Reconsidering Christophanic Possibilities in the Hebrew Scriptures

Angel of YHWH, Theophany, and Divine Council Motifs within an Ancient Near Eastern Context

The question of whether the pre-incarnate Christ may be discerned within Israel’s Scriptures has occupied interpreters from the patristic period to the present. Classical Christian theology affirmed that the Son participates in divine self-revelation prior to the incarnation (cf. John 1:1–18; Col 1:15–17), while modern historical-critical approaches have urged caution against retrojecting later doctrinal developments onto earlier texts. The task, therefore, is not to force an anachronistic Christology onto the Hebrew Bible, but to ask whether its textual and theological patterns provide conceptual space for such a reading within a canonical and intertextual framework.

This study proposes that a constellation of phenomena—especially the figure of the malʾakh YHWH (“Angel of YHWH”), embodied theophanies, and divine council imagery—generated a conceptual grammar within Israelite religion that later Jewish and early Christian interpreters could develop into more explicit mediatorial or Logos-theologies. This is not advanced as a historical-critical certainty that “Jesus is explicitly present” in the Old Testament, but as a theologically and textually plausible reading grounded in the layered development of Scripture and its reception.


The figure designated as מַלְאַךְ יְהוָה (malʾakh YHWH) presents a persistent exegetical puzzle. While the term malʾakh ordinarily denotes a messenger, a number of passages collapse the distinction between messenger and sender in ways that exceed normal ANE emissary conventions.

In Genesis 16:7–13, the Angel of YHWH speaks to Hagar and is subsequently identified as YHWH himself: “So she called the name of YHWH who spoke to her, ‘You are El-roi.’”¹ The narrative neither corrects nor qualifies this identification. Similarly, in Exodus 3:2–6, the narrative begins with the Angel of YHWH appearing in the bush but quickly shifts to YHWH speaking directly, with Moses instructed to remove his sandals before the divine presence.²

Scholars have described this phenomenon as a form of “hypostatic agency”, in which the agent embodies the authority and presence of the sender.³ Yet, as Benjamin Sommer has argued, Israel’s theology also permitted a more fluid conception of divine embodiment, in which “God could be present in multiple bodies or forms simultaneously without compromising divine unity.”⁴

Within an ANE framework, royal emissaries could speak in the voice of the king; however, the biblical texts frequently intensify this pattern by attributing worship, divine titles, and covenantal authority directly to the Angel. As Margaret Barker notes, “the Great Angel traditions of Israel present a figure who is both distinct from and identified with YHWH.”⁵ This ambiguity creates a conceptual tension that later Jewish and Christian theology sought to articulate more precisely.


Closely related to the Angel of YHWH are theophanic narratives in which YHWH appears in visible, localized, and at times anthropomorphic form. Genesis 18 depicts YHWH appearing to Abraham as one among three visitors, yet speaking with singular divine authority.⁶ Exodus 24:9–11 describes Moses and the elders seeing “the God of Israel,” while Exodus 33:20 insists that no one may see God and live. Such tensions suggest differentiated modes of divine visibility rather than contradiction.

The Hebrew concept of כָּבוֹד (kābôd, “glory”) often denotes this visible manifestation. The Septuagint renders this as δόξα (doxa), a term later applied christologically in John 1:14. As Richard Bauckham observes, the New Testament’s claim that Jesus reveals the divine glory is not an innovation ex nihilo but a development rooted in Israel’s traditions of visible divine presence.⁷

From a Second Temple perspective, such manifestations were increasingly conceptualized through intermediary categories. Philo of Alexandria, for instance, describes the Logos as the “image of God” and mediator of divine revelation.⁸ While Philo’s framework is Hellenistic, it demonstrates that Jewish thought of the period could accommodate distinctions within divine manifestation without abandoning monotheism.


The Hebrew Bible contains a number of passages that reflect a divine council worldview. Genesis 1:26 (“Let us make humanity in our image”), Psalm 82 (“God stands in the council of El”), and 1 Kings 22:19 all depict YHWH in the midst of a heavenly assembly.

