concept influenced my ability to discern the symbolic meanings being depicted by the images within His Word.
Concept of inference to the best explanation
The second concept of logical thinking that I deem essential when approaching God’s Word is the principle of inference to the best explanation. My understanding of this principle is that an explanation can be considered to be correct when the balance of information consistently points to that explanation. In other words, while no single piece of information explicitly states nor totally provides the explanation, the abundance of bits of information all pointing in the direction of a particular explanation gives that explanation credibility. For example, if you are told that something looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then you are confident in your perception that it is a duck even though it is not wearing a sign explicitly claiming “I am a duck.” Ideally, multiple bits of information will clearly point to a particular understanding, and certainly no bits of information should cause confusion or apparent contradiction.
Consider why this same principle of inference to the best explanation is absolutely necessary when attempting to discern the meaning of the biblical images. As argued, instead of pursuing a literal understanding of words from one or a few verses, the objective should be to attempt to perceive the smaller images in the context of the overall image. Obviously, the first step is to discern the overall image, and my argument is that the overall image is the story of Israel, such that the meaning of every image is based on that overall perspective. And, my contention is that the symbolic meaning of every biblical image is discerned by accumulating the many bits of inferences as depicted throughout scripture.
Notably, some of the early church fathers are infamously known for their haphazard “spiritualization” of the Bible. Apparently, they would often take a biblical image, such as a temple utensil, and “assign” a symbolic meaning in some manner that supposedly revealed a deep spiritual truth. Obviously, assigning your own meaning to any biblical image is a form of “eisegesis” (i.e. adding meaning into) which should be discouraged; yet arguably, everyone is guilty of this practice, although they do not realize their error. Because, if God intended the biblical images to be perceived symbolically, then assigning your own “literal” understanding to an image is still a form of eisegesis. Arguably, you must only allow scripture to lead you in your perception of every image, and not your own, or anyone else’s, preconceived notions; such that, the greatest obstacle to your understanding the intended symbolic meaning of any image is likely your old understanding.
For instance, if you only imagine literal metals with the images of gold and silver, then will you ever even attempt to perceive the intended meaning of what is precious in God’s eyes? Instead, if you begin to seek the many bits of inferences that provide insight towards the images of metals and stones, then you will grow in your perception of His kingdom’s economy. Critically, this change in your approach towards Bible study, from memorizing and interpreting verses, to digging for pearls, is the only way that your mind can be renewed, as you begin to perceive the images as God intended.
Perhaps as we should expect, there is not a single verse that explicitly states the complete symbolic meaning of an image. Instead, the perception of any and all symbolism comes only by considering all the bits of inferences related to that image, and those bits provide the inference to the best explanation. Consequently, you must consider all of God’s Word to build clarity around a symbolic understanding, while resisting the tendency to rely solely on your natural understanding. Obviously, there is no value in assigning meaning when none has been provided by God; therefore, the only necessary understanding is from the information provided in scripture, and not from any extra-biblical sources.
Similarly, you should resist the popular tendency of assigning meaning to the images in the parables of Jesus and the apocalyptic literature. Because, if you cannot find the source OT image that Jesus or an apocalyptic writer is employing, then you are blindly guessing at the symbolic meaning. Arguably, every image in Daniel is a replay of an image depicted elsewhere in the OT, and not a prophecy of battles between literal worldly nations. Arguably, if you intimately understood the images depicting the stories of Israel, then the similar images in Daniel and Revelation would become evident without the need for any information beyond scripture, and you would perceive the intended symbolic meaning.
Because, with this new approach, you would no longer simply perceive the images as literally people, places, and things; rather you will try to infer their intended symbolic meaning by seeking the many bits of information. How much diligence do you think would be required to learn the intended symbolism? And, if significant effort was required to discover the symbolic meaning, then how much joy would you experience after discovering your first hidden pearl, when you are led to a verse that provides a significant bit of insight towards the symbolic meaning of an image that had been on your mind?
