This post is a sequel to a previous post:
The comments have outgrown the meta, so I’m going to address
them here.
stell4/26/2013 10:40 AM
Steve wrote, “If God wants to send a message, why resort to such ambiguous means? Isn’t that counterproductive?”I believe that Dr. Moreland (around 27:05 in the video AP references) uses Nehemiah 2:12 (he said 2:17, but I believe he meant 2:12) with regard to your kind of questions. Steve, what do you think of Dr. Moreland’s lecture? Moreland suggests that you learn to hear the voice of God through “trial and error and practice, just like you learn to discern the Bible.”
steve4/26/2013 11:27 AM
i) I think Moreland is a prima facie credible witness. However, why would God favor Moreland with an abundance of miracles and private revelations compared to so many other pious Christians to whom nothing remarkable ever happens?ii) To say we need to learn how to hear God's voice through trial and error and practice is special pleading. God can express himself with unmistakable clarity to individuals. Why force Christians to read tea leaves? This is too much like heathen divination, where you strain to discern the will of the gods from ambiguous clues or obscure patterns. That's a snare. That invites self-deception.iii) Another basic problem is that Moreland's trial-and-error-and-practice method of learning how to hear God's voice doesn't bear any resemblance to the examples of special divine guidance I cited from Acts. Yet that's the closest thing we have to a paradigm of NT prophecy. That gives us actual illustrations.
ANNOYED PINOY4/26/2013 9:59 PM
But even Peter didn't immediately understand what the vision he saw meant or how to apply it.Now while Peter was inwardly perplexed as to what the vision that he had seen might mean, behold, the men who were sent by Cornelius, having made inquiry for Simon's house, stood at the gate Act 10:17.
That has nothing to do with Moreland's trial-and-error-and-practice
method of learning how to hear God's voice, for–as the narrative continues–God
demonstrated how to apply it.
In the OT, Samuel didn't immediately recognize that it was the LORD who was speaking to him. 1 Sam. 3:3-10ff.
Once again, that has nothing to do with Moreland's
trial-and-error-and-practice method of learning how to hear God's voice. God
revealed himself to Samuel in stages. First an audible voice, then an
apparition. This isn’t a case of Samuel learning how to hear God’s voice.
If you're specifically referring to the "trial and error" part then it seems that weighing or testing a revelation to determine if it really was from God was a common practice in the NT because of passages like 1 Thess. 5:21 and 1 John 4:1. Even in the OT prophecies needed to be weighed and tested since prophets are still fallible sinners in themselves and can be mistaken.
You’re conflating two different issues:
i) Distinguishing true prophecy from false prophecy
ii) The claim that even when God is the source, the message
may be ambiguous.
Nathan the prophet gave bad advice which David could have taken as prophetic if God didn't correct him (1 Chron. 17:2-4).
Once more, that has nothing to do with Moreland's
trial-and-error-and-practice method of learning how to hear God's voice. Nathan
hadn’t even consulted God at that point. It was just a snap judgment.
Moses sinned by striking the rock when he shouldn't have (Num. 20:11-12).
Once again, that has nothing to do with Moreland's
trial-and-error-and-practice method of learning how to hear God's voice.
Jeremiah lied about a conversation he had with king Zedekiah (Jer. 38:24ff.).
He told a cover story to save his own life. How is that
relevant to the issue at hand?
Jonah had a bad attitude.
A red herring.
A genuine prophet from Bethel lied to another prophet from Judah about a revelation, then immediately prophesied (by the inspiration of God) the other prophet's death sentence because he didn't weigh his prophecy in light of what God had spoken to him previously(1 Kings 13).
Iain Provan classifies the old prophet from Bethel as “a
false prophet who later spoke truly.” Typical divine irony.
People are gifted in different ways. Not everyone has the gift of prophecy even though all are encouraged by God (through Paul) to seek the gift (1 Cor. 14:1).Paul commands us to pursue love and to earnestly desire spiritual gifts (1 Cor. 14:1; cf. Heb. 11:6).
