In the first part of this three part series, we saw that, throughout history, direct revelation of God's word to man has been the exception. Even in Old Testament times, when God spoke "to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways," most people received the revealed word of God indirectly. Those to whom it was directly revealed were an exclusive group known as "seers" or "prophets". When others wished to inquire of God, they turned to these men.
In the second article, we discussed God's means of speaking to man during New Testament times. While direct revelation was not rare in the first century, we saw that those who received direct revelation generally fell into one of two categories. They had either experienced Holy Spirit baptism, or they had received gifts of the Holy Spirit, e.g., the gift of prophecy, or tongues, by the laying on of an apostle's hands. We saw that Holy Spirit baptism is not universally experienced by believers. Indeed, we saw that there are only two demonstrable occurrences of Holy Spirit baptism in the New Testament, one when the apostles were empowered to accomplish their mission (Acts 2:1-4), and the other when an extraordinary sign was required to convince believing Jews that God would accept Gentiles (Acts 10:44-47). We also saw that the gifts administered by the laying on of the apostles' hands were to cease, and did cease, probably near the beginning of the second century.
We concluded that we have no precedent for supposing that God speaks directly to anyone and everyone. We argued that no one has the right to claim direct revelation today apart from Holy Spirit baptism (which none today experience), or the laying on of the apostles' hands (which doesn't occur today for obvious reasons). This means we are dependent upon those revelations made to others and recorded for posterity, viz. the scriptures, "second-hand" revelation, if you please. On the basis of the foundation laid in the first article, we should not find this to be an exceptional circumstance.
In this final article, we wish to talk about "signs". Many who might never dare to equate their experiences with those of Old and New Testament prophets, nonetheless suppose that God communicates to them by way of signs. They interpret unusual events as God's signals that they should take this job, move to that city, buy the red sports car, abandon a spouse, etc. They do not think of themselves as having some extra-biblical source of authority, but they nonetheless set aside Biblical teaching on the basis of some supposed sign that, "it was God's will that I divorce my husband."
First, let it be perfectly clear that the signs described in the Bible were not ambiguous. They were not merely unusual events. They were impossible events. Remember God's sign to Hezekiah. Not only did God cause the shadow to move ten steps, He caused in to move ten steps in the wrong direction! (Isaiah 38:7- 8) Remember Nicodemus' words to Jesus: "Rabbi we know that thou art a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that thou doest except God be with him." It wasn't something that only a few men could do that impressed Nicodemus. It wasn't something that might happen once in a hundred years that impressed Nicodemus. It was the fact that Jesus could do what no one, apart from an act of God, could do. Among today's evangelicals, mere serendipity and curious coincidence pass for signs from God. Such would not have been considered signs in the New Testament.
Consider the case of prominent evangelicals, Tim and Beverly LaHaye. This husband and wife team wrote a helpful book on the conjugal relationship entitled The Act of Marriage. However, they reveal in the introduction that Beverly was initially reluctant to join her husband in the effort.
At first, Bev was reluctant to get heavily involved with the endeavor until the Lord gave her a specific sign. Within the next two months she counseled at least ten frigid wives. The success those women soon achieved in their love lives convinced her that God required her active participation in the project.
For the sake of argument, let us suppose that the success achieved by those ten women was indeed a sign from God. How did Beverly know the meaning of the sign was, "Write a book"? Why shouldn't Beverly have concluded that God was telling her, "Don't waste time trying to write a book when you can be a greater help to married women by concentrating on personal counseling"? If it were a sign it seems to have been a rather ambiguous one. But such is the nature of the signs claimed by evangelicals. The LaHayes even considered this one to be relatively "specific".
The subjective nature of modern signs results in self- serving interpretation. Generally modern "signs" are interpreted as God's endorsement of what the individual wanted to do anyway. A red flag should go up here. Any device that serves to allow me to do what I want to do, guilt free, is a ready-made tool for Satan. Satan led Eve to sin by convincing her that there was nothing wrong with eating a fruit that appealed to her carnally (it was good for food), aesthetically (it was a delight to the eyes), and egotistically (it would make her wise, like God). Her desire for the fruit made it very easy for her to believe Satan's lie. If we allow ourselves to believe in such subjective "signs", we will inevitably end up being led by the flesh. Moreover, we will have deluded ourselves so that we actually believe we are doing right.
However, there is another point to be made here. The signs we read about in the Bible were not generally vehicles of information in and of themselves. They were rather endorsements of certain individuals who spoke God's word. Remember that Nicodemus didn't look to the signs Jesus did to discern God's will concerning this or that. Rather he understood the signs to be evidence that Jesus was a teacher come from God, and the appropriate response to the signs was to give heed to Jesus' teachings. Hebrews 2:3-4 speaks of those who heard the word of the Lord and confirmed it to others, "God also bearing witness with them, both by signs and wonders..." Today's evangelicals are mistaken when they suppose that signs are self-contained revelations of God's will, dangerously mistaken.
Finally, consider this: If God did choose to speak to you directly, how would you regard his words? How would you respond? If a heavenly voice boomed down upon you, called you by name, told you to do this or that, and caused trees to fall and mountains to shake all around you, just for emphasis, how seriously would you take those instructions? Well God has spoken to you, although perhaps not as dramatically. He has spoke to you in writing. You believe that. Why take God's written instructions any less seriously than you suppose you would take his audible instructions? Do you think he means his written word any less?
Part 1: How God Spoke to Man in the Old Testament
Part 2: How God Spoke to Man in N.T. Times