Revelation refers to the disclosure or unveiling of something. In that sense, reality is constantly revealing itself to probing minds as they seek to comprehend it. We approach the world as those who expect the hidden to be revealed, and the unknown to become known. According to the Bible, God himself has satisfied man's quest for intelligibility by revealing himself, his divine power and his will for mankind, so that we might come to know him.
Two species of revelation
Ps. 19 calls our attention to the two varieties of divine revelation. On the one hand, 'the heavens are telling the glory of God' in such a way that it is impossible for anyone not to know it. And on the other hand, there is a testimony granted to Israel which conveys more specific information about the gift and the demands of God. We call the first 'general' revelation because it is universally available, and the second 'special' revelation because it is a particular disclosure about how mankind can find favour with God—a disclosure given at first to particular people chosen by God but intended in the end for the whole human race. Although there are differences between general and special revelation in terms of their completeness and orientation, we should not draw the contrast too sharply. After all, there is only one God whose Logos is spreading the knowledge of the Lord everywhere. The two species of revelation stand together in a complementary relationship. We should not forget that God is the source of revelation in both cases, and that the two types of revelation work together to the same goal. The creational light 'that enlightens every man' orients us toward the Word become flesh (Jn. 1:9, 14). General revelation alerts us to the reality of God, while special revelation urgently summons us to make peace with God. The two species belong to the one over-arching unity of divine revelation.
General revelation
God is a mystery, and some in modern times have supposed that he is unknowable by man. Kant developed an epistemological theory in which God could not be an object of human knowledge. For some this spells simple atheism, but for others it has led to a denial of general revelation. Karl Barth, for example, has denied the reality of revelation outside of Jesus Christ. But this is not a scriptural position. Even though he is transcendent, God 'has never left himself without witness' (Acts 14:17). No-one can honestly say that he does not know what the term 'God' refers to. The Bible tells us that God's eternal power and deity can be clearly perceived in the things God made (Rom. 1:20). It also informs us that God is sovereign over human history and that often we are able to trace God's hand in events. In particular the reality of God is detected in human nature, for example, in the moral realm. This moral impulse which characterizes all human beings points to the moral God who brought us into existence (Rom. 2:1–16). God's existence is also attested in man's religious nature, in that people everywhere have always believed in a reality higher than themselves. Barth was right to worry about the bad uses to which general revelation was put in liberal theology, but that cannot be an excuse for denying a dimension of the actual revelation of God.
One can list several points of real value which reside in general revelation. First, it means that there is common ground between [586] believer and unbeliever. Everyone already has a certain knowledge of God which can serve as a starting point in an evangelistic discussion. Some of the truth is already known, whether welcome or not (see Christianity and other Religions). Second, it means that we can be hopeful about discovering God's truth outside the sphere of special revelation in the wider world. This might even be true amidst the rubble of man's religious strivings. God has placed truth throughout the whole extent of his creation, and it is there to be uncovered.
If there indeed is an objective general revelation, does this mean that natural theology is possible and justified? The majority opinion in the history of apologetics has answered affirmatively. Men such as Thomas Aquinas and Jonathan Edwards have tried to show by an appeal to certain features of the world that theism is a rational belief, indeed the only belief which can make sense of things. Some Protestants have been more cautious, worrying that this exercise might be making assumptions about the integrity of human reason which should not be made. Nevertheless, given the objective reality of general revelation, together with the practical need to establish common ground, it is likely that natural theology has a future. If God is the creator, one would expect the world to reveal its maker. The Bible itself confirms this expectation; therefore, Christians are likely to continue to explain how this is so to those they want to convert.
If we posit a basic unity between general and special revelation, does it not follow that both possess saving potential and that a sinner might turn to God and trust God in the context of general revelation alone if he were limited to it? Many Evangelicals are very wary about giving an affirmative answer to this question, because to do so would seem to imply that salvation is possible anywhere, with or without the knowledge of Christ. I think it may be possible to answer affirmatively in a way that would allay such fears. God's grace is meant for the whole human race, and Christ has provided for the salvation of all in his universal atonement (1 Jn. 2:2). Surely we may assume, with support from Scripture in the form of what one might call the Melchizedek factor, that the person who turned to God in the light of whatever revelation he had would become eligible, as it were, for the fuller revelation and the salvation implied in it. We do not need to suppose that a person can enjoy Christ's salvation without Christ, but only that a person who turns to God for mercy on the basis of only general revelation will surely receive it.
Special revelation
An obvious limitation of general revelation is that while it calls attention to a moral and religious defect in us, it does not highlight a solution for it. A person might cast himself upon God for mercy on the basis of general revelation, but not be assured that there is mercy available for him. One is led to hope for and anticipate additional revelation which would address the painful tension between our moral and religious obligation and our moral and religious shortcomings. One would hope against hope that the God who made the world would have done or said something to alleviate this desperate situation.