That’s inaccurate. As one commentator explains:
Zeloute denotes cultivating a stance of eagerness…[the] NRSV’s strive for positively conflicts with Paul’s insistence that these are “gifts of grace” (as in 12:31, charismata) which God chooses to give or to withhold in his sovereign freedom to “order” the church as he wills (12:18). To read strive for can be pastorally misleading and theologically doubtful.A. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Eerdmans 2000), 1082-83.
Back to Pinoy:
In 1 Cor. 14:31 Paul's statement "...so that all may learn and all be encouraged..." might mean learning to prophesy. If so, then trial and error in learning to prophecy would make sense.
No, it means learning from prophecy, not learning how to
prophesy. That’s the purpose of prophecy, as Paul is at pains to underscore.
Sometimes the disparity is due to a lack of faith or pursuit. Our Lord repeatedly encouraged people to grow in faith (Matt 17:19ff.; 14:31; 21:21ff.; Mark 9:23; 11:22ff.; Luke 17:6). Paul commands us to pursue love and to earnestly desire spiritual gifts (1 Cor. 14:1; cf. Heb. 11:6). James says we have not because we ask not (James 4:2).
Praying or growing in faith are not the same thing as
Moreland's trial-and-error-and-practice method of learning how to hear God's
voice. That’s a very specific claim which none of your prooftexts specifies.
To add to #4 above. The apostle James says we are to ask for wisdom from God in faith, otherwise we will not receive wisdom (James 1:5-8). That doesn't mean of course that the only way God grants wisdom is by our hearing His voice. But in my opinion, it surely doesn't exclude that possibility.
Jas 1:5 says nothing about learning to hear God’s voice by a
trial-and-error-and-practice method. James 1:5 is rooted in the OT wisdom
tradition of Proverbs. Cultivating prudence. Moral discernment. Enduring
adversity.
Keep in mind that in Proverbs, God gives wisdom (2:6) by
giving the proverbs contained in that very book. Not private revelation, but
public revelation.
An example I can think of is what happened to Francis Schaeffer when he heard a voice (God's or an angel sent by God) in answer to a prayer for wisdom. The account can be read HERE. Schaeffer claimed this was the 2nd time God had spoken to him in an audible voice. [At least according to Deere's book]
For the sake of accuracy, let’s quote Deere verbatim:
Early in his ministry, Francis Schaeffer faced a minor crisis. He and his young family needed temporary housing during a transitional time, but had very little money. They needed a “minor miracle” from the Lord. While Francis was praying about this, he said to God, “Where can we live, Lord? Please show us.” Immediately, in response to his question, he heard an audible voice…The voice simply said, “Uncle Harrison’s house.”Surprised by the Voice of God (Zondervan, 1998), 130.
Assuming this is true:
i) It has nothing to do with Moreland's
trial-and-error-and-practice method of learning how to hear God's voice.
ii) God spoke to him audibly, unmistakably, and
unambiguously.
iii) Nothing in this account about an angel.
iv) Schaeffer didn’t pray for wisdom. Rather, he had a very
specific request.
I think Moreland is right when he said learning to discern God's voice is analogous to learning to discern what the Bible actually teaches. Even the Bible seems to teach that people should test alleged prophecies (1 Thess. 5:21). To test the teaching of spirits (1 John 4:1).
Scripture applies a doctrinal test (e.g. 1 Cor 12:3; 1 Jn
4:2-3). That’s very different than spiritual intuition.
People also disagreed on the proper application of a divine revelation (Acts 21:10-15). When Agabus, inspired by the Holy Spirit, bound his own feet and hands using Paul's belt, most of the Christians there took that revelation and applied it contrary to how Paul applied it. They thought it meant Paul should stay away from Jerusalem. While Paul took it to mean the opposite. As an indication that God was preparing him mentally for what would await him in Jerusalem where God wanted him to go.
