The ancient Greeks, and the Romans, were both very superstitious and religious. One of their many ways of divination, i.e., ways to find the will of the Gods, was through consulting special intuitive persons at some twenty religious sanctuaries throughout the ancient Mediterranean world. These "diviners" were called "oracles," and were the mediums through whom a God transmitted revelations and oracles (as the sayings of a God were called). The most famous of these religious sanctuaries was Delphi, located on the slopes of Mount Parnassus overlooking the Gulf of Corinth. People, from kings to paupers, came from all over the ancient world to Delphi to consult the Pythian oracle, prophetess of the God Apollo, one of the sons of Zeus. She would receive her revelations while being possessed by the God in a cave located under the Temple of Apollo, whose ruins still exist, and she would communicate them to those inquiring of the God as sayings of the God (compare Acts 16:16-18: where a young girl is described as possessed by a "Pythian spirit").
In the latter part of the first century and early second century A.D., a philosopher and literary figure, Plutarch, who was a priest at Delphi, wrote an essay explaining why many oracular centers in Greece had ceased to function ("Obsolescence of Oracles"). In other words a customary practice of ancient Greek religion was dying out.
In the first third of the first century after the death of Jesus (around 30) certain followers of the Christ were also believed to be prophets (see Didache 11:3-13:7; 1 Corinthians 12:10, 29); they were moved by the Spirit to utter "the Word of the Lord" to their contemporaries, just as was done by the oracles in the religious sanctuaries of ancient Greece and Rome. One of these early Christian Prophets was the author of Matthew's Gospel, who channeled a saying of the crucified and resurrected Christ (Matt 28:18-20).
But perhaps more interesting is the claim of the apostle Paul that he himself, like the Pythia at Delphi, possessed the Spirit of God (1 Corinthians 7:40), and said that Christ spoke through him (2 Corinthians 13:3). Hence he was able to channel sayings (or oracles) of the deity, as the Pythia and the early Christian prophet Matthew had done. Here is a clear instance of Paul claiming to be privy to "an abundance of revelations," channeling a saying of the Lord:
And to keep me from being puffed up with pride by the abundance of revelations, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan, to harass me, to keep me from being too puffed up. Three times I begged the Lord about this that it should leave me; but he said to me "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness" (2 Corinthians 12:7-9; see also 12:1).
Further Paul claims that the gospel he preached was not something he learned from others or something he came up with on his own, but rather that it came to him directly "through a revelation of Jesus Christ" (Galatians 1:11-12). He even claimed that he was directed "by revelation" to do certain things (Galatians 2:2), and on occasion he "would speak a revelation" to the assembly of saints (1 Corinthians 14:6). He was not that special in this regard, however, for there were others in the gatherings of saints who also were believed to utter divine revelations to those assembled (1 Corinthians 14:26; for the divine gifts in the Pauline assemblies see also 1 Corinthians 12:4-11). These spiritual abilities were not given to everyone, but only to certain individuals (1 Corinthians 12:28-30). Paul used the same word to describe the revelations he received from the deity as the word he used to describe the authoritative prophetic writings of the Jewish Scriptures (Romans 16:25-27). In other words his revelations were as authoritative as the Scriptures.
To Judge by the experience of John, oracular utterances are received while the oracle is possessed by the spirit in a state of spiritual ecstasy (Revelation 1:9-20); that is, while the oracle is in a state of rapturous delight and beyond reason and self control. There are still ecstatic churches today for which public utterances of glossolalia (speaking in tongues) are believed to be revelations from God. Like the ancient oracle, the individual is thought possessed by the deity when bringing a revelation to the assembly (see Paul's description of such a public occasion, 1 Corinthians 14:1-25). But for most of those churches, which are historically descended from the Reformation of the 16th century, glossolalia is a thing of the past—probably for obvious reasons.
How does it seem to you? Were there ever those among us so sensitive as to read what passes for thoughts in a Divine mind? And was this intuitive ability on the part of some able to be used by all Gods of the ancient Hellenistic world to channel words of revelation?
Charles W. Hedrick
Professor Emeritus
Missouri State University
See also "Wry Thoughts about Religion" Blog: February 3, 2015; June 26. 2015; August 14, 2015.
11 comments:
It's interesting that you used the word "channeling" and revelation in the same sentence. Charismatic church-goers are open certain modern day prophets having the gift of divine revelation from God, but they are very much against any form of channeling (as it may lead to divination or demon possession.) I had never thought of that before, but you have demonstrated that there is very little difference mechanically between the two forms of intuitive ability.
What I find unfair about Paul is this: he gave himself supreme authority to use his intuitive ability to receive revelation from God and trusted himself to know the difference between his own inner thoughts and the voice of the divine. He got to pick and choose which was which. Yet, I am supposed to turn off my intuitive ability and accept wholesale everything he wrote as absolute truth. If I don't- then I am accused of lacking faith. What if my own intuition tells me that something he said is "off base?"
Are Christians allowed to use their intuition with regard to Scripture? If not, why? I think I have a partial answer but I would be interested in yours first, Charlie. Thank you for the clarity of your thoughts and insights.
