Revelation

REVELATION

An extraordinary and supernatural disclosure made by God, whether by dream, vision, ecstasy, or otherwise, of truths beyond man’s unaided power to discover. Paul, alluding to his visions and revelations, 2Co 12:1,7, speaks of them in the third person, out of modesty; and declares that he could not tell whether he was in the body or out of the body. Elsewhere he says that he had received his gospel by a particular revelation, Gal 1:12 .For the BOOK OF REVELATION, see APOCALYPSE.

Fuente: American Tract Society Bible Dictionary

Revelation

See Inspiration.

Fuente: Dictionary of the Apostolic Church

REVELATION

The act of revealing or making a thing public that was before unknown; it is also used for the discoveries made by God to his prophets, and by them to the world; and more particularly for the books of the Old and New Testament. A revelation is, in the first place, possible. God may, for any thing we can certainly tell, think proper to make some discovery to his creatures which they knew not before. As he is a being of infinite power, we may be assured he cannot be at a loss for means to communicate his will, and that in such a manner as will sufficiently mark it his own.

2. It is desirable. For, whatever the light of nature could do for man before reason was depraved, it is evident that it has done little for man since. Though reason be necessary to examine the authority of divine revelation, yet, in the present state, it is incapable of giving us proper discoveries of God, the way of salvation, or of bringing us into a state of communion with God. It therefore follows.

3. That it is necessary. Without it we can attain to no certain knowledge of God, of Christ, of the Holy Ghost, of pardon, of justification, of sanctification, of happiness, of a future state of rewards and punishments.

4. No revelation, as Mr. Brown observes, relative to the redemption of mankind, could answer its respective ends, unless it were sufficiently marked with internal and external evidences. That the Bible hath internal evidence, is evident from the ideas it gives us of God’s perfections, of the law of nature, of redemption, of the state of man, &c. As to its external evidence, it is easily seen by the characters of the men who composed it, the miracles wrought, its success, the fulfillment of its predictions, &c. (

See SCRIPTURE.)

5. The contents of revelation are agreeable to reason. It is true there are some things above the reach of reason; but a revelation containing such things is no contradiction, as long as it is not against reason; for if every thing be rejected which cannot be exactly comprehended, we must become unbelievers at once of almost every thing around us. The doctrines, the institutions, the threatenings, the precepts, the promises, of the Bible, are every way reasonable. The matter, form, and exhibition of revelation are consonant with reason.

6. The revelation contained in our Bible is perfectly credible. It is an address to the reason, judgment, and affections of men. The Old Testament abounds with the finest specimens of history, sublimity, and interesting scenes of Providence. The facts of the New Testament are supported by undoubted evidence from enemies and friends. The attestations to the early existence of Christianity are numerous from Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenxus, Justin Martyr, and Tatian, who were Christians; and by Tactitus, Sueton, Serenus, Pliny, &c. who were Heathens. (

See CHRISTIANITY.)

7. The revelations contained in our Bible are divinely inspired. The matter, the manner, the scope, the predictions, miracles, preservation, &c. &c. all prove this. (

See INSPIRATION.)

8. Revelation is intended for universal benefit. It is a common objection to it, that hitherto it has been confined to few, and therefore could not come from God who is so benevolent; but this mode of arguing will equally hold good against the permission of sin, the inequalities of Providence, the dreadful evils and miseries of mankind which God could have prevented. It must be farther observed, that none deserve a revelation; that men have despised and abused the early revelations he gave to his people. This revelation, we have reason to believe, shall be made known to mankind. Already it is spreading its genuine influence. In the cold regions of the north, in the burning regions of the south, the Bible begins to be known; and, from the predictions it contains, we believe the glorious sun of revelation shall shine and illuminate the whole globe.

9. The effects of revelation which have already taken place in the world have been astonishing. In proportion as the Bible has been known, arts and sciences have been cultivated, peace and liberty have been diffused, civil and moral obligation have been attended to. Nations have emerged from ignorance and barbarity, whole communities have been morally reformed, unnatural practices abolished, and wise laws instituted. Its spiritual effects have been wonderful. Kings and peasants, conquerors and philosophers, the wise and the ignorant, the rich and the poor, have been brought to the foot of the cross; yea, millions have been enlightened, improved, reformed, and made happy by its influences. Let any one deny this, and he must be a hardened, ignorant infidel, indeed. Great is the truth, and must prevail.

See Dr. Leland’s Necessity of Revelation. “This work, ” says Mr. Ryland, “has had no answer, and I am persuaded it never will meet with a solid confutation.” Halyburton against the Deists; Leland’s View of Deistical Writers; Brown’s compendium of Natural and Revealed Religion; Stillingfleet’s Origines Sacrae, is, perhaps, one of the ablest defences of revealed religion ever written. Delany’s Revelation examined with Candour; Arch. Campbell on Revelation; Ellis on Divine Things; Gale’s Court of the Gentiles.

Fuente: Theological Dictionary

revelation

(Latin: re, back; velum, veil)

A drawing aside of the veil, disclosing what is hidden, as the unveiling of a statue. Divine revelation discloses things about God which otherwise we should not know, or know imperfectly only. Revelation is the basis of supernatural religion, of knowledge of God and divine things which is above unaided reason, or which, though attainable by reason, becomes known in a way that is outside the course of nature. Christ affirmed: “All things are delivered to Me by My Father. And no one knoweth who the Son is, but the Father: and who the Father is, but the Son and to whom the Son will reveal Him.” (Luke 10)

“I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life. No man cometh to the Father, but by Me …he that seeth Me, seeth the Father also.” (John 14)

“My doctrine is not Mine, but His that sent Me.” ( John 7)

“the works themselves which I do, give testimony of Me, that the Father hath sent Me” (John 5)

“For I give you to understand, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For neither did I receive it of man; nor did I learn it but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.” (Galatians 1)

Fuente: New Catholic Dictionary

Revelation

I. MEANING OF REVELATION

Revelation may be defined as the communication of some truth by God to a rational creature through means which are beyond the ordinary course of nature.

The truths revealed may be such as are otherwise inaccessible to the human mind — mysteries, which even when revealed, the intellect of man is incapable of fully penetrating. But Revelation is not restricted to these. God may see fit to employ supernatural means to affirm truths, the discovery of which is not per se beyond the powers of reason. The essence of Revelation lies in the fact that it is the direct speech of God to man. The mode of communication, however, may be mediate. Revelation does not cease to be such if God’s message is delivered to us by a prophet, who alone is the recipient of the immediate communication. Such in brief is the account of Revelation given in the Constitution “De Fide Catholica” of the Vatican Council. The Decree “Lamentabili” (3 July, 1907), by its condemnation of a contrary proposition, declares that the dogmas which the Church proposes as revealed are “truths which have come down to us from heaven” (veritates e coelo delapsoe) and not “an interpretation of religious facts which the human mind has acquired by its own strenuous efforts” (prop., 22). It will be seen that Revelation as thus explained differs clearly from: inspiration such as is bestowed by God on the author of a sacred book; for this, while involving a special illumination of the mind in virtue of which the recipient conceives such thoughts as God desires him to commit to writing, does not necessarily suppose a supernatural communication of these truths; from the illustrations which God may bestow from time to time upon any of the faithful to bring home to the mind the import of some truth of religion hitherto obscurely grasped; and, from the Divine assistance by which the pope when acting as the supreme teacher of the Church, is preserved from all error as to faith or morals. The function of this assistance is purely negative: it need not carry with it any positive gift of light to the mind. Much of the confusion in which the discussion of Revelation in non-Catholic works is involved arises from the neglect to distinguish it from one or other of these.

During the past century the Church has been called on to reject as erroneous several views of Revelation irreconcilable with Catholic belief. Three of these may here be noted. The view of Anton Guenther (1783-1863). This writer denied that Revelation could include mysteries strictly so-called, inasmuch as the human intellect is capable of penetrating to the full all revealed truth. He taught, further, that the meaning to be attached to revealed doctrines is undergoing constant change as human knowledge grows and man’s mind develops; so that the dogmatic formul which are now true will gradually cease to be so. His writings were put on the Index in 1857, and his erroneous propositions definitively condemned in the decrees of the Vatican Council. the Modernist view (Loisy, Tyrrell). According to this school, there is no such thing as Revelation in the sense of a direct communication from God to man. The human soul reaching up towards the unknowable God is ever endeavouring to interpret its sentiments in intellectual formul . The formul it thus frames are our ecclesiastical dogmas. These can but symbolize the Unknowable; they can give us no real knowledge regarding it. Such an error is manifestly subversive of all belief, and was explicitly condemned by the Decree “Lamentabili” and the Encyclical “Pascendi” (8 Sept., 1907). With the view just mentioned is closely connected the Pragmatist view of M. Leroy (“Dogme et Critique”, Paris, 2nd ed. 1907). Like the Modernists, he sees in revealed dogmas simply the results of spiritual experience, but holds their value to lie not in the fact that they symbolize the Unknowable, but that they have practical value in pointing the way by which we may best enjoy experience of the Divine. This view was condemned in the same documents as the last mentioned.

II. POSSIBILITY OF REVELATION

The possibility of Revelation as above explained has been strenuously denied from various points of view during the last century. For this reason the Church held it necessary to issue special decrees on the subject in the Vatican Council. Its antagonists may be divided into two classes according to the different standpoints from which they direct their attack, viz: Rationalists (under this class we include both Deist and Agnostic writers). Those who adopt this standpoint rely in the main on two fundamental objections: they either urge that the miraculous is impossible, and that Revelation involves miraculous interposition on the part of the Deity; or they appeal to the autonomy of reason, which it is maintained can only accept as truths the results of its own activities. Immanentists. To this class may be assigned all those whose objections are based on Kantian and Hegelian doctrines as to the subjective character of all our knowledge. The views of these writers frequently involve a purely pantheistic doctrine. But even those who repudiate pantheism, in place of the personal God, Ruler, and Judge of the world, whom Christianity teaches, substitute the vague notion of the “Spirit” immanent in all men, and regard all religious creeds as the attempts of the human soul to find expression for its inward experience. Hence no religion, whether pagan or Christian, is wholly false; but none can claim to be a message from God free from any admixture of error. (Cf. Sabatier, “Esquisse”, etc., Bk. I, cap. ii.) Here too the autonomy of reason is invoked as fatal to the doctrine of Revelation properly so called. In the face of these objections, it is evident that the question of the possibility of Revelation is at present one of the most vital portions of Christian apologetic. If the existence of a personal God be once established, the physical possibility at least of Revelation is undeniable. God, who has endowed man with means to communicate his thoughts to his fellows, cannot be destitute of the power to communicate His own thoughts to us. [Martineau, it is true, denies that we possess faculties either to receive or to authenticate a divine revelation concerning the past or the future (Seat of Authority in Religion, p. 311); but such an assertion is arbitrary and extravagant in the extreme.] However, numerous difficulties have been urged on grounds other than that of physical possibility. In estimating their value it seems desirable to distinguish three aspects of Revelation, viz: as it makes known to us; (1) truths of the natural law, (2) mysteries of the faith, (3) positive precepts, e.g. regarding Divine worship. (1) The revelation of truths of the natural law is certainly not inconsistent with God’s wisdom. God so created man as to bestow on him endowments amply sufficient for him to attain his last end. Had it been otherwise, the creation would have been imperfect. If over and above this He decreed to make the attainment of beatitude yet easier for man by placing within his reach a far simpler and far more certain way of knowing the law on the observance of which his fate depended, this is an argument for the Divine generosity; it does not disprove the Divine wisdom. To assume, with certain Rationalists, that exceptional intervention can only be explained on the ground that God was unable to embrace His ultimate design in His original scheme is a mere petitio principii. Further, the doctrine of original sin supplies an additional reason for such a revelation of the natural law. That doctrine teaches us that man by the abuse of his free will has rendered his attainment of salvation difficult. Though his intellectual faculties are not radically vitiated, yet his grasp of truth is weakened; his recognition of the moral law is constantly clouded by doubts and questionings. Revelation gives to his mind the certainty he had lost, and so far repairs the evils consequent on the catastrophe which had befallen him.

(2) Still more difficulty has been felt regarding mysteries. It is freely asserted that a mystery is something repugnant to reason, and therefore something intrinsically impossible. This objection rests on a mere misunderstanding of what is signified by a mystery. In theological terminology a conception involves a mystery when it is such that the natural faculties of the mind are unable to see how its elements can coalesce. This does not imply anything contrary to reason. A conception is only contrary to reason when the mind can recognize that its elements are mutually exclusive, and therefore involve a contradiction in terms. A more subtle objection is that urged by Dr. J. Caird, to the effect that every truth that can be partially communicated to the mind by analogies is ultimately capable of being fully grasped by the understanding. “Of all such representations, unless they are purely illusory, it must hold good that implicitly and in undeveloped form they contain rational thought and therefore thought which human intelligence may ultimately free from its sensuous veil. . . . Nothing that is absolutely inscrutable to reason can be made known to faith” (Philosophy of Religion, p. 71). The objection rests on a wholly exaggerated view regarding the powers of the human intellect. The cognitive faculty of any nature is proportionate to its grade in the scale of being. The intelligence of a finite intellect can only penetrate a finite object; it is incapable of comprehending the Infinite. The finite types through which the Infinite is made known to it can never under any circumstances lead to more than analogous knowledge. It is further frequently urged that the revelation of what the mind cannot understand would be an act of violence to the intellect; and that this faculty can only accept those truths whose intrinsic reasonableness it recognizes. This assertion, based on the alleged autonomy of reason, can only be met with denial. The function of the intellect is to recognize and admit any truth which is adequately presented to it, whether that truth be guaranteed by internal or by external criteria. The reason is not deprived of its legitimate activity because the criteria are external. It finds ample scope in weighing the arguments for the credibility of the fact asserted. The existence of mysteries in the Christian religion was expressly taught by the Vatican Council (De Fide Cath., cap. ii, can. ii). “If anyone shall say that no mysteries properly so called are contained in the Divine revelation, but that all the dogmas of the faith can be understood and proved from natural principles by human reason duly cultivated — let him be anathema.”