I’ve addressed that issue here:
Such negative experiences in the prophetic could the following statement by Paul, "19 Do not quench the Spirit.20 Do not despise prophecies" (1 Thess. 5:19-20). Then the very next verses says, "21 but test everything; hold fast what is good.22 Abstain from every form of evil." The statement of testing and weighing and keeping what is good is in the context of prophecies.
Keep in mind that Paul operates with a rather narrow,
specialized definition of “prophecy.” So you can’t just cite some reported
charismatic phenomenon, then slap Pauline usage onto that phenomenon.
The upshot is that Moreland is trying too hard to “hear”
God’s voice in the static–as if God hides the message through backmasking.
That’s not what we find in the Book of Acts.
I mentioned the sins of OT prophets (like Nathan, Moses, Jeremiah, Jonah) to point out that they were still sinners so that those who listened to their claimed prophecies still needed to weigh them to determine whether they were genuinely from God or not. Being sinners, they too had to weigh the revelations they received since self-deception and demonic deception (2 Cor. 11:14) are live possibilities. Their listeners could only accept their prophecies prima facie to the degree they built a reputation for being a reliable and godly prophet. Judas spoke for God in a sense and fell away. Peter spoke for God and yet implicitly betrayed the Gospel by his behavior (Gal. 2). Paul welcomed being continually tested (Gal. 1:8, Acts 17:11). Ministers who once taught orthodoxy could turn and start teaching heresies (1 Tim. 1:20; 2 Tim. 2:17). I mention all of this to argue that any alleged teaching, revelation or prophecy needed/needs to be tested by both the alleged prophet/teacher and their audience.
ReplyDeleteYou’re conflating two different issues:
i) Distinguishing true prophecy from false prophecy
ii) The claim that even when God is the source, the message may be ambiguous.
I probably have.
So, would you argue that an OT prophet or a NT Apostle couldn't have been mistaken about receiving a revelation from God even though they are sinners and that there are deceiving evil spirits in the world?
Clearly Saul believed that the real Samuel spoke to him from the dead. Yet after thousands of years, Biblical commentators still aren't unified as to whether it was really Samuel or an evil spirit masquerading as Samuel or whether the witch faked it all (the last option being highly unlikely). When it comes to this passage, it's ambiguous as to whether it's divine revelation recorded in divine Scripture, or non-divine revelation recorded in divine Scripture.
If Elihu spoke by inspiration (which is itself ambiguous) in Job 33:14ff., then it's not always clear when a revelation or dream is from God or not. He says, "For God speaks in one way, and in two, though man does not perceive it. In a dream, in a vision of the night..."
Evidently (seemingly) John the Baptist questioned and doubted the genuineness of the revelations he received from God when he sent his disciples to go and find out if Jesus really was the Messiah or not. Apparently, either depending on how certain God (in his omnipotent sovereignty) wants His message to be believed as genuine, coupled with the fact that human beings are fallible sinners who can reflect upon their own fallibility and sinfulness, that people can question/doubt the genuine divinity of the revelations they have received or thought (at one time) they had received. If that's true of genuine revelations, how much more is the problem complicated when we add false revelations into the sifting process?
Iain Provan classifies the old prophet from Bethel as “a false prophet who later spoke truly.” Typical divine irony.