Such imagery parallels ANE conceptions of a high god presiding over a council of lesser divine beings, yet Israelite texts reconfigure this structure within a strict monotheistic framework. Mark S. Smith notes that Israelite religion exhibits “a monotheistic theology articulated through the language of an earlier polytheistic cultural matrix.”⁹

Within Second Temple Judaism, this conceptual framework expanded into discussions of exalted mediatorial figures—Wisdom (Prov 8), the Memra of the Targums, and angelic vice-regents such as Metatron. Alan Segal’s seminal study Two Powers in Heaven demonstrates that some strands of early Judaism entertained a “principal angelic figure who bore the divine name and exercised divine authority.”¹⁰

Early Christian Christology emerged within this environment. Larry Hurtado argues that devotion to Jesus as Kyrios represents “a mutation within Jewish monotheism,” rather than a departure from it.¹¹ The identification of Jesus with the divine name and functions attributed to YHWH suggests that early Christians interpreted him within these pre-existing categories of divine mediation.


The linguistic texture of the biblical text reinforces these theological dynamics. In Exodus 23:20–23, YHWH promises to send an angel “in whom is my Name.” The Hebrew phrase שְׁמִי בְּקִרְבּוֹ (šĕmî bĕqirbô) implies not merely delegated authority but a sharing in divine identity.¹²

The Septuagint’s translation of YHWH as κύριος (kyrios) provided the linguistic bridge by which early Christians could confess Jesus as Lord while drawing directly on Israel’s Scriptures. As Bauckham argues, the application of kyrios to Jesus places him “within the unique identity of the one God of Israel.”¹³

Similarly, the New Testament’s use of λόγος (logos) in John 1 reflects both Jewish Wisdom traditions and Hellenistic philosophical vocabulary. James Dunn notes that the Logos Christology of John should be understood as “a re-expression of earlier Jewish ways of speaking about God’s self-expression in creation and revelation.”¹⁴


The early Church Fathers frequently interpreted Old Testament theophanies as manifestations of the pre-incarnate Christ. Justin Martyr argued that “the Word of God… appeared to Moses and to the other prophets in the form of fire and of an angel.”¹⁵ Irenaeus likewise maintained that “the Son, being present with his own handiwork from the beginning, revealed the Father to all.”¹⁶

These readings were not mere allegorical impositions but attempts to reconcile the scriptural witness to an unseen Father with narratives in which God is seen and heard. The Son, as Logos, became the mediating presence through whom God was encountered.

Modern scholarship may question the historical-critical validity of these interpretations, yet they testify to how early Christian communities—closer in time and culture to the biblical texts—understood the patterns of divine manifestation within Israel’s Scriptures.


A responsible approach must hold together multiple interpretive layers:

First, the historical-critical layer situates each text within its ANE context and Israelite theology. Second, the Second Temple interpretive layer demonstrates how these texts were reread within Jewish traditions of divine mediation. Third, the early Christian layer reads these traditions christologically in light of the resurrection.

Rather than collapsing these perspectives into a single claim, a layered hermeneutic allows for both historical integrity and theological continuity. The Old Testament need not explicitly articulate Nicene Christology in order to provide the conceptual resources from which it later emerged.


The Angel of YHWH, theophanic manifestations, and divine council imagery together form a constellation of motifs that complicate any overly rigid conception of divine singularity in Israel’s Scriptures. While these texts do not explicitly identify Jesus of Nazareth, they generate a theological and linguistic framework in which early Christians plausibly discerned the presence of the pre-incarnate Logos.

To read these passages christologically is therefore not to impose a foreign structure upon them, but to participate in an interpretive trajectory already present within Second Temple Judaism and early Christianity. Yet such readings must be offered with appropriate humility, recognizing the distinction between theological interpretation and historical demonstration.


Footnotes

  1. Gen 16:13.
  2. Exod 3:2–6.
  3. John H. Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006), 114–18.
  4. Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 12–18.
  5. Margaret Barker, The Great Angel (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992), 23.
  6. Gen 18:1–3.
  7. Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 239–45.
  8. Philo, On Dreams 1.215.
  9. Mark S. Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 32.
  10. Alan F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven (Leiden: Brill, 1977), 159–81.
  11. Larry W. Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 98–110.
  12. Exod 23:21.
  13. Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, 182–87.
  14. James D. G. Dunn, Christology in the Making (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 213.
  15. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 60.
  16. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4.20.7.