(3) The older (Deist) School of Rationalists denied the possibility of a Divine revelation imposing any laws other than those which natural religion enjoins on man. These writers regarded natural religion as, so to speak, a political constitution determining the Divine government of the universe, and held that God could only act as its terms prescribed. This error likewise was proscribed at the same time (De Fide Cath., cap. ii, can. ii). “If any one shall say that it is impossible or that it is inexpedient that man should be instructed regarding God and the worship to be paid to Him by Divine revelation — let him be anathema.”

It can hardly be questioned that the “autonomy of reasons” furnishes the main source of the difficulties at present felt against Revelation in the Christian sense. It seems desirable to indicate very briefly the various ways in which that principle is understood. It is explained by M. Blondel, an eminent member of the Immanentist School, as signifying that “nothing can enter into a man which does not proceed from him, and which does not correspond in some manner to an interior need of expansion; and that neither in the sphere of historic facts nor of traditional doctrine, nor of commands imposed by authority, can any truth rank as valid for a man or any precept as obligatory, unless it be in some way autonomous and autochthonous” (Lettre sur les exigences, etc., p. 601). Although M. Blondel has in his own case reconciled this principle with the acceptance of Catholic belief, yet it may readily be seen that it affords an easy ground for the denial not merely of the possibility of external Revelation, but of the whole historic basis of Christianity. The origin of this erroneous doctrine is to be found in the fact that within the sphere of the natural speculative reason, truths which are received purely on external authority, and which are in no way connected with principles already admitted, can scarcely be said to form part of our knowledge. Science asks for the inner reason of things and can make no use of truths save in so far as it can reach the principles from which they flow. The extension of this to religious truths is an error directly traceable to the assumption of the eighteenth-century philosophers that there are no religious truths save those which the human intellect can attain unaided. The principle is, however, sometimes applied with a less extensive signification. It may be understood to involve no more than that reason cannot be compelled to admit any religious doctrine or any moral obligation merely because they possess extrinsic guarantees of truth; they must in every case be able to justify their validity on intrinsic grounds. Thus Prof. J. Caird writes: “Neither moral nor religious ideas can be simply transferred to the human spirit in the form of fact, nor can they be verified by any evidence outside of or lower than themselves” (Fundamental Ideas of Christianity, p. 31). A somewhat different meaning again is implied in the canon of the Vatican Council in which the right of the intellect to claim absolute independence (autonomy) is denied. “If anyone shall say that human reason is independent in such wise that faith cannot be commanded it by God — let him be anathema” (De Fide Cath., cap. iii, can. i). This canon is directed against the position maintained as already noted by the older Rationalists and the Deists, that human reason is amply sufficient without exterior assistance to attain to absolute truth in all matters of religion (cf. Vacant, “Etudes Théologiques”, I, 572; II, 387).

III. NECESSITY OF REVELATION

Can it be said that Revelation is necessary to man? There can be no question as to its necessity, if it be admitted that God destines man to attain a supernatural beatitude which surpasses the exigencies of his natural endowments. In that case God must needs reveal alike the existence of that supernatural end and the means by which we are to attain it. But is Revelation necessary even in order that man should observe the precepts of the natural law? If our race be viewed in its present condition as history displays it, the answer can only be that it is, morally speaking, impossible for men unassisted by Revelation, to attain by their natural powers such a knowledge of that law as is sufficient to the right ordering of life. In other words, Revelation is morally necessary. Absolute necessity we do not assert. Man, Catholic theology teaches, possesses the requisite faculties to discover the natural law. Luther indeed asserted that man’s intellect had become hopelessly obscured by original sin, so that even natural truth was beyond his reach. And the Traditionalists of the nineteenth century (Bautain, Bonnetty, etc.) also fell into error, teaching that man was incapable of arriving at moral and religious truth apart from Revelation. The Church, on the contrary, recognizes the capacity of human reason and grants that here and there pagans may have existed, who had freed themselves from prevalent errors, and who had attained to such a knowledge of the natural law as would suffice to guide them to the attainment of beatitude. But she teaches nevertheless that this can only be the case as regards a few, and that for the bulk of mankind Revelation is necessary. That this is so may be shown both from the facts of history and from the nature of the case. As regards the testimony of history, it is notorious that even the most civilized of pagan races have fallen into the grossest errors regarding the natural law; and from these it may safely be asserted they would never have emerged. Certainly the schools of philosophy would not have enabled them to do so; for many of these denied even such fundamental principles of the natural law as the personality of God and the freedom of the will. Again, by the very nature of the case, the difficulties involved in the attainment of the requisite knowledge are insuperable. For men to be able to attain such a knowledge of the natural law as will enable them to order their lives rightly, the truths of that law must be so plain that the mass of men can discover them without long delay, and possess a knowledge of them which will be alike free from uncertainty and secure from serious error. No reasonable man will maintain that in the case of the greater part of mankind this is possible. Even the most vital truths are called in question and are met by serious objections. The separation of truth from error is a work involving time and labour. For this the majority of men have neither inclination nor opportunity. Apart from the security which Revelation gives they would reject an obligation both irksome and uncertain. It results that a revelation even of the natural law is for man in his present state a moral necessity.

IV. CRITERIA OF REVELATION

The fact that Revelation is not merely possible but morally necessary is in itself a strong argument for the existence of a revelation, and imposes on all men the strict obligation of examining the credentials of a religion which presents itself with prima facie marks of truth. On the other hand if God has conferred a revelation on men, it stands to reason that He must have attached to it plain and evident criteria enabling even the unlettered to recognize His message for what it is, and to distinguish it from all false claimants.

The criteria of Revelation are either external or internal: (1) External criteria consist in certain signs attached to the revelation as a divine testimony to its truth, e.g., miracles. (2) Internal criteria are those which are found in the nature of the doctrine itself in the manner in which it was presented to the world, and in the effects which it produces on the soul. These are distinguished into negative and positive criteria. (a) The immunity of the alleged revelation from any teaching, speculative or moral, which is manifestly erroneous or self-contradictory, the absence of all fraud on the part of those who deliver it to the world, provide negative internal criteria. (b) Positive internal criteria are of various kinds. One such is found in the beneficent effects of the doctrine and in its power to meet even the highest aspirations which man can frame. Another consists in the internal conviction felt by the soul as to the truth of the doctrine (Suarez, “De Fide”, IV, sect. 5, n. 9.) In the last century there was in certain schools of thought a manifest tendency to deny the value of all external criteria. This was largely due to the Rationalist polemic against miracles. Not a few non-Catholic divines anxious to make terms with the enemy adopted this attitude. They allowed that miracles are useless as a foundation for faith, and that they form on the contrary one of the chief difficulties which lie in faith’s path. Faith, they admitted, must be presupposed before the miracle can be accepted. Hence these writers held the sole criterion of faith to lie in inward experience — in the testimony of the Spirit. Thus Schleiermacher says: “We renounce altogether any attempt to demonstrate the truth and the necessity of the Christian religion. On the contrary we assume that every Christian before he commences inquiries of this kind is already convinced that no other form of religion but the Christian can harmonize with his piety” (Glaubenslehre, n. 11). The Traditionalists by denying the power of human reason to test the grounds of faith were driven to fall back on the same criterion (cf. Lamennais, “Pensées Diverses”, p. 488).

This position is altogether untenable. The testimony afforded by inward experience is undoubtedly not to be neglected. Catholic doctors have always recognized its value. But its force is limited to the individual who is the subject of it. It cannot be employed as a criterion valid for all; for its absence is no proof that the doctrine is not true. Moreover, of all the criteria it is the one with regard to which there is most possibility of deception. When truth mingled with error is presented to the mind, it often happens that the whole teaching, false and true alike, is believed to have a Divine guarantee, because the soul has recognized and welcomed the truth of some one doctrine, e.g., the Atonement. Taken alone and apart from objective proof it conveys but a probability that the revelation is true. Hence the Vatican Council expressly condemns the error of those who teach it to be the only criterion (De Fide Cath., cap. iii, can. iii).

The perfect agreement of a religious doctrine with the teachings of reason and natural law, its power to satisfy, and more than satisfy, the highest aspirations of man, its beneficent influence both as regards public and private life, provide us with a more trustworthy test. This is a criterion which has often been applied with great force on behalf of the claims of the Catholic Church to be the sole guardian of God’s Revelation. These qualities indeed appertain in so transcendent a degree to the teaching of the Church, that the argument must needs carry conviction to an earnest and truth-seeking mind. Another criterion which at first sight bears some resemblance to this claims a mention here. It is based upon the theory of Immanence and has of recent years been strenuously advocated by certain of the less extreme members of the Modernist School. These writers urge that the vital needs of the soul imperatively demand, as their necessary complement, Divine co-operation, supernatural grace, and even the supreme magisterium of the Church. To these needs the Catholic religion alone corresponds. And this correspondence with our vital needs is, they hold, the one sure criterion of truth. The theory is altogether inconsistent with Catholic dogma. It supposes that the Christian Revelation and the gift of grace are not free gifts from God, but something of which the nature of man is absolutely exigent; and without which it would be incomplete. It is a return to the errors of Baius. (Denz. 1021, etc.)

While the Church, as we have said, is far from undervaluing internal criteria, she has always regarded external criteria as the most easily recognizable and the most decisive. Hence the Vatican Council teaches: “In order that the obedience of our faith might be agreeable to reason, God has willed that to the internal aids of the Holy Spirit, there should be joined external proofs of His Revelation, viz: Divine works (facta divina), especially miracles and prophecy, which inasmuch as they manifestly display the omnipotence and the omniscience of God are most certain signs of a Divine revelation and are suited to the understanding of all” (De Fide Cath., cap. iii). As an instance of a work evidently Divine and yet other than miracle or prophecy, the council instances the Catholic Church, which, “by reason of the marvellous manner of its propagation, its surprising sanctity, its inexhaustible fruitfulness in all good works, its catholic unity and its invincible stability, is a mighty and perpetual motive of credibility and an irrefragable testimony to its own divine legation” (l. c.). The truth of the teaching of the council regarding external criteria is plain to any unprejudiced mind. Granted the presence of the negative criteria, external guarantees establish the Divine origin of a revelation as nothing else can do. They are, so to say, a seal affixed by the hand of God Himself, and authenticating the work as His. (For a fuller treatment of their apologetic value, and for a discussion of objections, see MIRACLES; APOLOGETICS.)

V. THE CHRISTIAN REVELATION

It remains here to distinguish the Christian Revelation or “deposit of faith” from what are termed private revelations. This distinction is of importance: for while the Church recognizes that God has spoken to His servants in every age, and still continues thus to favour chosen souls, she is careful to distinguish these revelations from the Revelation which has been committed to her charge, and which she proposes to all her members for their acceptance. That Revelation was given in its entirety to Our Lord and His Apostles. After the death of the last of the twelve it could receive no increment. It was, as the Church calls it, a deposit — “the faith once delivered to the saints” (Jude, 2) — for which the Church was to “contend” but to which she could add nothing. Thus, whenever there has been question of defining a doctrine, whether at Nicæa, at Trent, or at the Vatican, the sole point of debate has been as to whether the doctrine is found in Scripture or in Apostolic tradition. The gift of Divine assistance (see I), sometimes confounded with Revelation by the less instructed of anti-Catholic writers, merely preserves the supreme pontiff from error in defining the faith; it does not enable him to add jot or tittle to it. All subsequent revelations conferred by God are known as private revelations, for the reason that they are not directed to the whole Church but are for the good of individual members alone, They may indeed be a legitimate object for our faith; but that will depend on the evidence in each particular case. The Church does not propose them to us as part of her message. It is true that in certain cases she has given her approbation to certain private revelations. This, however, only signifies: that there is nothing in them contrary to the Catholic Faith or to the moral law, and, that there are sufficient indications of their truth to justify the faithful in attaching credence to them without being guilty of superstition or of imprudence. It may however be further asked, whether the Christian Revelation does not receive increment through the development of doctrine. During the last half of the nineteenth century the question of doctrinal development was widely debated. Owing to Guenther’s erroneous teaching that the doctrines of the faith assume a new sense as human science progresses, the Vatican Council declared once for all that the meaning of the Church’s dogmas is immutable (De Fide Cath., cap. iv, can. iii). On the other hand it explicitly recognizes that there is a legitimate mode of development, and cites to that effect (op. cit., cap. iv) the words of Vincent of Lirins: “Let understanding science and wisdom [regarding the Church’s doctrine] progress and make large increase in each and in all, in the individual and in the whole Church, as ages and centuries advance: but let it be solely in its own order, retaining, that is, the same dogma, the same sense, the same import” (Commonit. 28). Two of the most eminent theological writers of the period, Cardinal Franzelin and Cardinal Newman, have on very different lines dealt with the progress and nature of this development. Cardinal Franzelin in his “De Divina Traditione et Scriptura” (pt. XXII VI) has principally in view the Hegelian theories of Guenther. He consequently lays the chief stress on the identity at all points of the intellectual datum, and explains development almost exclusively as a process of logical deduction. Cardinal Newman wrote his “Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine” in the course of the two years (1843 45) immediately preceding his reception into the Catholic Church. He was called on to deal with different adversaries, viz., the Protestants who justified their separation from the main body of Christians on the ground that Rome had corrupted primitive teaching by a series of additions. In that work he examines in detail the difference between a corruption and a development. He shows how a true and fertile idea is endowed with a vital and assimilative energy of its own, in virtue of which, without undergoing the least substantive change, it attains to an ever completer expression, as the course of time brings it into contact with new aspects of truth or forces it into collision with new errors: the life of the idea is shown to be analogous to an organic development. He provides a series of tests distinguishing a true development from a corruption, chief among them being the preservation of type, and the continuity of principles; and then, applying the tests to the case of the additions of Roman teaching, shows that these have the marks not of corruptions but of true and legitimate developments. The theory, though less scholastic in its form than that of Franzelin, is in perfect conformity with orthodox belief. Newman no less than his Jesuit contemporary teaches that the whole doctrine, alike in its later as in its earlier forms, was contained in the original revelation given to the Church by Our Lord and His Apostles, and that its identity is guaranteed to us by the infallible magisterium of the Church. The claim of certain Modernist writers that their views on the evolution of dogma were connected with Newman’s theory of development is the merest figment.