I can see how the Bethel prophet could be interpreted as not having been a genuine prophet of Yahweh. However, the biblical narrator calls him a prophet 5 times (vv. 11, 20, 25, 26, 29). Two of which times he's called an "old prophet", which suggests to me he may have have had a reputation for once being an active prophet of Yahweh. Further evidence (not proof) for his being a genuine prophet of Yahweh are 1. the fact that he mourned the death of the prophet of Judah (spoken of twice vv. 29, 30); 2. buried him in his own grave; 3. called him his brother ("Alas, my brother!"); 4. wanted to be buried with the bones of the other prophet when he eventually died; 5. he believed the dead prophets prophecies would eventually comes to pass.; 6. he's never called a false prophet by the narrator or called a prophet of some other God (as others are later called, e.g. 1 King 18:19). [Though admittedly, he's never called a "man of God" as the prophet from Judah is]
continued in next post:
ANNOYED PINOY
Delete“I mentioned the sins of OT prophets (like Nathan, Moses, Jeremiah, Jonah) to point out that they were still sinners so that those who listened to their claimed prophecies still needed to weigh them to determine whether they were genuinely from God or not. Being sinners, they too had to weigh the revelations they received since self-deception and demonic deception (2 Cor. 11:14) are live possibilities.”
There’s no scriptural evidence that apostles and OT prophets were vulnerable to demonic deception. As if they were self-deluded, that would disarm their capacity for self-criticism. Apostles and OT prophets never weighed their “claimed prophecies.”
“Paul welcomed being continually tested (Gal. 1:8, Acts 17:11).”
Paul never indicated that he might be self-deceived. Just the contrary.
“Ministers who once taught orthodoxy could turn and start teaching heresies (1 Tim. 1:20; 2 Tim. 2:17).”
If you apply that to apostles, you no longer have any benchmark for orthodoxy.
“So, would you argue that an OT prophet or a NT Apostle couldn't have been mistaken about receiving a revelation from God even though they are sinners and that there are deceiving evil spirits in the world?”
Inspiration protects them from error.
“Clearly Saul believed that the real Samuel spoke to him from the dead. Yet after thousands of years, Biblical commentators still aren't unified as to whether it was really Samuel or an evil spirit masquerading as Samuel or whether the witch faked it all (the last option being highly unlikely). When it comes to this passage, it's ambiguous as to whether it's divine revelation recorded in divine Scripture, or non-divine revelation recorded in divine Scripture.”
I don’t grant you that it’s ambiguous. Some quaint commentators think it’s demonic because they’re uncomfortable with the idea that a witch would summon Saul from the grave, or because they don’t know much about necromancy.
“Evidently (seemingly) John the Baptist questioned and doubted the genuineness of the revelations he received from God when he sent his disciples to go and find out if Jesus really was the Messiah or not.”
He suffered a lapse of faith despite God clearly revealing himself to the Baptist. That has nothing to do with learning how to hear God’s voice by trial-and-error-and practice. Throughout this exchange you engage in bait-n-switch spooftexting.
“If that's true of genuine revelations, how much more is the problem complicated when we add false revelations into the sifting process?”
That’s only a problem if you buy into Moreland’s model.
As to the prophet from Bethel, prophecy wasn’t unique to Israel. Prophecy was ubiquitous in the ANE. Balaam is a paradigm-case of a pagan prophet who, like the prophet from Bethel, God overrules.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThere’s no scriptural evidence that apostles and OT prophets were vulnerable to demonic deception.
DeleteJudas was an apostle and Satanically possessed.
Paul never indicated that he might be self-deceived. Just the contrary.
But he didn't rule out the possibility (even if only temporarily) in the future. Hence his statement, "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you [at the present time or in the future] a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you [in the past], let him be accursed." Bracketed words added by me.
If you apply that to apostles, you no longer have any benchmark for orthodoxy.
Just because one or a few apostles could teach heresy (either temporarily or permanently) doesn't mean that all or the majority of the apostles would. God would prevent that so that it wouldn't destroy the start of the church. That's what happened with Judas. His apostasy didn't destroy the Church. Apart from God's providential plan and sanctifying/preserving grace, there was nothing preventing another apostle or two apostatizing since they were still sinners. If a few had, that wouldn't have destroyed the Christian movement.
Inspiration protects them from error.