Elizabeth
Hi Charlie,
I'm thinking that Paul, a person capable of incredible commitments, experienced a psychological transformation, which in the context of the times he interpreted as a divine revelation. He was at war with himself; was sin to be conquered and life received by commitment to commands or by receiving the spirit in trust. The latter won out, and included a mystical vision of Jesus, and Paul perhaps became the most powerful and enthusiastic medium for this message in history. He suffered over why this message wasn't as clear to everyone else as it was to him. Paul was an extremist whose inflexibility probably contributed to the eventual rise of anti-Jewish sentiment.
Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa.
Good Morning Elizabeth,
Intuition used on Scripture?: I understand intuition to be: "the power of attaining to direct knowledge or cognition without evident rational thought and inference." So I would have to say that it is not appropriate to use your intuition interpreting ancient texts. Interpreting ancient texts requires knowledge of language and history, and the use of rational thought processes. The explanation of a text should be logical and rational and never appeal to personal revelation. Why would someone have to "intuit" understanding when the texts plainly say something?
Your second question: am I allowed to disagree with Paul when I sense that he is off base? The short answer is yes. Your liberty as a human being is based in your own reason and powers of rational thought. From my perspective that applies to every aspect of life.
Cordially
Charlie
Good Morning Gene!
A beautiful day in the neighborhood!
I agree with your succinct evaluation of Paul. With the exception that I would have said in your line 5: ". . . and included what Paul thought was a mystical vision of Jesus." I don't think visions come upon us from the outside, rather we generate them from within ourselves.
Cordially,
Charlie
Good morning Charlie!
It sure is a beautiful day. Here in Southern Pa they had forcaste 6" of snow but none of it remained laying on the sidewalks.
In response to Elizabeth, you offered the following definition of intuition: "the power of attaining to direct knowledge or cognition without evident rational thought and inference."
If I may share a different take on the matter: I would say that intuition is a fundamental conclusion drawn after intense and prolonged experience with life. Like, e.g., Aristotle concluding that causality was basic to the universe and then proposing a First Cause or Prime Mover.
What you're calling intuition I would call pre-rational holistic experience in which I include things like observing a round stone rolling down a hill which leads to the invention and naming of the wheel, meeting someone and wanting to be with them all the time which is later called falling in love, innate curiosity about origins and accountability, the hope of assurances in the face of uncertainty, breathe-ability for the overcoming of suffocating experiences, and so forth.
Thanks for the kind words, and for another group of inspiring paragraphs.
Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa.
It depends on whether we are interpreting ancients texts historically or theologically. The definition I am using with regard to intuition is: "perception of truth." One's perception of truth can be reached by either intellect, intuition, or both.
Evaluating Paul's intuitive ability to channel direct revelation from God is hardly an historical question. No one has ever claimed to have seen God- the evidence of his existence has been debated for centuries. Is there a logical, rational way to evaluate Paul's intuitive abilities- free of opinion and inference? Gene's response is a very coherent, well-founded, well thought-out, theological opinion.
And I happen to agree with him, by the way.
Elizabeth
Gene, I just now saw your response. You are lucky to have snow-free sidewalks- I walk three miles a day and am hoping the sidewalks here clear up soon so I can get some Vitamin D from the sun today.
The key word in both your and Charlie's definition of intuition is "rational." Question: is "rational" a relative term? What may seem perfectly rational to me may seem completely irrational to someone else.
I find it difficult to rationally evaluate Paul's claim of hearing the voice of God because the act of receiving divine revelation from God is irrational to begin with. I do not know how to interpret Paul's claim without suspending my intellect.
Elizabeth
Hi Gene,
You may of course be correct. People will have to make up their own minds. Your example of a round rock rolling down the hill and eventually leading to the invention of the wheel sounds more like imagination than intuition to me. Imagination is defined as "an act or process of forming a conscious idea or mental image of something never before perceived in reality. . ."
Meeting someone and instantly wanting to be with them all the time sounds very much like infatuation to my ear and I would judge it is very different from falling in love, which takes a bit of time and reflection.
The last two examples you mention ("hope of assurances" and "breathe-ability for overcoming suffocating experiences") I am at a loss to relate to your definition of intuition as a "pre-rational holistic experience," or to how intuition is generally understood.
This may be another of those rare instances we will have to agree to disagree.
Cordially,
Charlie
Hi Elizabeth,
I think the essential idea in intuition is "direct knowledge." It is an instant awareness that is not mediated by anything else. Intuition is the opposite of rational thought. In short, the intuitive oracle thinks the deity's thought at the time the deity thinks them--similar to John 1:1B.
Cordially,
Charlie
In that case, Charlie, I have to refrain from commenting. I have no way of rationally evaluating or commenting upon the irrational act of channeling knowledge directly from God. There's no way to comment upon that without suspending intellect.
Elizabeth
Hi Charlie, just a brief clarification. I did not define "pre-rational holistic experience as intuition." I said that "intuition is a fundamental conclusion drawn after intense and prolonged experience with life."
It looks like we are definitely starting from different places, hopefully adding to what makes life interesting.
Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa.
Post a Comment