———————————–

OTTIGER, Theologia fundamentalis (Freiburg, 1897); VACANT, Etudes Th ologiques sur la Concile du Vatican (Paris, 1895); LEBACHELET, De l apolog tique traditionelle et l apolog tique moderne. (Paris, 1897); DE BROGLIE, Religion et Critique (Paris, 1906); BLONDEL, Lettre sur les Exigences de la Pens e moderne en mati re apolog tique in Annales de la Philos: Chr tienne (Paris. 1896). On private revelations: SUAREZ, De Fide, disp. III, sect. 10; FRANZELIN, De Scriptura et Traditione, Th. xxii (Rome, 1870); POULAIN, Graces of Interior Prayer, pt. IV, tr. (London, 1910). On development of doctrine: BAINVEL, De magisterio vivo et traditione (Paris, 1905); VACANT, op. cit., II, p. 281 seq.; PINARD, art. Dogme in Dict. Apolog tique de la Foi Catholique, ed. D AL S (Paris, 1910); O DWYER, Cardinal Newman and the Encyclical Pascendi (London, 1908).

Among those who from one point of view or another have controverted the Christian doctrine of Revelation the following may be mentioned: PAINE, Age of Reason (ed. 1910), 1 30; F. W. NEWMAN, Phases of Faith (4th ed., London, 1854); SABATIER, Esquisse d une philosophie de la religion, I, ii (Paris, 1902); PFLEIDERER, Religionsphilosophie auf geschichtlicher Grundlage (Berlin, 1896), 493 seq.; LOISY, Autour d un petit livre (Paris, 1903), 192 sqq.; WILSON, art. Revelation and Modern Thought in Cambridge Theol. Essays (London, 1905); TYRRELL, Through Scylla and Charybdis (London, 1907), ii; MARTINEAU, Seat of Authority in Religion, III, ii (London, 1890).

G.H. JOYCE Transcribed by Douglas J. Potter Dedicated to the Sacred Heart of Jesus Christ

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XIIICopyright © 1912 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat, February 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, D.D., CensorImprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York

Fuente: Catholic Encyclopedia

Revelation

(), a disclosure of something that was before unknown; and divine revelation is the direct communication of truths before unknown from God to men. The disclosure may be made by dream, vision, oral communication, or otherwise (Dan 2:19; 1Co 14:26; 2Co 12:1; Galatians 1:12; Rev 1:1). Revelation is not to be confounded with inspiration. The former refers to those things only of which the sacred writers were ignorant before they were divinely taught, while the latter has a more general meaning. Accordingly revelation may be defined that operation of the Holy Spirit by which truths before unknown are communicated to men; and inspiration, the operation of the Holy Spirit by which not only unknown truths are communicated, but by which also men are excited to publish truths for the instruction of others, and are guarded from all error in doing it. Thus it was revealed to the ancient prophets that the Messiah should appear, and they were inspired to publish the fact for the benefit of others. The affecting scenes at the cross of Christ were not revealed to John, for he saw them with his own eyes (Joh 19:35); but he was inspired to write a history of this event, and by supernatural guidance was kept from all error in his record. It is therefore true, as the apostle affirms, that every part of the Bible is given by inspiration of God (2Ti 3:16), though every part of the Bible is not the result of immediate revelation. For convenience’ sake, we call the whole Bible a revelation from God, because most of the truths it contains were made known by direct communication from God, and could have been discovered in no other way; and generally it is only the incidental circumstances attending the communication of these truths that would be ascertained by the writers in the ordinary modes of obtaining information.

Concerning a divine revelation, we remark that,

1. It is possible. God may, for aught we know, think proper to make known to his creatures what they before were ignorant of; and, as a Being of infinite power, he cannot be at a loss for means of communication.

2. It is desirable; for while reason is necessary to examine the matter of revelation, it is incapable, unaided, of finding out God.

3. It is necessary; for without it we can attain to no certain knowledge of God, of Christ, and of salvation.

4. Revelation must, to answer its endsbe sufficiently marked with internal and external evidences. These the Bible has.

5. Its contents must be agreeable to reason. Not that everything revealed must be within the range of reason; but this may be true, and yet there be no contradiction. To calm, dispassionate reason there is nothing in doctrine, command, warning, promises, or threatenings which is opposed thereto.

6. It must be credible; and we find the facts of Scripture supported by abundant evidence from friend and foe.

7. Revelation also must necessarily bear the prevailing impress of the circumstances and tastes of the times and nations in which it was originally given. The Bible, however, though it bears the distinct impress of Asiatic manners, as it should do, is most remarkable for rising above all local and temporary peculiarities, and seizing on the great principles common to human nature under all circumstances; thus showing that as it is intended for universal benefit, so will it be made known to all mankind. The language of the Bible is the language of men, otherwise it would not be a divine revelation to men. It is to be understood by the same means and according to the same laws bv which all other human language is understood. It is addressed to the common-sense of men, and common- sense is to be consulted in its interpretation. In a narrower sense, revelation is used to express the manifestation of Jesus Christ to Jews and Gentiles (Luk 2:32); the manifestation of the glory with which God will glorify his elect and faithful seryants at the: last judgment (Rom 8:19), and the declaration of his just judgments in his conduct both towards the elect and towards the reprobate (2:5-16). There is a very noble application of the word revelation to the consummation of all things, or the revelation of Jesus Christ in his future glory (1Co 1:7; 1Pe 1:13). See Brown, Compendium of Natural and Revealed Religion; Archbp. Campbell, On Revelation; Delany, Revelation Examined; Ellis, On Divine Things; Fuller, Works; Horne, Introduction; Leland, Necessity of Revelation; View of Deistical Writers. SEE INSPIRATION; SEE MIRACLES; SEE PROPHECY.

Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature

Revelation

an uncovering, a bringing to light of that which had been previously wholly hidden or only obscurely See n. God has been pleased in various ways and at different times (Heb. 1:1) to make a supernatural revelation of himself and his purposes and plans, which, under the guidance of his Spirit, has been committed to writing. (See WORD OF GOD) The Scriptures are not merely the “record” of revelation; they are the revelation itself in a written form, in order to the accurate presevation and propagation of the truth.

Revelation and inspiration differ. Revelation is the supernatural communication of truth to the mind; inspiration (q.v.) secures to the teacher or writer infallibility in communicating that truth to others. It renders its subject the spokesman or prophet of God in such a sense that everything he asserts to be true, whether fact or doctrine or moral principle, is true, infallibly true.

Fuente: Easton’s Bible Dictionary

REVELATION

Since God is supreme and sovereign, answerable to no one, he has no need to make himself known to mere humans. Yet in his grace he has chosen to do so, and people are responsible to him concerning what they learn from him (Deu 29:29). The activity of God in making himself and his truth known is called revelation.

Revelation through nature and conscience

God has given humankind a general revelation of himself through nature. The created world tells people everywhere something of the sovereign power, glory and love of God (Psa 19:1-4; Psa 104:1-32; Act 14:17; Act 17:26-27; Rom 1:19-20). Many, however, though recognizing the natural world to be full of wonder and beauty, refuse to accept it as evidence of the presence and power of God (Rom 1:21). When people humbly submit to God in faith, they see him revealing himself to them through nature (Gen 9:13-16; Psa 29:3-10; Habakkuk 3; Mat 6:26; Mat 6:30; see also CREATION; NATURE).

In addition to providing a general revelation through nature, God has revealed something of himself through the basic knowledge of right and wrong that he has put within the hearts of all people. This unwritten standard, which makes possible the operation of the human conscience, is sometimes called natural law (Rom 2:15; see CONSCIENCE).

The revelation through conscience, like the revelation through nature, gives people some understanding of God, but it does not give them the detailed knowledge that is necessary for salvation. Such knowledge comes through the more specific revelation God has made through his spoken and written Word (1Co 1:21).

Revelation through Christ and the Word

Earlier revelations of God to individuals prepared the way for the fuller revelation that God gave through the nation Israel (Gen 12:1-3; Gen 17:1-8; Gen 17:16; Exo 3:2-6). The entire Old Testament history of Israel was itself a revelation of God. Through his prophets and other special messengers, God taught his people and interpreted the events of their history to make himself and his purposes known to them (Num 12:6-8; Amo 3:7; Heb 1:1; see PROPHECY). The Old Testament Scriptures are a revelation of God.

However, something even greater than this was necessary to save people fully from the consequences of their sin and bring them into a right relation with God. God himself took human form and made himself known perfectly through Jesus Christ (Joh 1:14; Joh 1:18; Joh 14:8-9; Heb 1:2). The gospel of Jesus Christ reveals how God, through Christ, is able to forgive guilty sinners, declare them righteous and build them into a unified body, the church (Rom 1:17; Rom 16:25-26; Eph 3:5-6; see GOSPEL; MYSTERY).

When people come to Christ in repentance and faith, they receive a fuller revelation and a personal understanding of God (Mat 11:27; Mat 16:17; Gal 1:16). Because revelation is solely an activity of God and is exercised according to his sovereign will, God may choose to give additional special revelations to certain people (Act 9:10-16; 1Co 14:30; 2Co 12:1; 2Co 12:7; Gal 1:11-12; Gal 2:2; Eph 3:3; see APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE; PROPHECY; VISION).

Just as God had given revelations during the time leading up to Christs coming, so he gave them during the time immediately after Christs coming. Previously he had given revelations through the history of Israel; now he gave them through the events of the early church. And just as God used prophets and others to record and interpret his pre-Christ revelation, so he used apostles and others to record and interpret his post-Christ revelation (1Co 2:10; 1Co 2:13; 2Pe 3:15-16). The New Testament joins with the Old Testament to form the complete written revelation God has given (see INSPIRATION; SCRIPTURES).

From all this it becomes evident that Gods revelation is progressive. This does not mean that later revelations contradict those that were earlier; it means rather that later revelations develop the earlier, as God works towards the completion of his purposes through Jesus Christ (Eph 1:9-12; Eph 3:3-11; 1Pe 1:10-12; see INTERPRETATION, sub-heading Progressive Revelation).

Fuente: Bridgeway Bible Dictionary

Revelation

REVELATION

1. The question stated.Few theological or philosophical problems have received keener and more industrious examination than the problem which is suggested to us by the word revelation. Does the word stand for any real disclosure of His secrets by the Eternal? Does God stoop to unveil His face to men? And if He does, what is the mode of such manifestations? What are the conditions under which we may believe that a revelation has been given? Is there any room in a rational scheme of the Universe for a revelation? It is pointed out, on the one hand, that every great religion has been promulgated in the faith of its adherents that its message was a veritable message from heaven, and not merely a well-reasoned theory about life; while, on the other hand, it is a part of the claim of Christianity that the revelation of God in Christ is unique and final. Comparative Religion has reached the dignity of a science, and it will not allow us to pass by the non-Christian religions of the world with a mere phrase of patronizing criticism or approval; while the teaching of the Christian creeds will not allow us to regard our own religion as only one among the many in which men have sought and have found their God. And, within the last half-century, a yet more searching question has been suggested by the scientific view of mans gradual development in mental and moral, as in physical, stature, which dominates at this moment all scientific investigation. Is not revelation rather a gradual disclosure than a sudden unveiling? And may it not be that what men have taken for an act of God should rather be described as an acquisition on mans part which came to him, as all natural knowledge has come, by the gradual quickening of his spiritual faculty, in response to the discipline of life!* [Note: This is, seemingly, the view taken in Canon Wilsons essay on Revelation and Modern Knowledge (Cambridge Theological Essays, p. 229 ff.).]