Protecting the majority of the apostles from heresy, doesn't preclude the possibility of God not protecting a few apostles from heresy or apostasy. Again, Judas willingly apostatized (albeit by the foreordination and decree of God). The apostles "checked" each other like the branches of the U.S. government. The majority made sure that no single apostle could go theologically rogue and still be considered orthodox by the church. Your position can appeal to passages like Gal. 1:12,16-17,19, but would have difficulty accommodating or making sense of Gal. 2:2 where Paul says, "I went up because of a revelation and set before them (though privately before those who seemed influential) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure I was not running or had not run in vain." My position (and I would assume Moreland's) can make sense of both because it allows for Paul admitting that there was a logical possibility of either him having had false revelations from God, or from misinterpreting and misapplying them.
BTW I agree that from God's perspective and promises (e.g. John 17:9,12) the 11 apostles couldn't finally apostatize. But that doesn't prevent them from temporarily getting some things wrong.
I don’t grant you that it’s ambiguous. Some quaint commentators think it’s demonic because they’re uncomfortable with the idea that a witch would summon Saul from the grave..."
I tend to agree that it really was Samuel. But are you really saying that only "quaint" (I would assume modern) commentators would think it's demonic? I don't have access to the best of modern commentators like you do. But I suspect that there's probably at least one or two who think it's demonic. A few generations ago, John Gill believed it was demonic and he wasn't an intellectual slouch. Yes, he didn't have the advantages of modern scholarship, but I question whether there's an advancement in scholarship that would drastically affect it's proper interpretation. The fact remains that in the history of the Church commentators have disagreed on this issue and so it is ambiguous.
typo correction: Apart from God's providential plan and [sanctifying/persevering/preserving] grace...
DeleteANNOYED PINOY
Delete“Judas was an apostle and Satanically possessed.”
i) You’re disregarding the pre/post-Pentecostal condition of the disciples. That they could be mistaken during the earthly ministry of Jesus is irrelevant to their condition after Jesus leaves the church in their hands and confers on them the Holy Spirit.
ii) Judas was specifically chosen to betray Christ.
“But he didn't rule out the possibility (even if only temporarily) in the future. Hence his statement, ‘But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you [at the present time or in the future] a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you [in the past], let him be accursed.’ Bracketed words added by me.”
That statement is hyperbolic. You need to be sensitive to Pauline rhetoric, especially in a polemical writing like Galatians.
“Just because one or a few apostles could teach heresy (either temporarily or permanently) doesn't mean that all or the majority of the apostles would.”
That’s an ad hoc distinction.
“Your position can appeal to passages like Gal. 1:12,16-17,19, but would have difficulty accommodating or making sense of Gal. 2:2.”
Tom Schreiner, in his recent commentary (p122), addresses the type of misinterpretation you’re presenting.
“The fact remains that in the history of the Church commentators have disagreed on this issue and so it is ambiguous.”
By that yardstick, everything in Scripture is ambiguous.
That’s inaccurate. As one commentator explains: Zeloute denotes cultivating a stance of eagerness…
ReplyDeleteI'm not a Biblical exegete, so I can't dispute that. However, there are some continuationist exegetes who would interpret it my way. So, I'm not going there since I haven't been trying to build a knock down argument for my position. Rather an abductive case trying to show how my hypothesis has the greater explanatory power when dealing with all the data.
Praying or growing in faith are not the same thing as Moreland's trial-and-error-and-practice method of learning how to hear God's voice. That’s a very specific claim which none of your prooftexts specifies.
This was in response to stell's question, not (specifically) your concern over "trial and error" nature of prophecy.
stell asked, "Annoyed Pinoy, How would you reply to Steve's question: why would God favor Moreland with an abundance of miracles and private revelations compared to so many other pious Christians to whom nothing remarkable ever happens?"
ii) God spoke to him [Schaeffer] audibly, unmistakably, and unambiguously.
But, as Deere tells the story, it seems Schaeffer wasn't certain (even questioned) whether it really was from God or not. It's only after looking back at those incidents in his life did Schaeffer concluded both times were instances of God speaking to him.