Consider how you would approach scripture totally differently; no longer reading it like any other book of literature, but rather diligently seeking pearls that reveal new understanding. Would you ever again reach for a commentary to gain understanding; or, would you begin to meditate on how a new insight better clarifies an image. How would you feel if you realized that verses you had previously dismissed as being insignificant, actually provided insight into revealing a mystery of salvation? Can you even begin to imagine how profoundly impacted you would be if you began to perceive that the purpose of God’s Word is to symbolically reveal your individual spiritual world into the next age? Would time in scripture become your most exciting activity? Could there be anything more important than seeking the intended wisdom of your Father?
Which image?
Let it be said, Satan likes that you can easily perceive the two-image illusion as depicting the image of a pretty young woman, and God currently allows that lying spirit to rule your world. Again, please consider how Jesus depicts the birds who steal the sowed “message” from reaching your heart. Because, if discerning God’s intended images requires your diligent effort, and the Holy Spirit’s guidance, then perhaps Satan’s primary method of theft is to simply give you false images that you can easily perceive with your own natural mind, and vague images that you can personally shape to your particular preferences. Therefore, by instinctively perceiving the “easy” literal sense of the Bible with your natural mind, are you allowing yourself to be distracted from pursuing the true images that God intended you to perceive?
Arguably, there are two perspectives for approaching scripture, where one approach perceives a series of literal images and interprets them by seeking man’s natural understanding from either yourself or others, and the other approach perceives a series of symbolic images and interprets them by seeking the many inferences of understanding solely from within scripture. Which of the two perspectives is likely a distraction, and which perspective is likely to reveal the mysteries of God?
Fortunately, I realized that my prior perspective would never irrefutably resolve the confusion and apparent contradictions, so it is now a pure joy to perceive the images being consistently repeated, and built upon neatly. Critically, I must reemphasize the significance of no longer finding any confusion or apparent contradictions. Because, if there was one contradiction within Einstein’s theory of relativity, then who would be willing to give it any credibility? Similarly, if there was just one perceived contradiction within God’s Word, then everything viewed with that particular perspective should be cast in doubt. Yet, even though religion with its perspective results in much confusion, many are willing to blindly ignore the inconsistencies. That willingness to ignore inconsistencies is considered illogical in secular or scientific matters, so how is it logical to ignore those inconsistencies in religious matters?
Logically, you should also prefer simplicity over complexity, and you should appreciate the fact that God wants everyone to come to the same understanding of His Word. Because, by approaching God’s Word with no preconceived understanding of the images, everyone should allow scripture alone to provide the information that infers the symbolic meaning of any image. Can anyone logically argue against such a perspective?
Arguably, if everyone allowed that same process of replacing their old perceptions with God’s intended meanings, then everyone would share God’s perception of man’s condition and His plan of salvation. In the following chapters, I will compare the perceptions of the two perspectives to demonstrate how the symbolic perspective perceives the images consistent with the expected nature of God, whereas the literal perspective perceives the same images inconsistent with the expected nature of God. Obviously, for me to “prove” that the symbolic perspective is God’s intent, I would need to demonstrate how every verse of scripture is consistent; yet, even then, I suspect that many would still hold onto their old perspective. Therefore, I began my argument from the perspective of logic, and I truly challenge everyone to find any logical arguments against the symbolic perspective other than it is impossible, or that it sounds like foolishness. Do I need to say, that with God, nothing is impossible. And, do I need to ask, who will be made to look foolish?
As stated, my goal is simply to make you aware of the symbolic perspective, and to hopefully provide that spark of inspiration that encourages you to dig deeper. Because, even though I will walk you through my line of thinking on many of the images, you are the one who must discover the meaning by devoting time for reading scripture and meditating on the many images. Ultimately, you should want to build the images yourself, as you are guided through scripture by your own prophetic voice.