These are among the largest and most momentous questions on which the human mind can be engaged. It would require encyclopaedie knowledge to answer them fully, and only the briefest treatment is possible here. But it may help to prepare the way for an answer if we examine the aspects under which the idea of revelation is set forth in the NT, and the presuppositions which it is necessary to make before the questions that have been rehearsed can be clearly apprehended. We cannot entertain the idea of a Divine revelation without making certain large assumptions as to God and man of which it is well to remind ourselves at the outset. They are all assumed in the NT.

2. Presuppositions.(a) First, then, we take for granted the central fact of lifethe fact that God is a living Being, Merciful and Just: that God is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him (Heb 11:6). One must begin somewhere, and we begin here. That is, we assume that, supposing Gods creatures to be capable of understanding His purpose in Creation, He is capable, on His part, of making it known to them. He is the Giver of all good things, the Author of all knowledge; and we recognize that the highest of His gifts may be the knowledge of His will and the stimulus of His grace. (b) To say this implies, secondly, that there is a certain capacity in the recipients of such Divine communications. No one will maintain that the Eternal Spirit could thus reveal Himself to the brutes; for, to be sure, a revelation is limited by the capacity of those to whom it is addressed. Revelation, as Maurice said, is always the unveiling of a person; and a revelation can be made to personal beings only in terms of personality.

Thus far, no assumption has been made which is peculiar to Christianity. The thesis is simply this: that whatever difficulties are found in believing that men could appreciate a revelation, there is no difficulty in believing that God could give them one, if He be indeed alive. Whether man could securely recognize it as revelation, and not as a mere discovery of new truth, is another question, to which we shall return later. All that is here asserted is that God may communicate with man. If He be a Personal Being, communication with Him is possible. This is the first principle of all religion worthy of the name.

(c) We assume, in the third place, that as revelation is thus possible, it may also be described as probable. Creation involves responsibility for the creature, and thus there is a probability that He who made the world will continue to guide it. Mankind is not perfect, and it is not doubtful that the progress of the race towards holiness and truth would be made easier by the grace of heaven bringing light and life. [Note: This is the thesis expounded by Butler (in opposition to Tindal and the Deists of his day) at the beginning of Part ii. of the Analogy: To say Revelation is a thing superfluous, what there was no need of, and what can be of no service, is, I think, to talk quite wildly and at random.] To assert that revelation is probable is then only to assert that God has pity for human weakness, and that it is not His will that it should be left unaided to perish.

3. Aspects of idea of revelation.We have now to consider the aspects under which the idea of revelation [Note: The word occurs in the Gr. OT (e.g. 1Sa 20:30, Sir 11:27; Sir 22:22; Sir 4:21), but never in the sense of a Divine communication.] is presented in the NT. There are, as it seems, two lines of thought in St. Paul about this great matter which we must try to distinguish. Sometimes he speaks of Divine revelation in terms which would be acceptable to every believer in a spiritual religion; at other times he uses language which can be interpreted only if we remember that to him Jesus Christ was a supreme, a unique, a final revelation of the character of the Eternal God. We may take these separately, although they are quite consistent.

4. Revelation in general.There is a sense in which all religion must presuppose a revelationthat is, the unveiling of His purposes by the Supreme, and the response with which He meets the aspirations and the yearnings of human souls. No religion, e.g., can live which does not encourage and justify the habit of prayer, which does not claim that prayer is heard and answered. In other words, all religion presupposes not only movements of the human spirit towards God, but also a movement of the Divine Spirit towards man. And in every age, and by men of every religious creed, it has been believedand we cannot doubt that the belief was well foundedthat God enters into holy souls and makes known to them His will. In every age and place men have realized His providence, have believed that the Eternal manifests Himself in the world. Now this manifestation may be either ordinary or extraordinary; by which it is not intended here to suggest any distinction between what is natural and what is supernatural. That distinction may not be tenable, for we do not know all the possibilities of nature, and so do not know what may be above it. But what is meant is that there are two distinct kinds of experience, in which men become assured that God is speaking to themone the commonplace, everyday routine of life, and the other the experience of rare moments of high spiritual exaltation.

(1) Multitudes of religious men have felt, as they looked back upon the past, that their course was ordered from the beginning by an unseen hand, that a Providence has guided them into the paths which were prepared beforehand for them to walk in, and they have been enabled to perceive in the opportunities of life the calling of a Divine voice. They have felt, moreover, that this is the only intelligible interpretation of life; and that without this revelationfor such it isof its meaning, life would be chaos, and the secret of the future a dreadful and portentous enigma. The light by which they walk is the light which lighteth every man, and they rejoice in the illumination which it sheds upon their path. Some of the most saintly lives that the world has seen have been lived in the strength of the conviction that the changes and chances, as others call them, of the years are but the unveiling of a Divine face; and that the vision of God becomes brighter when seen through the mists of pain. This is the belief of those men and women among us who have the best right to be heard; their spiritual emotions are not altogether born of their own patient hopes; they are due to the stirring of the Divine Spirit, and the stimulation of the Divine Life; they are a revelation of the unseen.

(2) And to such souls there come rare moments of spiritual ecstasy and exaltation, when they are filled with an overpowering conviction of the presence of God, of His Will for them, of His Will for others. Such a moment it was in the life of St. Peter when he reached the supreme conviction of his life, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God (Mat 16:16); and we have the highest of all authority for the source of his inspiration: Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. Such a moment came to St. John at Patmos when, being in the Spirit on the Lords day (Rev 1:10; cf. Rev 4:2), he heard the Heavenly voice pronouncing judgment on the Churches, and saw in a vision the Heavenly figure which is always standing unseen in their midst. Such a moment came to St. Paul when the vision of the Christ at the gates of Damascus changed the whole course of his carcer; it pleased God to reveal his Son in me (Gal 1:16) is his description of the experience. And again and again St. Paul refers the certainty of his convictions to the fact, which is for him indisputable, that they reached him by revelation. The mystery of Christ, as he calls it, that the Gentiles are fellow-heirs of the gospelthis was made known to him by revelation (Eph 3:3). The gospel which he preached came to him, he writes to the Galatians, not from man, but through revelation of Jesus Christ (Gal 1:12). Such were the revelations of which he wrote, while there were yet others which he counted too intimate, too sacred, to commit to words, as when he says that he was caught up into Paradise, and heard unspeakable words which it is not lawful for a man to utter (2Co 12:4). It was one of St. Pauls deepest convictions that to him were revealed at times from heaven thoughts greater than his own; so sure is he of this, that he is careful on occasion to explain that all his utterances have not the same supreme authority. The things which I write, they are the commandment of the Lord (1Co 14:37). So he says of one subject. Concerning another, I have no commandment (1Co 7:25) is his prelude, although he concludes, I think that I have the Spirit of God (1Co 7:40). But he is sure that the Divine message has been disclosed to him in a fashion which may be sharply distinguished from the ordinary ways in which knowledge is acquired. Human wisdom is not identical with Divine wisdom; so he warns the Corinthians, as he quotes the ancient words, Things which eye saw not, and ear heard not, and which entered not into the heart of man, whatsoever things God hath prepared for them that love him; and declares, Unto us God revealed these thingsnot the secrets of the future, but the secrets of the presentthese things God revealed through the Spirit (1Co 2:9-10).

These and similar passages show beyond doubt that the NT saints, and St. Paul in particular, were quite convinced that God at times reveals His secretsHis mysteriesto a devout and earnest spirit; and that this revelation is consciously recognized by the soul as distinct from the discovery of a Divine purpose in life, or the assurance of Divine guidance, which are reached by patient striving after the highest things. The one is the experience of all good men; the other is the portion of the saints, the elect to whom a fuller disclosure of the Divine will is made. It is the portion of the prophets, the seers, to whom the word of the Lord speaks with an irresistible authority. Yet in both casesin the ordinary and the extraordinary experiences alikethere is not only a movement of the human soul towards God, but a movement of the Divine love towards man. We generally keep the word revelation for the extraordinary or abnormal experiences; and there is no objection to this restriction, provided we understand that in neither case does mans spirit act without response or without stimulation from heaven. But this it is essential to bear in mind. Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you (Joh 15:16) are words of universal application.

We have now to interpose with an inevitable question. What is the test by which we may assure ourselves that the imaginings of pious souls are not merely of subjective value, that is, that they are anything more than the expression of discontent with the limitations of human knowledge and of human life? What is the test, or is there any test, by which we may try the spirits (1Jn 4:1), by which we may convince ourselves or others that a true revelation of the Divine will and purpose has been vouchsafed? The theology of the 18th cent. did not hesitate in its answer to this question. The answer was found in the word miracle. Miracles were the appropriate credentials of revelation, which could not be guaranteed as objectively valid without them. Paley and Butler and their successors do not delay to prove this; it seems to them beyond dispute. And forty years ago Dr. Mozley put forward the same view in a well-known passage in his Bampton Lectures (On Miracles, p. 15): The visible supernatural is the appropriate witness to, the outward sign of, the invisible supernaturalthat proof which goes straight to the point; and, a token being wanted of a Divine communication, is that token. Taking this view of miracles and of revelation, it has been sought to distinguish natural from revealed religion by the circumstance that miraculous signs are not needed to guarantee the truth of the former, which commends itself at once to mans reason, while they are necessary to confirm our belief in the doctrines of the latter, which are not discoverable by our unassisted faculties, and which may be surprising and even unwelcome to faith.

This is a view which presents many difficulties, clear-cut and definite as it seems. (i.) It is impossible to distinguish sharply natural from revealed religion, because, in fact, all religions have presupposed a revelation, an unveiling of the Unseen Realities. Natural religion,said Guizot (Mditations, ii. 237), exists only in books. In all religion there must be a reciprocal communication between man and God; there must be not only mans aspiration heavenward, but heavens benediction earthward. And this latter is in its measure a revelation. (ii.) It is true that a revelation of new truths requires to be certified to the intellect as valid, but it is not the anomalousness or the inexplicability of the circumstances in which it is given that supplies such certificate; it is their significance. A sign need not necessarily be miraculous (see art. Sign in Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible ), although it may have this character (see Miracle, ib. vol. iii. 5). The context, so to speak, of revelation helps to disclose its meaning and purpose, and thus enables us to refer it to its true author; but the significance of the context may depend upon concurrences and combinations, none of which, taken separately, need be abnormal or even unusual. (iii.) The revelation itself may be conveyed by these signs which in fact constitute it. The of the Gospels are vehicles, or media, or instruments of revelation quite as much as evidential adjuncts. Their interpretation leads to new thoughts of God and man, undiscoverable, or at any rate undiscovered, without them; and thus it is that signssuch as the resurrection of Christ (which would be classed as miraculous) or the moral beauty of His life (which some would not regard as necessarily a miracle) form the premises of Christian theology (cf. Westcott, The Gospel of Life, p. 80). They unveil the Divine love, and power, and holiness; and they are accepted as true revelations, in part because of the existing testimony to them as historical facts, but in part also because they find a response and a welcome in mens hearts. Such revelations serve to unify the bewildering experiences of life, and provide a means of co-ordinating our thoughts about the highest things. That is to say, in brief, they are accepted as true because they are coherent with our spiritual experience, while at the same time they enlarge its boundaries and illuminate its dark places.

Thus the question, What is the ultimate test of revelation? is not to be answered merely by pointing to miracle as its guarantee. It is part of a much larger question, What is the ultimate test of truth? And to this there is only one answer: experience (cf. Wilson, l.c. p. 242), either individual or general; that is the one unfailing test of opinion in every department of human life.

() First, as to the experience of the individual. That, in the region of the spirit, is not capable of transference from one to another, andin so farit can be valid only for him who has had the experience. But for him the sense of realized fellowship with the unseen (cf. Westcott, l.c. p. 83) is so vivid and so vital that he cannot call it in question. He is conscious not only of the strivings of his own soul, but of a response from the spiritual world. And if it be urged that, after all, it would be impossible for him to be sure of this, so subtle and deep-seated are the movements of the soul, his only reply can be that he is sure of it. He is able to distinguish, he will tell you,for St. Pauls experience here is not singular or even unusual,between the convictions which he has reasoned out for himself and those which have presented themselves to him with an irresistible authority from without. And he will point, in justification, to what is an admitted fact of mental life, viz., that our powers of discovery are no true measure of our powers of recognition. We can all recognize as true, and as obviously true, many a principle, or law, or fact, when it is once brought before our notice, which we should have been quite incapable of discovering for ourselves.* [Note: This is fully admitted by so thoroughgoing a Rationalist as Kant: If the Gospel had not taught the universal moral laws in their purity, reason would not yet have attained to so complete a knowledge of them; although, once they are there, we can be convinced through pure reason of their truth and validity (Letter to Jacobi in Jacobis Werke, iii. 532).] And it has been the deep-seated belief of the saints that their most cherished and intimate convictions were such as they could never have reached had they not been guaranteed to them by a message from the spiritual world.