Unless, you're going to argue that 100% percent of the time when God speaks that the person whom God speaks to will always know with absolute certainty that the revelation is from God, then there will always be room for the human to doubt or question whether it was from God or not. In which case, from a psychological point of view such a revelation is on equal epistemological footing as a false revelation. Having said that, I DO believe God can speak in such a way that the one spoken to can know with absolute certainty that it is God speaking. I just don't believe God chooses to always do that.
Scripture applies a doctrinal test (e.g. 1 Cor 12:3; 1 Jn 4:2-3). That’s very different than spiritual intuition.
And yet, it seems our Lord didn't shun the use of spiritual intuition to evaluate His teaching as John 7:17 suggests. That's not to deny the self-authenticating and self-attesting nature of Scripture. Nor it's necessity, authority, sufficiency and perspicuity. However, the inner witness of the Holy Spirit can use spiritual intuition to bring someone to believe the truth of a message from God. Whether it be in Scripture, or via modern revelations which must be judged by the higher, certain and sole infallible authority of Scripture (I hold to Summa Scriptura, or more popularly Prima Scriptura).
Interestingly, the very passages you cite (1 Cor. 12:3; 1 Jn 4:2-3) have been used by exorcists to determine whether a spirit is from God or not. It's even used by some in self-deliverance. For example, some charismatics ask the spirit they believe is inspiring them to prophesy or speak in tongues whether Jesus is Lord and has come in the flesh while in the process of prophesying or speaking in tongues. Allegedly, sometimes the spirit speaks and says "yes" and sometimes "no" (i.e. it's not the spirit of God).
I can't say more on this topic for now. I'm shocked because I just found out someone I know is in jail and I and others are going to have help him in this situation in the next few days. This person is a professing Christian and I don't know the details of the charges and whether they are true or false.
ANNOYED PINOY
Delete“I'm not a Biblical exegete, so I can't dispute that. However, there are some continuationist exegetes who would interpret it my way.”
Well, that’s not a counterargument. That’s an IOU. I gave an argument.
“So, I'm not going there since I haven't been trying to build a knock down argument for my position. Rather an abductive case trying to show how my hypothesis has the greater explanatory power when dealing with all the data.”
Explain what data? The scriptural data? Or what you take to be extrabiblical cases of learning to hear God’s voice by trial-and-error-and practice?
“But, as Deere tells the story, it seems Schaeffer wasn't certain (even questioned) whether it really was from God or not. It's only after looking back at those incidents in his life did Schaeffer concluded both times were instances of God speaking to him. Unless, you're going to argue that 100% percent of the time when God speaks that the person whom God speaks to will always know with absolute certainty that the revelation is from God, then there will always be room for the human to doubt or question whether it was from God or not.”
You’re equivocating. According to Deere, God spoke to Schaeffer in an audible voice. And God clearly expressed himself.
It didn’t make sense to Schaeffer because he didn’t think his uncle’s house was available, but that’s a very different issue than learning how to hear God’s voice by trial-and-error-and practice. Deere’s illustration runs counter to Moreland’s claim.
“And yet, it seems our Lord didn't shun the use of spiritual intuition to evaluate His teaching as John 7:17 suggests.”
That’s not referring to a special faculty of spiritual intuition. Rather, that’s referring to the revealed will of God in Scripture (cf. 5:46).
Well, that’s not a counterargument. That’s an IOU. I gave an argument.
DeleteTrue. So people will just have to examine the arguments for and against it on their own. I suspect Gordon Fee, John Piper, Wayne Grudem, Sam Storms would agree with my interpretation.
You’re equivocating. According to Deere, God spoke to Schaeffer in an audible voice. And God clearly expressed himself.