  1. How does the figure of the Angel of YHWH challenge or reinforce classical monotheism in ancient Israel?
  2. In what ways do ANE divine council motifs inform our reading of Genesis 1:26 and Psalm 82?
  3. What are the risks and benefits of reading Old Testament theophanies christologically?
  4. How does the Septuagint’s translation of YHWH as kyrios shape early Christian theology?
  5. Can a layered hermeneutic preserve both historical-critical integrity and theological interpretation?

Bibliography

Primary Sources and Ancient Texts

  • The Hebrew Bible / Old Testament (BHS; BHQ editions)
  • Septuagint (LXX). Edited by Alfred Rahlfs and Robert Hanhart.
  • The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible. Translated by Martin Abegg, Peter Flint, and Eugene Ulrich.
  • The Apostolic Fathers. Edited by Michael W. Holmes.
  • Justin Martyr. Dialogue with Trypho.
  • Philo of Alexandria. On the Creation; Allegorical Interpretation.
  • Josephus. Antiquities of the Jews.
  • Targum Onkelos and Targum Neofiti (for Memra traditions)
  • Ugaritic Texts (KTU 1.1–1.6 Baal Cycle)

Old Testament Theology and ANE Context

  • Walton, John H. Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006.
  • Walton, John H., and J. Harvey Walton. The Lost World of Genesis One. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2009.
  • Walton, John H. The Lost World of the Israelite Conquest. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2017.
  • Smith, Mark S. The Origins of Biblical Monotheism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.
  • Smith, Mark S. The Early History of God. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002.
  • Day, John. Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000.
  • Miller, Patrick D. The Divine Warrior in Early Israel. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973.
  • Keel, Othmar, and Christoph Uehlinger. Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God in Ancient Israel. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998.
  • Hallo, William W., and K. Lawson Younger Jr., eds. The Context of Scripture. Leiden: Brill, 1997–2002.

Divine Council and Heavenly Mediators

  • Heiser, Michael S. The Unseen Realm. Bellingham, WA: Lexham, 2015.
  • Heiser, Michael S. Angels: What the Bible Really Says About God’s Heavenly Host. Bellingham: Lexham, 2018.
  • Parker, Simon B. Ugaritic Narrative Poetry. Atlanta: SBL Press, 1997.
  • Cook, John J. The Interpretation of the Old Testament in Greco-Roman Paganism. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004.
  • Segal, Alan F. Two Powers in Heaven. Leiden: Brill, 1977.
  • Fletcher-Louis, Crispin H. T. All the Glory of Adam. Leiden: Brill, 2002.
  • Mach, Michael. Angels in Early Judaism. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1992.

Angel of YHWH and Theophany Studies

  • Sommer, Benjamin D. The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
  • Meier, John P. “Angel of the Lord.” Anchor Bible Dictionary 1:248–53.
  • Haggai, Mazor. “The Messenger of YHWH.” Vetus Testamentum 63 (2013): 1–16.
  • Levenson, Jon D. Sinai and Zion. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1985.
  • Cross, Frank Moore. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973.
  • Barker, Margaret. The Great Angel: A Study of Israel’s Second God. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992.
  • Kugel, James L. The God of Old: Inside the Lost World of the Bible. New York: Free Press, 2003.

Second Temple Judaism and Intermediary Figures

  • Segal, Alan F. Two Powers in Heaven. Leiden: Brill, 1977.
  • Fletcher-Louis, Crispin. Jesus Monotheism Volume 1. Eugene: Cascade, 2015.
  • Stuckenbruck, Loren T. Angel Veneration and Christology. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995.
  • Orlov, Andrei. The Enoch-Metatron Tradition. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005.
  • Nickelsburg, George W. E. Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005.
  • Collins, John J. Apocalyptic Imagination. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016.

New Testament Christology and Divine Identity

  • Bauckham, Richard. Jesus and the God of Israel. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008.
  • Hurtado, Larry W. Lord Jesus Christ. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003.
  • Hurtado, Larry W. One God, One Lord. London: T&T Clark, 1988.
  • Dunn, James D. G. Christology in the Making. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.
  • Wright, N. T. The Resurrection of the Son of God. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003.
  • Bird, Michael F. Jesus the Eternal Son. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017.
  • McGrath, James F. The Only True God. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2009.