() But, it will be said, there can be nothing trustworthy in such merely individual convictions. To claim to be in possession of a revelation from heaven is one of the commonest symptoms of mental disorder; and those who make such claims most persistently are the most intractable patients in asylums for the insane. There is, unhappily, no doubt of it. The mystical spirit is divorced, in too many cases, from any just sense of the logic of facts; and incapacity to judge aright of things temporal is often combined with an eager and extravagant judgment upon things eternal. It may bewe do not knowthat sometimes a true vision of the spiritual order has proved too much for a brain intellectually feeble, and that the mental powers have been permanently injured by too great an effort being demanded of them. Andconverselyit is undoubtedly true that when the brain fails to do its work, whether from disease, or overstrain, or other causes, the man ceases to be able to distinguish fancies from facts, both in the physical and the spiritual world. But to conclude, therefore, that all alike who have claimed to have had visions of the spiritual order, or who believe that God has answered their prayers directly, are necessarily insane, would be a strangely perverse and illogical inference. Indeed, experience suggests a quite different generalization. Despite these abnormal cases, the men of spiritual insight who see visions, who live near to the boundary of the spiritual order, are the truly practical men, and achieve most of enduring benefit for the race. The truth is that, taken separately, spiritual experiences cannot be verified by any one except the recipient of them; but they cannot be dismissed as untrustworthy merely because some who claim to have enjoyed them are not very wise.

The spiritual experience of the individual is not transferableapparently, for it would not be well to dogmatize on such a pointfrom one to another. So far, then, it does not submit itself to any objective test of its trustworthiness. But when we find, as we do find, that in a large number of cases the individual experiences which are reported or recorded are of an identical character as regards the information which they supply of the spiritual order, they present a phenomenon which is within the reach of scientific investigation. That the Eternal guides human lives and does not permit them to drift aimlessly into the paths which lead nowhere, that He answers prayer, that He supplies counsel and strengththese are not specially Christian convictions, they are shared by countless multitudes who would all offer the same proof of their truth, namely, personal experience. This is a solid fact of human nature which demands recognition. And if such convictions are not entirely mistaken, then the Eternal has in so far given a revelation of His power and of His love. He has intervened in human life; He has given men some insight into His purposes.

The test of truth is experience; experience must count for something when we are examining the widespread belief of mankind that the Eternal reveals Himself in the life of the individual and in the life of the race alike.

We have seen that the general experience of religious men gives identical testimony as to Gods power and willingness to communicate with them in their need. But we saw, too ( 2), that a certain mental and spiritual capacity must be presupposed in the recipients of any revelation. And, as this grows from age to age in the history of the race, and is by no means equal in all races at the same period, or in all men even of the same race and epoch, it will follow that revelation, if made at all, must be made gradually and progressively, in correspondence not only with the needs but with the capacity of men. We have all learnt the truth of this in regard to the history of the race, and it is unnecessary to dwell upon it. If the minute and careful study of the OT history and literature, which has occupied the best thoughts of so many of our best Christian scholars for 40 years, had taught us nothing but this, we should still have learnt a lesson of the most far-reaching significancea lesson which is full of hope and inspiration. It is a lesson which is illustrated by the history of every religion in which men have sought to find God; the measure of His grace is their capacity of receiving it, and not any Divine economy by which there is a jealous hiding of His face. And the same is true of the individual soul. It is in correspondence with the gradual quickening of our spiritual faculty that the Divine secret is gradually disclosed. Unto him that hath, to him shall be given (Mat 13:12) is not a paradox of the Divine bounty; it is a law of nature, and therefore of revelation as well. Not all at once can we expect to experience the Beatific Vision, but only in proportion as we grow more and more into the Divine likeness, and learn, through the slow and often disappointing discipline of life, to read the Divine purposes. This is not to evacuate the idea of revelation of its content, and regard our spiritual progress as due entirely to the efforts and strivings of our own souls. These must be present,there must be a movement on mans part if he is to reach at last his highest,but the revelation which is given is not his discovery, but a Divine act of unveiling.

It is the consummation of this progress, both for the individual and for the race, which is portrayed in the vision of the prophet as the moment when the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together,not as isolated individuals, but as members of the great company of the saints,they shall see it together: for the mouth of Jehovah hath spoken it (Isa 40:5).

5. The revelation of Christ.So far, we have been considering the idea of revelation in generalthe idea of God revealing His will to manwhich appears again and again in Scripture, and which has been abundantly justified by the experience of the saints in every age. But nothing has yet been said which is distinctively Christian, or which touches the belief of Christians that in Christ there is a supreme and sufficient revelation of God. If the doctrine of revelation which has been here set forth exhausted the content of the idea, then there would be no place left for that which is specially characteristic of the Christian religion. What has been said about the possibility and the gradual progress of a revelation would apply to other nations as well as to the Jews, for God has never left himself without a witness (Act 14:17). And nothing has been said at all about the revelation of God in Christ, which is the centre of the Christian hope. The passages which were quoted from the NT have a general application. We have now, however, to examine passages of a different character.

St. Paul urges, in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, that if the message of the Christ was not understood by the Jews, it was due to their incapacity, not to its obscurity. If our gospel is veiled, he says, it is veiled in them that are perishing (Act 4:3), i.e. the fault lies with the hearers, not with the giver, of the message. That is his way of expressing a great principle which we have already considered, that revelation, to be instructive, presupposes a certain mental capacity, a keenness of spiritual vision, in those to whom it is addressed. In the previous chapter of the same letter, St. Paul had urged that the Jews had never recognized the transitory character of the Law which was their discipline; a veil was upon their heart (Act 3:15), which prevented them from seeing that the Law was only a stage in the Divine education of Israel. But, he adds, allegorizing the old story of the veil on the face of Moses, if they turn to the Lord, the veil is removed (Act 3:16), and an open vision is granted. The consummation to which they should look is that the light of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should dawn upon them (Act 4:4). And, in like manner, he points out elsewhere that the law was but a tutor to lead them to Christ (Gal 3:24). Christ is the end of the law (Rom 10:4), in whom it received a perfect fulfilment. This, indeed, is the burden of the Apostolic preaching, that God, who of old time spoke to the fathers by divers portions and in divers manners, hath in these last days spoken to us by his Son (Heb 1:1). It is not needful to multiply quotations which illustrate this familiar Christian thoughtthat highly favoured as the Jewish people had been by revelations of the Divine will, yet the completethe perfectrevelation of God is in Christ.

(1) There is a sense in which it demands no special gift of faith to discern in Christ a revelation such as had not dawned upon the world before. And there are passages in the NT which, taken by themselves, would not go beyond this. He was a prophet, like unto Moses (Act 3:22), although with a clearer, a more urgent message. For the most part, He is represented in the Synoptics as the Great Teacher, strong, wise, and mercifulwhose words were powerful to move men towards holiness, and whose teachings shed a new light upon the perplexities of conduct. A new teaching, His hearers said; and they were right. The Fatherhood of God, the dignity and supreme value of the spiritual life, the significance of faith, the Catholic sympathy of love (see Wendt, The Idea and the Reality of Revelation, p. 28)these are truths of which, indeed, there had been anticipations in the prophets, but they were expounded by Him with a lucidity and an authority which distinguished Him at once from all the great teachers of the past. And even if we could get no further than this, the claim of Jesus Christ to be the spiritual Master of mankind would be a claim which we could not lightly neglect. If the utterances of holy men in every age deserve a reverent attention, as expressing convictions born of a true spiritual experience, the words of Christ demand a deeper reverence of submission, for He wasat the lowestthe greatest Master of the spiritual life.

(2) Not even yet, however, have we touched upon those claims of His which mark Him out as unique, those aspects of His life which require us to think of His teaching as differing from other teachings, not only in degree, but in kind. We have not, indeed, to read the Gospels very closely to observe that Jesus Christ claimed to be more than a Teacher, and that His authority was other than that of the greatest of the prophets. He said that He was the Messiah, who was to declare all things (Joh 4:25). He is the Son beloved of the Father, to whom the Father showed all His works (Joh 5:20). He alone has seen the Father (Joh 6:46); and not only is this vision peculiarly His, but through Him it may be revealed to men: He that hath seen me hath seen the Father (Joh 14:9). These phrases are all taken, it is true, from the Fourth Gospel; but the view of Christs Person which they present is not peculiar to St. John, for the common tradition of St. Matthew and St. Luke preserves the tremendous assertion, No man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any the Father, but the Son, and he to whom the Son willeth to reveal him (Mat 11:27 = Luk 10:22). It is clear that Christ is represented in the Gospels as more than a Teacher of Divine wisdom; He is the Revealer of the Divine character. The matter, the content, of the revelation which He offers to mankind transcends the message of prophets and holy men, in this, that it has to do not merely with mans relation to the Supreme, with mans duty and mans destiny, but with the inmost nature of God. Not only is He an ambassador of Heaven; but He has seen the Father. No such claim as this is made in the record of the most intimate and sacred spiritual history of the saints.

It is this aspect of Christ as the Revealer of God which is indicated in the profound phrases of the Prologue to the Fourth Gospel. He is the Word, the Eternal Wisdom; He was from the beginning with God, and is God. Revelation is the act of self-manifestation of God to man, and the Word is the eternal expression of Deity, as in Creation at the first, so in the Incarnation when the fulness of time had come. So Athanasius: It was the function of the Word, who, by His peculiar providence and ordering of the universe, teaches us concerning the Father, to renew that same teaching ( , , de Incarn. Verb. Dei, c. 14). The same idea is in Irenaeus: Per ipsam conditionem, revelat Verbum conditorem Deum, et per mundum fabricatorem mundi Dominum, et per plasma eum qui plasmaverit artificem, et per Filium eum Patrem qui generaverit Filium (c. Haer. iv. 6). These high speculations are perhaps beyond the modest capacity of human reason, but at all events they are in accordance with the phrases of Scripture, which represent the Word as the Agent of Creation, and as the Expression of the Divine Will. Christ is set before us in the Bible and the Church as the Revealer of the Divine nature and not only as the Revealer of Divine secrets.

It has been urged by some writers that the uniqueness of Christ as Revealer is indicated in the NT by the fact that, while revelation is continually represented as proceeding from Him, it is never represented as given to Him. He is the exponent, not the recipient, of revelation; and is, in a sense, the Revealer and the Revealed (1Ti 3:16), both the subject and the object of revelation. This, however, is to use language that strict exegesis does not Justify. The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him to show unto his servants (Rev 1:1), is the view of Christs office as Revealer which is presented in the Fourth Gospel as well as in the Apocalypse. Christ describes Himself as a man that hath told you the truth which I heard from God (Joh 8:40); as the Father taught me, I speak these things (Joh 8:28); the Father which sent me hath given me a commandment, what I should say and what I should speak (Joh 12:49).

The distinguishing features of the revelation of Jesus Christ are, rather: (a) He reveals the inmost nature of God (see above). (b) The revelation to the Son is not intermittent, but continuous and perpetual. The Father showeth him all things (Joh 5:20); himself hath given () me a commandment (Joh 12:49), the tense marking the continuance of the action of the command (so Westcott).* [Note: Sabatier has observed (Outlines of a Philosophy of Religion. p. 41) that a phrase in the Gospel according to the Hebrews brings this out well. At the moment of His baptism, the Holy Spirit says to Jesus: Mi Fili, Te exspectabam in omnibus prophetis, ut venires et requiescerem in Te. Tu enim es requies mea.] (c) All has been revealed to Him. The Father showeth him all things that himself doeth (Joh 5:20). The Son sees all, while we see parts in Him (so Westcott). The revelation which Christ in His own Person gave of the Divine nature is represented as complete; and the task of the Divine Spirit throughout the ages is to assist mankind in the understanding of it (Joh 14:26), and in the application of it to life. It is not to be understood all at once (Joh 16:12), nor will it be perfectly apprehended until the Day of Consummation, when the human race shall have fulfilled its destiny, the day when the Son of Man shall be revealed (Luk 17:30), the day to which the Apostolic Epistles continually point as the day of the revelation of Jesus Christ (1Co 1:7, 1Pe 1:13), for which humanity is to wait in patience and hope.

These quotations have been given at length, because it is this claim of Christ to be the Revealer of the Eternal God, as no other was, which is the centre of the Christian religion, and it is this claim which is felt to be difficult to reconcile with the claims of other religions to the possession of revealed truth. But it will bear repetition that it is no article of the Christian faith that God does not reveal His purposes and His will except in Christ, or that those who seek His face without the knowledge of Christ shall be disappointed of their hope. Wherever and whenever the spirit of man has sought communion with the Eternal Spirit, a responsewe must believehas been given; and such response is, in its measure, a revelation of light and life. By whatever avenues of thought men reach new truth about the highest things, the light which makes their journey possible is a light in the heavens. It was a favourite thought of the early Christian apologists that the aspirations of pagan philosophy after God were prompted and encouraged by the Eternal Word speaking to mens hearts. Those that have lived with Reason ( ), writes Justin Martyr, are Christians, even though they were counted atheists, such as Socrates and Heraclitus and others among the Greeks, and among the barbarians Abraham and the rest (Apol. i. 46). That there is always the seed of Divine Reason ( ) in man is urged by the same writer more than once: (Apol. ii. 8) is a typical utterance. Whatever we may think of the technical phrases of Christian theology used by these writers, we cannot doubt that their main thought was true. God is always revealing Himself to the world. Yetthe question recurshow then are we to express our belief in a special revelation in Christ, a revelation differing not only in degree but in kind from all that went before? We are so much affected, in this age, by the idea of orderly and continuous progress in nature, and by the idea of the gradual quickening of mans spiritual faculty, that we find it unwelcome to be presented with the conception of crisis, and with any theory of knowledge or life involving a breach of that rule of continuity by which we are accustomed to guide our thoughts.