None of this remains hypothetical for those who recognize that special revelation which culminates in the incarnation. The Word has become flesh; the divine person has joined to himself our human potential for selfhood, thus surpassing the gulf that separates us. Furthermore, in this incarnation the problem of our moral guilt was effectively solved by a sacrifice which satisfies God's moral law and provides for our moral regeneration. Thus at the heart and centre of special revelation is a divinely initiated solution to the universal moral and religious predicament of man which takes the form of the incarnation of the Son of God. As Jesus told Philip, 'He who has seen me has seen the Father' (Jn. 14:9).
Stepping back from the mountain peak of special revelation, let us reflect on the features of that revelation in a more general way. The creation witness does not involve verbal revelation, and leaves us to figure out from the outside what is going on. There is a certain amount that we can learn from observing a person's behaviour and appearance, but this does not begin to compare with what we can know if the person involved is willing to open himself up to us. When it comes to self-directing persons as distinct from inert objects, revelation can only proceed if the willingness to share one's inner thoughts is present. If we are really to get to know God, it is absolutely necessary that God should reveal to us who he is. Otherwise, we would be left largely in the dark. This is why the [587] Bible stresses so enthusiastically the self-revelation of God.
This revelation is personal. God reveals himself by telling us his name. He enters into covenant with us, and gives himself to be known by us. God himself, and not just universal truths about God, is what is revealed. Further, in revelation God stoops to make himself known in ways we can grasp and understand. He comes to us in categories of thought and action which make sense to us.
Of particular significance in addition to the incarnation are two modes of special revelation: revelation in historical events, and revelation in divine speech. First, the narrative line of the biblical gospel is structured around a recital of the works God has performed in human history. The mighty deeds of the Lord are repeatedly praised. He brought his people Israel out of the land of bondage, and he sent his Son to accomplish an even greater redemption. It is not enough to think of the deeds of God as ordinary events, construed in a religiously insightful way by people with faith. Nor is it enough to say that God presents himself to us personally through events, as if to minimize the deeds themselves as revelation. In the resurrection, for example, God did something outside ourselves and our experiences. In this miracle, God gave an objective witness to all mankind, in validating Christ's own claim to be God's anointed (Acts 17:31; Rom. 1:4). Jesus was attested by signs and wonders, and although put to death by evil men he was raised up by God and set at his right hand as Lord (Acts 2:22–36). The Christian proclamation rests, then, on solid historical reality when it calls people to consider its claim to revelation.
Second, and of equal importance, there is a verbal component to special revelation. God gave his law through Moses, and speaks to us through Jesus Christ, along with the apostles and prophets. Divine speech as well as divine action plays a crucial role in revelation. As the writer to the Hebrews says, 'In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son' (Heb. 1:1–2). God's acts by themselves, while meaningful, would be relatively mute, unless accompanied by verbal commentary giving insight into the character and purposes of God. God not only raises the crucified Christ from the dead, but also explains to us the redemptive significance of that action, as when Paul writes: 'Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures' (1 Cor. 15:3). Jesus was not merely another Jewish martyr dying for his faith, but the divinely appointed substitute of us all putting away our sins. The divinely given interpretation of the cross is practically as important to us as the cross itself, at least as far as our being able to appropriate its benefits intelligibly is concerned. In the biblical account, the divine speech is every bit as central to revelation as the divine action. Revelation is to be found both in God's deeds and in God's words.
If it is true that special revelation conveys propositional truth and verbal communication from God, then it is natural to expect the deposit of truth to be settled into written form. It would be very surprising if this were not so, given the verbal character of revelation, not to mention the linguistic nature of human beings themselves. It is more than reasonable to expect that divine revelation would find expression in written form. Only written documents are capable of preserving the insights communicated in revelation over time and making them available to the people who come later. Again, none of this remains hypothetical because we find in the Bible a claim concerning inscripturated revelation which answers to this need (see Scripture).
Bibliography
J. Baillie, The Idea of Revelation in Recent Thought (New York, 1956); G. C. Berkouwer, General Revelation (Grand Rapids, MI, 1955); idem., Holy Scripture (Grand Rapids, MI, 1975); J. Cottrell, What the Bible Says about God the Creator (Joplin, MO, 1983); B. A. Demarest, General Revelation, Historical Views and Contemporary Issues (Grand Rapids, MI, 1982); M. J. Erickson, Christian Theology I (Grand Rapids, MI, 1983); C. F. H. Henry, God, Revelation and Authority I–VI (Waco, TX, 1976–83); H. D. McDonald, Ideas of Revelation, An Historical Study 1700–1860 (London, 1959); idem., Theories of Revelation, An Historical Study 1860–1960 (London, 1963); C. H. Pinnock, Biblical Revelation, The Foundation of Christian Theology (Chicago, IL, 1971); idem., The Scripture Principle (New York, 1985).
C.H.P.
No comments:
Post a Comment