Logos Theology and Jewish Wisdom Traditions

  • Philo of Alexandria. On Dreams; On the Confusion of Tongues.
  • Winston, David. Logos and Mystical Theology in Philo of Alexandria. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College, 1985.
  • Boyarin, Daniel. The Jewish Gospels. New York: New Press, 2012.
  • Dunn, James D. G. Christology in the Making, esp. Wisdom Christology sections.
  • Witherington, Ben. Jesus the Sage. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994.

Patristic and Early Christian Interpretation

  • Justin Martyr. Dialogue with Trypho.
  • Irenaeus. Against Heresies.
  • Tertullian. Against Praxeas.
  • Origen. On First Principles.
  • Athanasius. On the Incarnation.
  • Ayres, Lewis. Nicaea and Its Legacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.

Hebrew and Greek Linguistic Resources

  • Brown, Francis, S. R. Driver, and Charles Briggs. Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (BDB).
  • Koehler, Ludwig, and Walter Baumgartner. HALOT.
  • Louw, Johannes P., and Eugene Nida. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament.
  • Kittel, Gerhard, ed. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT).
  • Botterweck, G. Johannes, and Helmer Ringgren. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (TDOT).

Hermeneutics and Method

  • Childs, Brevard S. Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992.
  • Goldingay, John. Old Testament Theology. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2003–2009.
  • Vanhoozer, Kevin J. The Drama of Doctrine. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2005.
  • Hays, Richard B. Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2016.
  • Wright, N. T. Scripture and the Authority of God. New York: HarperOne, 2013.

Balanced / Critical Voices (for methodological caution)

  • Barr, James. The Semantics of Biblical Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961.
  • Levenson, Jon D. The Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament, and Historical Criticism. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993.
  • Sommer, Benjamin D. The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel. Cambridge, 2009.
  • Kugel, James L. How to Read the Bible. New York: Free Press, 2007.
  • McGrath, James F. The Only True God. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2009.

“Love Beyond Cards and Candy: A Biblical and Socio-Rhetorical Reflection on Valentine’s Day”

Every February 14 many Christians and non-Christians alike pause to celebrate love—often through candy, flowers, heart-shaped cards, and candlelight dinners. But beneath the commercial veneer lies a rich tapestry of history, cultural adaptation, and theological meaning that invites careful reflection for the church—one rooted not simply in sentiment, but in Scripture and the long witness of Christian faith.

1. The Historical Palimpsest of Valentine’s Day

Some scholars would identify at least three such figures known in martyrologies, with one tradition holding that a Roman priest named Valentine in the third century defied an imperial edict against Christian marriage to marry couples in secret—a testament to his defense of Christian marriage and pastoral courage.

By the fifth and sixth centuries, February 14 was established in the liturgical calendar as the feast of St. Valentine, though the medieval church did not associate this date with romantic love until much later. In time, festivals of courtly love and poetic traditions such as Chaucer’s Parliament of Fowls would fold romantic symbolism into the date long after its ecclesiastical origins ended.

It is essential sociologically to recognize that Valentine’s Day—as celebrated today—is a layered cultural artifact: part hagiographic remembrance, part medieval romance, part commercialized modern ritual. None of these layers originate in biblical revelation, yet all reflect ways humans seek to articulate love within their cultural context.

2. Scripture and the Semantics of Love

Most people are aware that the Bible does not mention Valentine’s Day; nowhere is it regarded as a holy day per se. Its absence places the observance in the category of Christian freedom described in Romans 14:5–6, where Paul writes that believers may regard certain days differently, and whether one observes them or not, it should be “in honor of the Lord.”

What Scripture does offer is a rich, nuanced theology of love. In biblical Greek there are multiple terms for love—agapé (self-giving, covenantal love), philia (brotherly affection), eros (romantic desire, depicted especially in Song of Songs), and storge (familial love). While eros itself does not appear in the New Testament theological lexicon, the Song of Songs—a book of the Hebrew Bible—celebrates sensual and relational love within the covenant of marriage.