6. Recapitulation.It will be convenient to approach our final answer by re-stating in our modern ways of speech that view of revelation in general, and of the Christian revelation in particular, which seems to be presented in the NT. It is, at any rate, coherent, and is taught by St. Peter as well as by St. Paul, by the Synoptists as well as by St. John. Nor is it out of harmony with the profoundest teachings of science about nature and about man.

The Christian doctrine of God presupposes that He is a Personal Being who lives and acts eternally. We cannot confine His Personal life by the conditions which limit our own; to use the homely phrase of Wm. Law, perhaps the sanest of English mystics, He is really greater than man; He transcends nature, for He is its Author. But He does not stand apart, as it were, from the created life which has issued from Him; He is, as philosophers express it, immanent in nature; He is its Life and its Light. The sun enlightens the earth with its beams, and warms into life the beings with which it is peopled; but the Eternal Spirit is the Life and Light of all creation, and communicates this Life and Light consciously and with a purpose of love. In nature and in history God is always present, always active, always compassionate.

But neither in the field of nature nor in the field of history would it be true to say that the purpose of the Supreme is everywhere clearly revealed. On the contrary, it is for the most part veiled from our eyes. We may speak, indeed, of the Creation itself as a revelation of the Eternal. Perhaps it was an exhibition of that Divine law by which love always seeks an object on which to spend itself, that law which in human life at its noblest always demands sacrifice. Perhaps the law that we only secure our highest life by not attempting to save it received here a stupendous illustration. We cannot tell. But, at any rate, throughout creation, as it is, the Divine love is veiled. In the struggles and competitions of created life, pain and death are the inevitable issue for the weak; in nature it is only the strong that survive. It is a perpetual tax upon faith, in the face of natures cruelty, to believeas nevertheless we do believethat God cares for the sparrows, and that the meaner creatures of the earth are not beyond the reach of His compassion.

(1) Where, then, in nature is God most clearly seen? There is only one possible answer. It is in man, the highest creature of His that we know; in man, who is unique among the creatures, because he reflects, however dimly, the Divine image in which he was made. Man, indeed, is far removed in fact from that which he was intended to be. Corruptio optimi pessima. His capacity for good, by misuse, has become a capacity for evil, to which the humbler animals cannot sink. That is all true. But even in the most degraded man or woman there is that affinity to the Divine which makes redemption possible. In this seed of goodness, which lingers even in the foulest soul, there is always the hope of the future. It is in this elect creaturethis creature chosen to be the highest because the best fitted for the service of the Creatorthat God perpetually reveals Himself, as we perceive that love is, after all, stronger than hate. It is to this elect creaturedespite his kinship with the beasts, a kinship displayed during every hour of his earthly lifeit is to this elect creature, and to him alone, that God deigns to reveal His will,not perpetually, indeed, but at those too rare moments when the spirit is completely master of the flesh. God is always active in nature; He unveils His face only to the elect of creation, and to the elect individuals of the elect race.

(2) The like is true of the Divine revelation in the field of history. Of the destiny of nations, God is the supreme arbiter. Not theologians only, but historians too, will be found to declare that human history is providentially ordered, that the Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men (Dan 4:32). And viewing history on a large scale, that may be the inevitable conclusion. But we cannot say that it is self-evident, or that perplexities do not present themselves to any one who endeavours to trace an eternal purpose in the decline and fall of empires. In the philosophy of history it is not always easy to find certain tokens of a superintending Providence. In history, as in nature, we see such tokens with greater distinctness when the observation is directed to a particular part of the field. The secrets of the Divine rule are disclosed to us most clearly when we recall the history of the Chosen People, the race elect of the Supreme as His instrument for the education of the world. No history reveals the Divine intention in the same degree as the history of Israel. And thus we rightly look upon the Hebrew literature and history as preserving for us in a special manner the revelation of Gods purposes in the education of mankind. This is not to make any arbitrary distinction between sacred history and profane history. All history is sacred, for it is directed and controlled by the Eternal Wisdom. But not in all history alike are we permitted to discern the guidance of God who thus reveals Himself. It is no more anomalous or surprising that the revelation should be explicitly recognized as such only in the history of the elect nation Israel, than that His revelation in nature should be recognized as such only in the character of the elect creatureman. The Divine action is always implicit in nature and in history; both are potential revelations, so to speak, of the Eternal Light and Wisdom, but in neither field does the revelation become actual, save in the chosen organ of the Divine life. Man is not an anomaly among the creatures, nor is Israel an anomaly among the nations; but as man with his reason and power of choice is the best fitted of creatures, and Israel with its genius for religion is the best fitted of the nations, to receive and to impart the revelations of the Divine will, to man and to Israel have they been entrusted in a peculiar degree. The story of revelation is always a story of election (cf. Martensen, Christian Dogmatics, p. 13).

If we can go thus far, we are constrained to go a step farther. For in the Christ is the consummation, the summing up, of humanity. He is the Representative Man. And in the Christ, too, is the fulfilment of Israels high destiny as the Servant of Jehovah, the Messenger and Ambassador of the Most High. It is not surprising, then, that He should claim to be the Revealer of the Godhead, in a sense and after a manner unexampled elsewhere. He, too, is the Elect, the Beloved. There is a coherence in the NT account of Christ the Revealer which demands for it a reverent hearing from every thoughtful man, no matter what his belief about historical Christianity may be. We do not assume any breach in the continuity of nature when we hold that a revelation of God may be perceived in man which cannot be perceived in the lower creatures. We do not make history discontinuous if we hold that a revelation of God may be perceived in the record of His dealings with Israel which cannot be perceived in the record of His dealings with Greece, although He is the Supreme Arbiter of the destinies of Israel and Greece alike. To the creature and to the nation uniquely fitted to receive and to reflect a Divine revelation, it has been given, in divers portions and manners, according to the need and the capacity of the recipient. But the Christ stands alone, in nature and in history, the flower of humanity and the culmination of Israels hopealone, for God has become man in Him. There can be no interruption or faltering in the communion between the Perfect Man and God, for He is perfect because He shares the Divine nature itself. The revelation is no longer occasional, but permanent; no longer a gradual unveiling, but the full disclosure of the Fathers face; no longer to be conceived as for one race only, for this is the revelation of the mystery which was kept secret since the world began, but now is made manifestmade known to all nations for the obedience of faith (Rom 16:25 f., cf. 1Co 2:7).

Literature.Cremer, Bib.-Theol. Lex., s.v. ; Kaftan, Dogmatik, 4; Martensen, Chr. Dogm. p. 5 ff.; Ewald, Rev.: Its Nat. and Record; Fairbairn, Christ in Mod. Theol. p. 493 ff.; Flint, Theism, Lect. x.; Luthardt, Fund. Truths of Chty., Lect. vii.; R. H. Hutton, Revelation in Theol. Essays; Newman, Oxford Univ. Serm, ii.; Dale, Ephesians, Lect. vii.; PRE [Note: RE Real-Encyklopdie fur protest. Theologic und Kirche.] 3 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred] , art. Offenbarung; G. P. Fisher, Nature and Method of Revelation; C. Harris, Pro Fide, 274; Sabatier, Outlines of a Phil. [Note: Philistine.] of Rel., bk. i. ch. 2; Bruce, Apologetics, 298; Christlieb, Mod. Doubt, Lect. ii.; A. J. Balfour, Foundations of Belief; W. Sanday, Inspiration; Illingworth, Reason and Revelation; W. Morgan, Faith and Revelation in ExpT [Note: xpT Expository Times.] ix. (1898) 485, 537; M. Dods, The Bible, its Origin and Nature, 61.

J. H. Bernard.

Fuente: A Dictionary Of Christ And The Gospels

Revelation

REVELATION

1. Meaning of revelation.The English word, which comes from the Latin, implies the drawing back of a veil, the unveiling of something hidden. It is the almost exact equivalent of the NT word apocalypse or uncovering (Rev 1:1). For our present purpose the word is specially applied to the revelation of God, the unveiling of the unseen God to the mind and beart of man. The application of the word is very varied. The widest sense is that in which it is used by Gwatkin (Knowledge of God, vol. i. p. 5): Any fact which gives knowledge is a revelation, the revelation and the knowledge of God are correlative terms expressing two sides of the same thing. The following specific uses of the term need consideration: (a) The revelation of God through nature. This refers to the indications of wisdom, power, and purpose in the material world around (Rom 1:20). (b) The revelation of God in man. This applies to the traces of God in mans conscience with its sense of obligation, in his emotional nature with its desire and capacity for fellowship, in his personality which demands personality for its satisfaction. (c) The revelation of God in history. This means the marks of an over-ruling providence and purpose in the affairs of mankind, of a Divinity that has shaped mans ends, the traces of a progress and onward sweep in history. All these aspects of revelation are usually summed up in the term natural religion, and do not touch the specific meaning of revelation which is associated with Christianity. (d) The revelation of God in Judaism and Christianity. By revelation, as applied in this way, we mean a special, historical, supernatural communication from God to man. Not merely information about God, but a revelationa disclosure of God Himself in His character and His relation to man. In addition to revelation through nature, conscience, and reason, Christianity implies a special revelation in the Person of Christ.

2. Problem of revelation.The statement of the full content of the Christian revelation is naturally excluded from this article, but for our purpose we may say briefly that its essence is the self-manifestation of God in the Person of Christ for the redemption of mankind. Christianity is the revelation of Gods grace for man through the historic Personality of Christ. The problem is to correlate this supernatural content with the historical process by means of which it has been revealed, and to do justice at once to the superhuman fact and content, and the human media and conditions of the revelation. In so doing we shall be brought face to face with the antitheses of revelation and discovery, of revelation and speculation, of revelation and evolution; and, while we recognize to the full the historical processes by which Christianity has come to us, we shall see that the gospel of Christ is not adequately accounted for except by means of a personal revelation of God, using and guiding history for the purpose, and that it cannot be explained merely in terms of history, discovery, philosophy, and evolution.

3. Possibility of revelation.We argue this on two grounds. (a) From the Being of God. Granted a God as a Supreme Being (which for our present purpose we assume), He must necessarily be able to reveal Himself to man. Given God as personal, this includes the power of self-revelation. Belief in a Divine Being at once makes revelation possible. A bare theism has never been a permanent standing-ground, for men either have receded from it or have gone forward in the direction of the Christian revelation. (b) From the nature of man. The fact of personality, with all its possibilities, implies mans capacity for communion with a Being higher than himself, or higher than any other human personality. Thou hast made us for Thyself, O Lord, and our heart is restless until it rests in Thee (Augustine).

4. Probability of revelation.This also we argue on two grounds: (a) from the nature of God, and (b) from the needs of man. Granted a Supreme Personal Being, we believe not only in His ability, but in His willingness to reveal Himself to man. Belief in God prepares us to expect a revelation. Human personality with its capacity for God prepares us to expect a revelation, which thus becomes antecedently probable. The desire for it is an argument for expecting it. Man, as man, needs a revelation to guide him, an authority above and greater than himself in things spiritual and Divine. Still more does man as a sinner need such a Divine revelation. Amid the sins and sorrows, the fears and trials, the difficulties and perplexities of life, man needs some Divine revelation that will assure him of salvation, holiness, and immortality. No one can say that the light of nature is sufficient for these needs, and that therefore a revelation could add nothing. Most men would agree that there is at least room for a revelation in view of the sin and suffering in the world. Our deepest instincts cry out against the thought that sin is final or permanent, and yet it is equally clear that nothing but an interposition from above can deal with it. It is impossible to conceive of God leaving man to himself without a definite, clear, and sufficient manifestation of His own character, His will, His love, His grace.

5. Credibility of revelation.The proofs of a Divine revelation are many, varied, converging, and cumulative, (a) Speculatively, we may argue that the universe points to idealism, and idealism to theism, and theism to a revelation (Illingworth, Reason and Revelation, p. 243). (b) Historically, the Christian revelation comes to us commended by its witnesses in (1) miracle, (2) prophecy, and (3) spiritual adaptation to human nature, (c) Behind all these are the presuppositions of natural religion as seen in nature, man, and history, (d) But ultimately the credibility of Christianity as a revelation rests on the Person of its Founder, and all evidences converge towards and centre in Him. Christ is Christianity, and Christians believe primarily and fundamentally in the fact and trustworthiness of Christ. Herein lies the final proof of the credibility of Christianity as a Divine revelation. If it he said that God has made other manifestations of Himself in the course of history, we do not deny it. All truth, however mediated, must necessarily have come from the primal Source of truth. The genuineness of Christianity does not necessarily disprove the genuineness of other religions as broken lights. Each system claiming to be a revelation, whether partial or final, must be tested by its own evidence, and a decision made accordingly. The real criterion of all religions claiming to he Divine is their power to save. It is not truth in itself, but truth as exemplified in human life and delivering from sin, that constitutes the final proof of a religion. Not the ideal, but the ideal practically realized in human experience, is the supreme test. When this is applied, the true relation of Christianity to other systems is at once seen.

