In my last post, here, I ended with the following question, posed to my readers who were frustrated with my hubris in believing that God not only still speaks today, but also speaks to me:
So what is supposedly different about NOW? So different, in fact, that would cause a changeless God to change??? Or revise His tactics? If He spoke in the past, plans to speak again in the future, then what is sooooooo different today?
Caution: Whenever someone is redefining who God is, differently than He reveals Himself, they come dangerously close to idolatry: worshipping a god who is not what He revealed. And, in His Word, He reveals Himself as the God Who Speaks. So, since there is no shadow of change in Him...He still speaks. In all the ways He once spoke. It's all His prerogative.
My point is simple: If God is a God who does not change, then why would someone believe that God would change now? What would this all-powerful trigger be? And, if the God they worship changes, is He different than the revealed God of the Bible? That's what leads to my question about idolatry. We have to be careful to take God as He reveals Himself, not as we'd sometimes like Him to be.
The answer to my above question, for those who do not believe God speaks today, seems to be either one of the answers below, or both:
That it does happen today, it's just rare.
The Bible makes it so He doesn't need to speak. He's already said all He needs to say.
Let's deal with the first answer:
At first glance at the Bible, it might seem that only a few rare and (mostly) extraordinary people heard God's voice or had a direct encounter with God, in comparison to the myriad of people who didn't get that encounter. But if we look closer, even in just the book of Genesis, we see that God spoke to individuals (Adam, Eve, Cain, Noah, etc.) and entire families (Noah's family before and just after the flood) and even the animals (He commanded them to be fruitful and multiple).
Before the Israelites refused to listen to God because of their fear and elected Moses to "hear" for them, God spoke and EVERYONE in the camp heard. Some rather not-so-extraordinary people are included in that camp. And while it seems that God would have preferred to walk amongst His people and talk with them (as we know from the Tripartite Promise—the whole "dwell in their midst" thing), He allowed Moses to step in. Book after book details God speaking and only a few listening. I think the latter word is the key.
God's original plan of intimate fellowship (walking and talking) with Adam and Eve was paradise, but they screwed it up. After that, fewer and fewer walked and listened to God. The Bible doesn't show all the times God spoke and no one listened. (Fuschia Pickett always cheekily said that Enoch and God were walking together and God said "Come and stay over a bit" in Heaven and since there's no night, he's there still.)
Are some accepting this plan of reduced intimacy still or do we truly believe Jesus blazed a trail to the Father, demonstrating it by ripping the veil to the Holy of Holies from top to bottom?
I do believe fewer men and women listen, but I do not see anywhere that God has said He is no longer speaking as often.
His desire has not changed: I will be their God, they will be my people, and I will dwell in their midst. He didn't say "I will be their God, they will be my people, and I'll speak to a few of them on special occasions."
Now for the second one. There was a time in the recent history that some denominational leaders and scholars (particularly those adhering to some Presbyterian and Baptist denominations and their dispensational view of the Bible) felt that when the Bible was given to us, it fulfilled the scripture "When that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away. But whether there are prophesies they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away." (1 Corinthians 13:9)
The first problem with inserting the word "Bible" here is that neither tongues (of men or of angels) have ceased (I'm still talking, you're still talking, and I presume angels are still talking in Heaven though I haven't spoken with one to be sure) and knowledge certainly hasn't ceased. (I know a few things, you know a few things, and those wiser than us seem to know a few more things.) We can debate the whole "prophesies" thing another day.
The second problem is that it doesn't even mention God speaking to us.
The third problem is that if this verse Paul wrote is talking about the Bible as we know it today, then it is referring to itself, before the Bible was even in the minds of those that lived in that day. No one had any idea these letters and writings would be combined and canonized together with certain ancient books that would have been referred to as "scripture" that would have been available to Jews (think: Old Testament). Ezra compiled the Old Testament in 400 BC. It wasn't until 373 AD that the historic Christian church agreed on the 66 books of the Bible.
Are we to create a fictional "age" where the Bible existed in some form or another until Christ returns and starts talking to us again? Should we make this fictional age start when the last letter of the last chapter of the last book of the Bible (Revelation in AD 94-96) was written? Was it "perfect" then? Or when it was canonized in 373 AD? Or when it was translated into Latin for the common people to read in the 16th century? Or maybe when it was translated into the King James Version (for those who think that's the only accurate one) in 1610?
You probably see my point. It's ludicrous to think that this verse is referring specifically to the Bible. It's circular thinking and most scholars who used to hold this believe no longer do so. It's unfortunate that their students promulgate it still.
My final issue with the second answer is that the Bible is not an idol. It is not God. It's His Word. It doesn't have the power to change an unchangeable God.
I hope this helps. And even more so, I hope this frees people to listen.
- Cathy