Assuming Deere's re-telling of the story is accurate, Deere wrote "Yet the voice that spoke to Francis was so startling and direct he felt he had to obey it." That suggests to me that Francis wasn't sure at that time it was God who really spoke to him. The "directness" of the message has no bearing as to whether he should have obey it or not. If he was convinced that it was genuine of God, he should have obeyed regardless of it's "directness". He "felt" he had to obey, not that he knew he ought to since he was convinced it was God. Sounds like a case of attempted use of "trial-and-error" to me.
You're still equivocating.
Deletetypo corrections:
ReplyDelete5. he believed the dead prophets [prophet's] prophecies would eventually comes to pass.;
Nor it's [its] necessity, authority, sufficiency and perspicuity.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteYou may be interested in one of J. P. Moreland's student's series of articles on "Objections to Hearing God."
http://www.jpmoreland.com/?s=objections+to+hearing+God
I'm browsing through the articles on the website and it's interesting to see them make similar arguments I've made (but better). Thanks for the link. :-)
DeleteHere's a passage from Job that I originally was going to post, but choose not to because I wasn't sure if it was relevant.
ReplyDeleteThe passage is Job 4:12-21. Especially verses 12-13, 15-16. The passage has Eliphaz receiving a message from a spirit and it's not clear whether Eliphaz did or didn't believe it was certainly a message from God. Also, it's not clear to me whether it was a message from God or not, even if he may have believed it was. Regardless, the message seems to be orthodox and sound teaching, so it might have been truly divine. The passage would only be relevant if Eliphaz didn't have personal assurance it was from God because it would then provide a counter-example to what Steve has written.
I'll just post verses 12-19 and highlight passages in bold:
12 “Now a word was brought to me stealthily;
my ear received the whisper of it.
13 Amid thoughts from visions of the night,
when deep sleep falls on men,
14 dread came upon me, and trembling,
which made all my bones shake.
15 A spirit glided past my face;
the hair of my flesh stood up.
16 It stood still,
but I could not discern its appearance.
A form was before my eyes;
there was silence, then I heard a voice:
17 ‘Can mortal man be in the right before God?
Can a man be pure before his Maker?
18 Even in his servants he puts no trust,
and his angels he charges with error;
19 how much more those who dwell in houses of clay,
whose foundation is in the dust,
who are crushed like the moth.
It’s methodologically unsound to simply quote statements from various characters in Job as if those statements are ipso facto true.
DeleteBy design, the book of Job contains competing voices and divergent viewpoints, viz. God, “Satan,” the narrator, Job, Job’s wife, Job’s friends.
What the divine speaker says is true. What the narrator says is true.
By contrast, Job’s friends function as foil characters. Job himself is unreliable, although he undergoes character development in the course of the story.
The narrator uses the speeches of Job and his friends as a dialectical process of elimination. Clashing opinions which express and exhaust certain interpretations of providence.
Eliphaz seems to be describing a night terror or possibly Old-Hag syndrome. His characterization of his nocturnal experience reflects ANE conceptions of dreams, dream gods, oneiromancy, the Netherworld, &c. It’s a historical witness to what people in that time and place believed about the origin and significance of dreams. Same thing with your appeal to Elihu’s dream.
These statements bear witness to the historical outlook of the characters. An outlook which mirrors their ANE worldview. How they filter that experience through their cultural prism.
That’s a documentary record of what they believed, not an editorial endorsement.
God can speak to us in dreams. But this is not the correct starting-point.
The reason I hesitated citing the passage was because I took most of what you just wrote into consideration (90%). That's why I wasn't dogmatic about the proper interpretation of the passage.
Deleteto Steve:
DeleteOkay, I'll try to make those my last comments on this particular blog. I'm really too busy to continue. If you post any responses, I'm make sure to read them. Thanks for the discussion. :-))
to Steve:
ReplyDeleteOkay, I'll try to make those my last comments on this particular blog. I'm really too busy to continue. If you post any responses, I'm make sure to read them. Thanks for the discussion. :-))