6. Methods of revelation.(a) The Christian revelation is first and foremost a revelation of life. Christianity is primarily a religion of facts rather than of truths, the doctrines only arising out of the facts. All through the historic period Gods manifestation has been given to life. Whether we think of the patriarchs, kings, and prophets of the OT, or of Christ and His Apostles in the NT, revelation has ever been connected with human life and personality. (b) But mediately it has been given in word, first oral and then written. Both in the OT and in the NT we notice first what God was and did to men, and afterwards what He said. We can and must distinguish between the revelation and the record, the former being necessarily prior to the latter, but nevertheless the revelation needed the record for accuracy and availability. At the same time it is essential to remember that Scripture is not simply a record of a revelation, but that the history itself is a revelation of God. On the one hand, the Bible is a product of the Divine process of self-manifestation; and, on the other, the Bible itself makes God known to man. Christianity, therefore, like Judaism before it, is a book religion (though it is also much more), as recording and conveying the Divine manifestation to man. A revelation must be embodied somewhere to he made available for all generations, and of the three possible mediahuman reason, an ecclesiastical institution, and a hook,the last-named is by far the most trustworthy as a vehicle of transmission. It matters not how God reveals Himself, so long as we can he sure of the accuracy of that which is transmitted. Christ is our supreme and final authority, and our one requirement is the purest, clearest form of His historic personal manifestation. We do not set aside reason because it is human, or an institution because it is liable to error, nor do we accept the book merely as a book; hut we believe that the two former do not, and the latter does, enshrine for us the record of Christs revelation in its best available form.

7. Development of revelation.Revelation has been mediated through history, and has therefore been progressive, (a) Primitive revelation is the first stage. How men first came to conceive of God must remain a matter of conjecture. As there is so little known about primitive man, so also there must be about primitive religion. One thing, however, is quite clear, that the terms savage and primitive are not synonymous, for the savage to-day often represents a degeneration from primitive man. All analogy favours the idea that primitive revelation was such a manifestation of God when man was created as would he sufficient to maintain a true relation with Him, that at the Creation man had an immediate capacity, however immature, of entering into fellowship with God; and with this religions endowment we may assume a measure of Divine revelation sufficient to enable man to worship in an elementary way, and to keep true to God. No one is able to prove this, hut there is no reason to deny its possibility or probability. Without some such assumption, all idea of revelation vanishes, and religion is resolved into merely human conceptions of God. Revelation is more than the souls instinctive apprehension of God, for the simple reason that the instinctive apprehension itself has to he accounted for. The difficulties urged by some writers on the philosophy of religion against primitive revelation arise out of the assumption that all revelations are mere natural processes. There is no argument against primitive revelation which is not valid against all revelation, Christianity included. The power and possibility of mans self-development towards God are inconsistent with the fact of sin and mans bent towards evil. (b) OT revelation. However and whenever the OT came into existence, we cannot help being conscious of something in it beyond that which is merely human and historical. There is that in the OT characters and record which cannot be explained solely in terms of historic continuity. The OT does not merely represent an endeavour to obtain an ever worthier idea of God; it records a true idea of God impressed on the people in the course of history, under a Divine direction which we call a revelation. The OT conception of God is so vastly different from that which obtained in the surrounding nations, that unless we predicate something supernatural, there is no possibility of accounting for so marked a difference between people who were in other respects so very much alike. As Wellhausen truly says, Why did not Chemosh of Moah, for instance, develop into a God of Righteousness, and the Creator of heaven and earth? It is possible to give a satisfying answer to this question only by predicating a Divine revelation in the OT. (c) The NT revelation. The historical revelation culminated in the manifestation of Jesus Christ. It was given at a particular time and place, mediated through One Person, and authenticated by supernatural credentials. In Christ the self-disclosure of God reached its climax, and the NT is the permanent witness of the uniqueness of Christianity in the world. God, who in ancient days spoke to our forefathers in many distinct messages and by various methods through the prophets, has at the end of these days spoken unto us through a Son (Heb 1:1, Weymouth). And the Person of Christ is utterly inexplicable in terms of history, or discovery, and requires the hypothesis of revelation.

This brief sketch of the historical development of revelation will enable us to understand the importance of the truth of the progressiveness of revelation. God taught men as they were able to bear it, leading them step by step from the dawn to the noonday of His self-disclosure. While each stage of the revelation was adequate for that time, it was not necessarily adequate with reference to succeeding stages. This principle of progress enables us to avoid a twofold error: it prevents us from undervaluing the OT by reason of the fuller light of the NT; and it prevents us from using the OT in any of its stages without guidance from the completer revelation of the NT. We thus distinguish carefully between the dispensational truth intended absolutely for immediate need at each stage, and those permanent elements in the OT which are of eternal validity. It is necessary to remember the difference between what is written for us and to us. All Scripture was written for our learning, but not all was written to us directly. If it be said that revelation should be universal, and not limited to one time or place or nation, the answer is that the historical method is in exact accordance with the method of communicating and receiving all our knowledge. It is obvious that in the course of history some nations and men have influenced mankind more than others, and this fact constitutes an analogy, and argues the possibility that a special revelation might also be mediated through some particular race and person. Further, by limiting revelation in this way, God took the best means of preserving the revelation from corruption. Continuous and universal tradition has very few safeguards against deterioration, as the Jewish history only too clearly shows. Our acceptance of the revelation enshrined in the NT is based on the belief that it comes through men uniquely authorized and equipped to declare Gods will. Its authority depends on the fact that their special relation to Christ and their exceptional possession of the Spirit gave them the power to receive and declare Gods truth for mankind. Not fitness to edify, or age, or the possession of truth, but with these, and underlying them, the presence of a Divine element in the men whose writings we possess, gives the books their authority for us as a record and vehicle of Divine revelation. This uniqueness may be seen by a simple appeal to fact. The comparison of the Apostolic and sub-Apostolic ages shows the uniqueness of the NT. Between the first and second centuries there is a chasm sheer, abrupt, abysmal (Schaff), and no transition exists which was so silent, and yet so sudden and remarkable. The most beautiful product of the second century, the Epistle of Diognetus, is incomparably inferior to any book of the NT. There is no steeper descent in history than that which directly follows the Apostolic age. We pass at once from writings unsurpassed in creative power to writings of marked intellectual poverty, the distinction commonly made between the books of the Canon and the rest is fully justified (Gwatkin, Knowledge of God, ii. 80). This difference marks the distinction between the Spirit of God in revelation and in illumination. Since the close of the NT times there has been strictly no addition to the revelation, but only its manifold realization and application in the Christian Church and the world. It should be carefully noted that we believe in the Divine revelation contained in the Scriptures, without holding any particular theory of inspiration. The supreme question is whether they contain a revelation of Divine truth. Are they true and trustworthy for our spiritual life? If so, they are authoritative whatever may have been the precise method of their delivery. The primary question is not the method of inspiration, but the fact of authority. Yet, however difficult it may be to define its character or limits, we believe in a special inspiration of the Bible based on the authority of its authors and on their unique power to reveal Gods will. This special inspiration is (1) testified to by the Scriptures themselves, (2) has ever been held in the Christian Church, and (3) constantly authenticates itself to the Christian conscience through the ages.

8. Purpose of revelation.The essential purpose of revelation is life: the gift of the life of God to the life of man. Its practical character is stamped on every part. The chief end of revelation is not philosophy, though it has a philosophy profound and worthy. It is not doctrine, though it has a doctrine satisfying and inspiring. It is not enjoyment, though it has its experiences precious and lasting. It is not even morality, though it has its ethic unique and powerful. Christianity has all these, but is far more than them all. It is the religion of redemption, including salvation from sin, equipment for holiness, and provision for life to be lived in fellowship with God and for His glory. The chief end of revelation is the union of God and man, and in that union the fulfilment of all Gods purposes for the world. The elements of sonship, worship, stewardship, fellowship, heirship, practically sum up the purpose of Divine revelation as it concerns mans lifea life in which he receives Gods grace, realizes Gods will, reproduces Gods character, renders God service, and rejoices in Gods presence in the Kingdom of grace below and the Kingdom of glory above.

W. H. Griffith Thomas.

Fuente: Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible

Revelation

rev-e-lashun:

I.THE NATURE OF REVELATION

1.The Religion of the Bible the Only Supernatural Religion

2.General and Special Revelation

(1)Revelation in Eden

(2)Revelation among the Heathen

II.THE PROCESS OF REVELATION

1.Place of Revelation among the Redemptive Acts of God

2.Stages of Material Development

III.THE MODES OF REVELATION

1.The Several Modes of Revelation

2.Equal Supernaturalness of the Several Modes

3.The Prophet God’s Mouthpiece

4.Visionary Form of Prophecy

5.Passivity of Prophets

6.Revelation by Inspiration

7.Complete Revelation of God in Christ

IV.BIBLICAL TERMINOLOGY

1.The Ordinary Forms

2.Word of Yahweh and Torah

3.The Scriptures

LITERATURE

I. The Nature of Revelation.

1. The Religion of the Bible the Only Supernatural Religion:

The religion of the Bible is a frankly supernatural religion. By this is not meant merely that, according to it, all men, as creatures, live, move and have their being in God. It is meant that, according to it, God has intervened extraordinarily, in the course of the sinful world’s development, for the salvation of men otherwise lost. In Eden the Lord God had been present with sinless man in such a sense as to form a distinct element in his social environment (Gen 3:8). This intimate association was broken up by the Fall. But God did not therefore withdraw Himself from concernment with men. Rather, He began at once a series of interventions in human history by means of which man might be rescued from his sin and, despite it, brought to the end destined for him. These interventions involved the segregation of a people for Himself, by whom God should be known, and whose distinction should be that God should be nigh unto them as He was not to other nations (Deu 4:7; Psa 145:18). But this people was not permitted to imagine that it owed its segregation to anything in itself fitted to attract or determine the Divine preference; no consciousness was more poignant in Israel than that Yahweh had chosen it, not it Him, and that Yahweh’s choice of it rested solely on His gracious will. Nor was this people permitted to imagine that it was for its own sake alone that it had been singled out to be the sole recipient of the knowledge of Yahweh; it was made clear from the beginning that God’s mysteriously gracious dealing with it had as its ultimate end the blessing of the whole world (Gen 12:2, Gen 12:3; Gen 17:4, Gen 17:5, Gen 17:6, Gen 17:16; Gen 18:18; Gen 22:18; compare Rom 4:13), the bringing together again of the divided families of the earth under the glorious reign of Yahweh, and the reversal of the curse under which the whole world lay for its sin (Gen 12:3). Meanwhile, however, Yahweh was known only in Israel. To Israel God showed His word and made known His statutes and judgments, and after this fashion He dealt with no other nation; and therefore none other knew His judgments (Psa 147:19 f). Accordingly, when the hope of Israel (who was also the desire of all nations) came, His own lips unhesitatingly declared that the salvation He brought, though of universal application, was from the Jews (Joh 4:22). And the nations to which this salvation had not been made known are declared by the chief agent in its proclamation to them to be, meanwhile, far off, having no hope and without God in the world (Eph 2:12), because they were aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenant of the promise.

The religion of the Bible, thus announces itself, not as the product of men’s search after God, if haply they may feel after Him and find Him, but as the creation in men of the gracious God, forming a people for Himself, that they may show forth His praise. In other words, the religion of the Bible presents itself as distinctively a revealed religion. Or rather, to speak more exactly, it announces itself as the revealed religion, as the only revealed religion; and sets itself as such over against all other religions, which are represented as all products, in a sense in which it is not, of the art and device of man.

It is not, however, implied in this exclusive claim to revelation – which is made by the religion of the Bible in all the stages of its history – that the living God, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all that in them is, has left Himself without witness among the peoples of the world (Act 14:17). It is asserted indeed, that in the process of His redemptive work, God suffered for a season all the nations to walk in their own ways; but it is added that to none of them has He failed to do good, and to give from heaven rains and fruitful seasons, filling their hearts with food and gladness. And not only is He represented as thus constantly showing Himself in His providence not far from any one of them, thus wooing them to seek Him if haply they might feel after Him and find Him (Act 17:27), but as from the foundation of the world openly manifesting Himself to them in the works of His hands, in which His everlasting power and divinity are clearly seen (Rom 1:20). That men at large have not retained Him in their knowledge, or served Him as they ought, is not due therefore to failure on His part to keep open the way to knowledge of Him, but to the darkening of their senseless hearts by sin and to the vanity of their sin-deflected reasonings (Rom 1:21 ff), by means of which they have supplanted the truth of God by a lie and have come to worship and serve the creature rather than the ever-blessed Creator. It is, indeed, precisely because in their sin they have thus held down the truth in unrighteousness and have refused to have God in their knowledge (so it is intimated); and because, moreover, in their sin, the revelation God gives of Himself in His works of creation and providence no longer suffices for men’s needs, that God has intervened supernaturally in the course of history to form a people for Himself, through whom at length all the world should be blessed.