The apostle Paul’s famous discourse in 1 Corinthians 13 reframes love as a moral and spiritual virtue defined not by transient feeling but by patient covenantal commitment, self-giving service, and endurance. Jesus Himself states the core of the law: to love God with all one’s heart and to love one’s neighbor as oneself (Mark 12:30–31).

This emphasis locates the core of biblical discourse not in romantic expression alone, but in covenantal fidelity, sacrificial love, and the self-giving love revealed supremely in Christ’s death and resurrection.

3. Early Church and the Appropriation of Culture

From a socio-rhetorical perspective, the early church was adept at incarnating its message within existing cultural frameworks without compromising its core message. The apostle Paul became “all things to all people” to win some to Christ (1 Corinthians 9:22).

Christian appropriation of certain dates or customs has always been contested. The church’s decision to commemorate saints and martyrs on specific feast days was not intended to canonize secular customs, but to sanctify memory in ways that pointed beyond worldly spectacle to Christ’s kingship and the communion of saints.

In this light, Valentine’s Day can serve as a cultural locus for Christians to articulate biblical love — not simply by embracing its commercial trappings uncritically, nor by rejecting all contact with culture out of fear of syncretism, but by discerning how Christ’s love reshapes human practices. As Paul counsels, “Test everything; hold fast to what is good.” (1 Thessalonians 5:21)

4. Theological Reframing: Love as Witness

Rather than delegating Valentine’s Day to either celebration or avoidance, Christians can use the occasion as an invitation to reflect on biblical love as witness—not only within marriage, but within the body of Christ and the broader world.

A socio-rhetorical reading invites us to see Valentine’s Day less as an externally mandated Christian feast and more as a rhetorical opportunity—a moment when society’s focus on love can be redirected toward the love that God enacts in Christ. Such love is measured not by roses and chocolates, but by the sacrificial gift of Christ and the mutual love of believers that testifies to His presence (John 13:35).

Conclusion: Love in Context

Valentine’s Day is not inherently Christian because it emerged from early church commemoration or medieval romantic tradition. Nor is it inherently pagan because of its layered history. It is imperatively a moment for Christians to practice discernment, to ask how the gospel reframes the season of love, and to embody sacrificial, covenantal love in ways that reflect God’s love for the world.

As we remember St. Valentine—a figure united by courage and fidelity to Christ—and reflect on the biblical narrative of love from Genesis to Revelation, may our practice of love be shaped by agapé above all else, rooted in Scripture and enacted in service.


Discussion Questions

  1. How does an awareness of the historical development of Valentine’s Day influence (or not) how we celebrate love as Christians?
  2. In what ways does the biblical concept of agapé challenge modern expressions of romantic love?
  3. How can Christians use cultural observances like Valentine’s Day as platforms for gospel witness without syncretizing their faith?
  4. What does Song of Songs teach us about the place of romantic love within God’s broader design for relationships?
  5. How might Paul’s teaching in Romans 14 apply to disagreements within the church over celebrating Valentine’s Day?

Bibliography

  • Armstrong Institute. “Valentine’s Day—in the Hebrew Bible?” (ArmstrongInstitute.org)
  • BibleInspire.com. “Valentine’s Day Biblical Meaning: What Christians Need to Know.”
  • “Valentine’s Day.” Wikipedia (overview of historical development).
  • Song of Songs. Wikipedia (literary and canonical context).

Teaching Philosophy and Theology

I have taught theology and religion in higher education for most of my life and what continually excites me is the continual innovation of theological interpretation. I have taken many years of Biblical language coursework which reflects in me now holding several related degrees, and I often joke that all my years of hard study could be traded for the simple innovation particularly of a good digital interlinear within the last 5 years. As an example, higher education within theology now attempts to better teach how to use linguistic interpretation tools (such as an online interlinear) rather than spending a lot of time actually teaching the language itself.

