I guess that thanks to a mother who put me in the right churches and schools, this is what I was taught when I was young (regarding the Christophanies). But I've never heard it explained or defined so well or so completely. And I had no idea that the BC Jews were already struggling through the "two powers" thing. That's fascinating.
My mind goes in a number of different directions when I contemplate the living historical reality described in the Old Testament (at least, the way I always read the OT). See, I always took as literal the passages in the Old Testament that say "God spoke".
It wasn't until more recent years that it finally dawned me that maybe most Christians believe that those "God spoke" passages were the same "poetic license" we live with in our current churches. When a fellow believer says "God spoke to me", we (I believe) just make the allowance that, "well, we know what they MEAN". But do we? We graciously don't call them on their claim ("So, do you mean God spoke to you audibly?...what did his voice sound like? Did you think to make a recording on your smart phone? Does God's voice record like that, or is he, like, one of those ghosts you can see but can't photograph?). And if we do/did challenge them, it's my experience that we challengers are seen as the wet blanket on someone's "spiritual" experience -- a poor sport -- rather than a seeker of the truth.
Genesis 17: 9 "Then God spoke to Abraham..."
How different would be the view of the Bible if we thought this passage in Genesis meant exactly the same thing by "spoke" as we do when we say that God speaks to us?
Maybe we do? (I know I don't)
But maybe most Christians think that here in Genesis 17:9 all that is meant by "spoke" is that God spoke to Abraham through his circumstances? ...through nature? ...through feelings interpreted as being from God? ...through the oral tradition that eventually became the Pentateuch? ...through the wise council of other Ur-ites? -- just as we currently mean it when we say God speaks to us?
Or maybe some of us do hear God?
If in the mind of most believers there is a disparity between what the Bible means when it says that God spoke to someone and what we mean when we say that God speaks to us, do we think that disparity matters? ...to us? ...to the people to whom we make the claim of such communication?
And all that speculation leads to another question: If the communication from God to the believers is of a different nature from the Old Testament to our current world, is there a possibility that Romans 1 might take on a different interpretation?
And a wilder speculation: I find it interesting to contemplate the implications of grasping that the library that is the whole Bible is not exactly the history of the whole world. It is the world history of the story of the redemption of man. Or, specifically, it is the story of Jesus, the Word that was in the beginning, and came to earth to redeem it.
But every once in a while the Bible hints at that redemption story touching people who live outside the Bible narrative (they aren't central to the story of Jesus and how he is redeeming the world, so they aren't mentioned). But I can't help but wonder if the same Jesus who every so often appeared in the Old Testament ever appeared elsewhere to people who weren't a part of the central narrative of the Bible.
There are a variety of different ways that God manifested himself throughout the OT (cf. Heb 1:1). Sometimes he spoke from heaven (Gen 22:11), sometimes in a vision (Gen 15:1), sometimes in a dream (Gen 20:3-6, 28:12), and other times in person via some form of human or angelic visitation (Gen 18:1-4, 32:24-30). But the key idea is that he spoke about things that would later come to pass (i.e., it was later corroborated by actual historical events), and ultimately pointed to the person and work of Christ (which is precisely the point that is made at the opening of Hebrews).
Precisely. And the "still small voice" is the KJV rendering of 1Kgs 19:12, which relates an encounter that God had with the prophet Elijah. Again, Hebrews 1:1-3 indicates that God spoke in a variety of ways, not to everyone, but specifically to the prophets (and according to Dt. 13 and 18, it wasn't enough merely to "claim" to be a prophet—he also had to vindicate that claim by various external tests, etc). Furthermore, Heb 1:2 makes clear that God formerly spoke through prophets and now has spoken to his people in the person of his son.
I do think that God sometimes works in extraordinary ways. So, I'm open to the possibility. However, I'm skeptical of most claims of this kind (skeptical in the investigative sense, not dismissive, etc).
Good answer. I do think it's one of the principal divides in the Church. It's why Orthodox/Catholic is growing and Protestant is shrinking. And it's not that Protestant is wrong per se. It's that it can't deliver what people think they need.
I guess that thanks to a mother who put me in the right churches and schools, this is what I was taught when I was young (regarding the Christophanies). But I've never heard it explained or defined so well or so completely. And I had no idea that the BC Jews were already struggling through the "two powers" thing. That's fascinating.