There are several factors that influence this conversation. In philosophical instruction deduction and induction give us a basis for understanding and learning attribution. Deduction as a construct does not bring forth knowledge any more than induction. [1] Dewey M. Beegle, for instance, opts for a priority of induction (Scripture, Tradition and Infallibility. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973, p. 16) and he chides the upholders of inerrancy for having permitted an Aristotelian scholastic method of deductive reasoning to obscure the phenomena of Scripture which, he feels, should have been the foundation on which inductive reasoning could have developed a truly biblical view. [2] Yet he has a place for both. Naturally an inductive study tends to be more exegetical in nature where several textures of interpretation come into play such as 1) inner texture, 2) intertexture, 3) social and cultural texture, 4) ideological texture, and 5) sa‐cred texture. [3] Deductive studies are usually eisegetical which is prompted by a topic, doctrine, or concept. [4] Logos Software specialists and Ben Ho would then deduct that “The deductive method of reasoning moves toward necessary conclusions derived from correct connections between premises premises which are all either given or assumed to be true. The inductive method of reasoning moves toward possible conclusions derived from hypothetical connections between premises (observations) which are selected from among all possible true premises (observations). [5]

Many of these things combined with a better modern world understanding of learning have helped scholars and teachers approach theology and the life applications of studying both biblically and systematically. Bloom’s Taxonomy, for instance, is a classification of the different objectives and skills that educators set for their students otherwise known as learning objectives. [6] Understanding learning styles and fine tuning a taxonomy tailored to theology such as I began explaining through the lens of linguistics has very much changed the shape and applications of religious texts academically and towards a spiritual life application.

It is quite intriguing for religion based on a text that is at most 3500 years old (in some cases) to still be the topic of several new theological revelations. [7] And I say this from historical texture rather than spiritual. I also find that as religious studies, biblical studies and both systematic and biblical theology are all closely related fields; the nature of the scientific approach can change immensely across the different threads. [8] I have found that as time flows different things impact the interest levels of students that you might not get in other humanities. Authorship seems more well read in a spiritual climate, practices, beliefs, and traditions [9] are often greater impacted by culture trends and larger organization input. On one hand the more systematic side of things tends to be objective and academic while the experiences, approaches, applications, and examinations [10] (discussed more often in a taxonomy conversation) often tend to be more of the spiritual nature and difficult to measure. There is also an anthropological, cultural, and sociological texture [11] that influence interpretation both at the level of the intended audience and to our current life application. These tend to carry more faith based or subjective assertations. All of these dynamics have the ability to deepen your understanding of the religion at hand but accomplish the feat in very different methodologies. 

I say all of these things, to come to the conclusion that there has never been as exciting as a time in history to teach theology. Unlike the other humanities, this will have the power to change every facet of life as you know it. Your life will truly be transformed by the interpretation of the text.

  1. https://philosophical-theology.com/2024/05/05/deduction-induction-tag/
  2. https://learn.ligonier.org/articles/induction-and-deduction-with-reference-to-inspiration
  3. Vernon K. Robbins. Exploring the Texture of Texts: A Guide to Socio-Rhetorical Interpretation. Valley Forge, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 1996. ISBN 978-1-56338-183-6.
  4. https://www.fastmissions.com/article/inductive-vs-deductive-study
  5. https://sermons.logos.com/sermons/113029-inductive-and-deductive-bible-studies?sso=false
  6. https://tips.uark.edu/using-blooms-taxonomy/#gsc.tab=0
  7. https://the-bible.net/how-old-is-the-bible/
  8. Carson, D. A. (2018). NIV, Biblical Theology Study Bible, eBook: Follow God’s Redemptive Plan as It Unfolds throughout Scripture. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan. ISBN 9780310450436.
  9. Sponsel, Leslie E. (2014). “Spiritual Ecology”. In Leeming, David A. (ed.). Encyclopedia of Psychology and Religion (2nd ed.). BostonSpringer. pp. 1718–1723. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-6086-2_9295ISBN 978-1-4614-6087-9.
  10. Garrett, James Leo (2014). Systematic Theology, Volume 1, Fourth Edition. Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock Publishers. p. 20. ISBN 9781498206594.
  11. Andy Clark, David J Chalmers (January 1998). “The extended mind”. Analysis. 58 (1): 7–19. doi:10.1093/analys/58.1.7. JSTOR 3328150.; reprinted as: Andy Clark, David J Chalmers (2010). “Chapter 2: The extended mind”. In Richard Menary (ed.). The Extended Mind. MIT Press. pp. 27–42. ISBN 9780262014038.