My mind goes in a number of different directions when I contemplate the living historical reality described in the Old Testament (at least, the way I always read the OT). See, I always took as literal the passages in the Old Testament that say "God spoke".
It wasn't until more recent years that it finally dawned me that maybe most Christians believe that those "God spoke" passages were the same "poetic license" we live with in our current churches. When a fellow believer says "God spoke to me", we (I believe) just make the allowance that, "well, we know what they MEAN". But do we? We graciously don't call them on their claim ("So, do you mean God spoke to you audibly?...what did his voice sound like? Did you think to make a recording on your smart phone? Does God's voice record like that, or is he, like, one of those ghosts you can see but can't photograph?). And if we do/did challenge them, it's my experience that we challengers are seen as the wet blanket on someone's "spiritual" experience -- a poor sport -- rather than a seeker of the truth.
Genesis 17: 9 "Then God spoke to Abraham..."
How different would be the view of the Bible if we thought this passage in Genesis meant exactly the same thing by "spoke" as we do when we say that God speaks to us?
Maybe we do? (I know I don't)
But maybe most Christians think that here in Genesis 17:9 all that is meant by "spoke" is that God spoke to Abraham through his circumstances? ...through nature? ...through feelings interpreted as being from God? ...through the oral tradition that eventually became the Pentateuch? ...through the wise council of other Ur-ites? -- just as we currently mean it when we say God speaks to us?
Or maybe some of us do hear God?
If in the mind of most believers there is a disparity between what the Bible means when it says that God spoke to someone and what we mean when we say that God speaks to us, do we think that disparity matters? ...to us? ...to the people to whom we make the claim of such communication?
And all that speculation leads to another question: If the communication from God to the believers is of a different nature from the Old Testament to our current world, is there a possibility that Romans 1 might take on a different interpretation?
And a wilder speculation: I find it interesting to contemplate the implications of grasping that the library that is the whole Bible is not exactly the history of the whole world. It is the world history of the story of the redemption of man. Or, specifically, it is the story of Jesus, the Word that was in the beginning, and came to earth to redeem it.
But every once in a while the Bible hints at that redemption story touching people who live outside the Bible narrative (they aren't central to the story of Jesus and how he is redeeming the world, so they aren't mentioned). But I can't help but wonder if the same Jesus who every so often appeared in the Old Testament ever appeared elsewhere to people who weren't a part of the central narrative of the Bible.
There are a variety of different ways that God manifested himself throughout the OT (cf. Heb 1:1). Sometimes he spoke from heaven (Gen 22:11), sometimes in a vision (Gen 15:1), sometimes in a dream (Gen 20:3-6, 28:12), and other times in person via some form of human or angelic visitation (Gen 18:1-4, 32:24-30). But the key idea is that he spoke about things that would later come to pass (i.e., it was later corroborated by actual historical events), and ultimately pointed to the person and work of Christ (which is precisely the point that is made at the opening of Hebrews).
But nowhere is it a "gut feeling" as people so casually claim today. And I, for one, think that's an important distinction.
The characters of the Bible didn't divine the "will of God" as we claim today.
And the "still small voice" was as near as I can tell, a voice.
Precisely. And the "still small voice" is the KJV rendering of 1Kgs 19:12, which relates an encounter that God had with the prophet Elijah. Again, Hebrews 1:1-3 indicates that God spoke in a variety of ways, not to everyone, but specifically to the prophets (and according to Dt. 13 and 18, it wasn't enough merely to "claim" to be a prophet—he also had to vindicate that claim by various external tests, etc). Furthermore, Heb 1:2 makes clear that God formerly spoke through prophets and now has spoken to his people in the person of his son.
Do you think Christophanies still happen?
I do think that God sometimes works in extraordinary ways. So, I'm open to the possibility. However, I'm skeptical of most claims of this kind (skeptical in the investigative sense, not dismissive, etc).
Good answer. I do think it's one of the principal divides in the Church. It's why Orthodox/Catholic is growing and Protestant is shrinking. And it's not that Protestant is wrong per se. It's that it can't deliver what people think they need.
This is SO good. Thanks.