2. General and Special Revelation:

It is quite obvious that there are brought before us in these several representations two species or stages of revelation, which should be discriminated to avoid confusion. There is the revelation which God continuously makes to all men: by it His power and divinity are made known. And there is the revelation which He makes exclusively to His chosen people: through it His saving grace is made known. Both species or stages of revelation are insisted upon throughout the Scriptures. They are, for example, brought significantly together in such a declaration as we find in Psa 19:1-14 : The heavens declare the glory of God … their line is gone out through all the earth (Psa 19:1, Psa 19:4); The law of Yahweh is perfect, restoring the soul (Psa 19:7). The Psalmist takes his beginning here from the praise of the glory of God, the Creator of all that is, which has been written upon the very heavens, that none may fail to see it. From this he rises, however, quickly to the more full-throated praise of the mercy of Yahweh, the covenant God, who has visited His people with saving instruction. Upon this higher revelation there is finally based a prayer for salvation from sin, which ends in a great threefold acclamation, instinct with adoring gratitude: O Yahweh, my rock, and my redeemer (Psa 19:14). The heavens, comments Lord Bacon, indeed tell of the glory of God, but not of His will according to which the poet prays to be pardoned and sanctified. In so commenting, Lord Bacon touches the exact point of distinction between the two species or stages of revelation. The one is adapted to man as man; the other to man as sinner; and since man, on becoming sinner, has not ceased to be man, but has only acquired new needs requiring additional provisions to bring him to the end of his existence, so the revelation directed to man as sinner does not supersede that given to man as man, but supplements it with these new provisions for his attainment, in his new condition of blindness, helplessness and guilt induced by sin, of the end of his being.

These two species or stages of revelation have been commonly distinguished from one another by the distinctive names of natural and supernatural revelation, or general and special revelation, or natural and soteriological revelation. Each of these modes of discriminating them has its particular fitness and describes a real difference between the two in nature, reach or purpose. The one is communicated through the media of natural phenomena, occurring in the course of nature or of history; the other implies an intervention in the natural course of things and is not merely in source but in mode supernatural. The one is addressed generally to all intelligent creatures, and is therefore accessible to all men; the other is addressed to a special class of sinners, to whom God would make known His salvation. The one has in view to meet and supply the natural need of creatures for knowledge of their God; the other to rescue broken and deformed sinners from their sin and its consequences. But, though thus distinguished from one another, it is important that the two species or stages of revelation should not be set in opposition to one another, or the closeness of their mutual relations or the constancy of their interaction be obscured. They constitute together a unitary whole, and each is incomplete without the other. In its most general idea, revelation is rooted in creation and the relations with His intelligent creatures into which God has brought Himself by giving them being. Its object is to realize the end of man’s creation, to be attained only through knowledge of God and perfect and unbroken communion with Him. On the entrance of sin into the world, destroying this communion with God and obscuring the knowledge of Him derived from nature, another mode of revelation was necessitated, having also another content, adapted to the new relation to God and the new conditions of intellect, heart and will brought about by sin. It must not be supposed, however, that this new mode of revelation was an ex post facto expedient, introduced to meet an unforeseen contingency. The actual course of human development was in the nature of the case the expected and the intended course of human development, for which man was created; and revelation, therefore, in its double form was the divine purpose for man from the beginning, and constitutes a unitary provision for the realization of the end of his creation in the actual circumstances in which he exists. We may distinguish in this unitary revelation the two elements by the cooperation of which the effect is produced; but we should bear in mind that only by their cooperation is the effect produced. Without special revelation, general revelation would be for sinful men incomplete and ineffective, and could issue, as in point of fact it has issued wherever it alone has been accessible, only in leaving them without excuse (Rom 1:20). Without general revelation, special revelation would lack that basis in the fundamental knowledge of God as the mighty and wise, righteous and good maker and ruler of all things, apart from which the further revelation of this great God’s interventions in the world for the salvation of sinners could not be either intelligible, credible or operative.

(1) Revelation in Eden.

Only in Eden has general revelation been adequate to the needs of man. Not being a sinner, man in Eden had no need of that grace of God itself by which sinners are restored to communion with Him, or of the special revelation of this grace of God to sinners to enable them to live with God. And not being a sinner, man in Eden, as he contemplated the works of God, saw God in the unclouded mirror of his mind with a clarity of vision, and lived with Him in the untroubled depths of his heart with a trustful intimacy of association, inconceivable to sinners. Nevertheless, the revelation of God in Eden was not merely natural. Not only does the prohibition of the forbidden fruit involve a positive commandment (Gen 2:16), but the whole history implies an immediacy of intercourse with God which cannot easily be set to the credit of the picturesque art of the narrative, or be fully accounted for by the vividness of the perception of God in His works proper to sinless creatures. The impression is strong that what is meant to be conveyed to us is that man dwelt with God in Eden, and enjoyed with Him immediate and not merely mediate communion. In that case, we may understand that if man had not fallen, he would have continued to enjoy immediate intercourse with God, and that the cessation of this immediate intercourse is due to sin. It is not then the supernaturalness of special revelation which is rooted in sin, but, if we may be allowed the expression, the specialness of supernatural revelation. Had man not fallen, heaven would have continued to lie about him through all his history, as it lay about his infancy; every man would have enjoyed direct vision of God and immediate speech with Him. Man having fallen, the cherubim and the flame of a sword, turning every way, keep the path; and God breaks His way in a round-about fashion into man’s darkened heart to reveal there His redemptive love. By slow steps and gradual stages He at once works out His saving purpose and molds the world for its reception, choosing a people for Himself and training it through long and weary ages, until at last when the fullness of time has come, He bares His arm and sends out the proclamation of His great salvation to all the earth.

(2) Revelation Among the Heathen.

Certainly, from the gate of Eden onward, God’s general revelation ceased to be, in the strict sense, supernatural. It is, of course, not meant that God deserted His world and left it to fester in its iniquity. His providence still ruled over all, leading steadily onward to the goal for which man had been created, and of the attainment of which in God’s own good time and way the very continuance of men’s existence, under God’s providential government, was a pledge. And His Spirit still everywhere wrought upon the hearts of men, stirring up all their powers (though created in the image of God, marred and impaired by sin) to their best activities, and to such splendid effect in every department of human achievement as to command the admiration of all ages, and in the highest region of all, that of conduct, to call out from an apostle the encomium that though they had no law they did by nature (observe the word nature) the things of the law. All this, however, remains within the limits of Nature, that is to say, within the sphere of operation of divinely-directed and assisted second causes. It illustrates merely the heights to which the powers of man may attain under the guidance of providence and the influences of what we have learned to call God’s common grace. Nowhere, throughout the whole ethnic domain, are the conceptions of God and His ways put within the reach of man, through God’s revelation of Himself in the works of creation and providence, transcended; nowhere is the slightest knowledge betrayed of anything concerning God and His purposes, which could be known only by its being supernaturally told to men. Of the entire body of saving truth, for example, which is the burden of what we call special revelation, the whole heathen world remained in total ignorance. And even its hold on the general truths of religion, not being vitalized by supernatural enforcements, grew weak, and its knowledge of the very nature of God decayed, until it ran out to the dreadful issue which Paul sketches for us in that inspired philosophy of religion which he incorporates in the latter part of the first chapter of the Epistle to the Romans.

Behind even the ethnic development, there lay, of course, the supernatural intercourse of man with God which had obtained before the entrance of sin into the world, and the supernatural revelations at the gate of Eden (Gen 3:8), and at the second origin of the human race, the Flood (Gen 8:21, Gen 8:22; 9:1-17). How long the tradition of this primitive revelation lingered in nooks and corners of the heathen world, conditioning and vitalizing the natural revelation of God always accessible, we have no means of estimating. Neither is it easy to measure the effect of God’s special revelation of Himself to His people upon men outside the bounds of, indeed, but coming into contact with, this chosen people, or sharing with them a common natural inheritance. Lot and Ishmael and Esau can scarcely have been wholly ignorant of the word of God which came to Abraham and Isaac and Jacob; nor could the Egyptians from whose hands God wrested His people with a mighty arm fail to learn something of Yahweh, any more than the mixed multitudes who witnessed the ministry of Christ could fail to infer something from His gracious walk and mighty works. It is natural to infer that no nation which was intimately associated with Israel’s life could remain entirely unaffected by Israel’s revelation. But whatever impressions were thus conveyed reached apparently individuals only: the heathen which surrounded Israel, even those most closely affiliated with Israel, remained heathen; they had no revelation. In the sporadic instances when God visited an alien with a supernatural communication – such as the dreams sent to Abimelech (Gen 20) and to Pharaoh (Gen 40; 41) and to Nebuchadnezzar (Dan 2:1 ff) and to the soldier in the camp of Midian (Jdg 7:13) – it was in the interests, not of the heathen world, but of the chosen people that they were sent; and these instances derive their significance wholly from this fact. There remain, no doubt, the mysterious figure of Melchizedek, perhaps also of Jethro, and the strange apparition of Balaam, who also, however, appear in the sacred narrative only in connection with the history of God’s dealings with His people and in their interest. Their unexplained appearance cannot in any event avail to modify the general fact that the life of the heathen peoples lay outside the supernatural revelation of God. The heathen were suffered to walk in their own ways (Act 14:16).

II. The Process of Revelation.

Meanwhile, however, God had not forgotten them, but was preparing salvation for them also through the supernatural revelation of His grace that He was making to His people. According to the Biblical representation, in the midst of and working confluently with the revelation which He has always been giving of Himself on the plane of Nature, God was making also from the very fall of man a further revelation of Himself on the plane of grace. In contrast with His general, natural revelation, in which all men by virtue of their very nature as men share, this special, supernatural revelation was granted at first only to individuals, then progressively to a family, a tribe, a nation, a race, until, when the fullness of time was come, it was made the possession of the whole world. It may be difficult to obtain from Scripture a clear account of why God chose thus to give this revelation of His grace only progressively; or, to be more explicit, through the process of a historical development. Such is, however, the ordinary mode of the Divine working: it is so that God made the worlds, it is so that He creates the human race itself, the recipient of this revelation, it is so that He builds up His kingdom in the world and in the individual soul, which only gradually comes whether to the knowledge of God or to the fruition of His salvation. As to the fact, the Scriptures are explicit, tracing for us, or rather embodying in their own growth, the record of the steady advance of this gracious revelation through definite stages from its first faint beginnings to its glorious completion in Jesus Christ.

1. Place of Revelation Among the Redemptive Acts of God:

So express is its relation to the development of the kingdom of God itself, or rather to that great series of divine operations which are directed to the building up of the kingdom of God in the world, that it is sometimes confounded with them or thought of as simply their reflection in the contemplating mind of man. Thus it is not infrequently said that revelation, meaning this special redemptive revelation, has been communicated in deeds, not in words; and it is occasionally elaborately argued that the sole manner in which God has revealed Himself as the Saviour of sinners is just by performing those mighty acts by which sinners are saved. This is not, however, the Biblical representation. Revelation is, of course, often made through the instrumentality of deeds; and the series of His great redemptive acts by which He saves the world constitutes the pre-eminent revelation of the grace of God – so far as these redemptive acts are open to observation and are perceived in their significance. But revelation, after all, is the correlate of understanding and has as its proximate end just the production of knowledge, though not, of course, knowledge for its own sake, but for the sake of salvation. The series of the redemptive acts of God, accordingly, can properly be designated revelation only when and so far as they are contemplated as adapted and designed to produce knowledge of God and His purpose and methods of grace. No bare series of unexplained acts can be thought, however, adapted to produce knowledge, especially if these acts be, as in this case, of a highly transcendental character. Nor can this particular series of acts be thought to have as its main design the production of knowledge; its main design is rather to save man. No doubt the production of knowledge of the divine grace is one of the means by which this main design of the redemptive acts of God is attained. But this only renders it the more necessary that the proximate result of producing knowledge should not fail; and it is doubtless for this reason that the series of redemptive acts of God has not been left to explain itself, but the explanatory word has been added to it. Revelation thus appears, however, not as the mere reflection of the redeeming acts of God in the minds of men, but as a factor in the redeeming work of God, a component part of the series of His redeeming acts, without which that series would be incomplete and so far inoperative for its main end. Thus, the Scriptures represent it, not confounding revelation with the series of the redemptive acts of God, but placing it among the redemptive acts of God and giving it a function as a substantive element in the operations by which the merciful God saves sinful men. It is therefore not made even a mere constant accompaniment of the redemptive acts of God, giving their explanation that they may be understood. It occupies a far more independent place among them than this, and as frequently precedes them to prepare their way as it accompanies or follows them to interpret their meaning. It is, in one word, itself a redemptive act of God and by no means the least important in the series of His redemptive acts.

This might, indeed, have been inferred from its very nature, and from the nature of the salvation which was being worked out by these redemptive acts of God. One of the most grievous of the effects of sin is the deformation of the image of God reflected in the human mind, and there can be no recovery from sin which does not bring with it the correction of this deformation and the reflection in the soul of man of the whole glory of the Lord God Almighty. Man is an intelligent being; his superiority over the brute is found, among other things, precisely in the direction of all his life by his intelligence; and his blessedness is rooted in the true knowledge of his God – for this is life eternal, that we should know the only true God and Him whom He has sent. Dealing with man as an intelligent being, God the Lord has saved him by means of a revelation, by which he has been brought into an evermore and more adequate knowledge of God, and been led ever more and more to do his part in working out his own salvation with fear and trembling as he perceived with ever more and more clearness how God is working it out for him through mighty deeds of grace.

2. Stages of Material Development:

This is not the place to trace, even in outline, from the material point of view, the development of God’s redemptive revelation from its first beginnings, in the promise given to Abraham – or rather in what has been called the Protevangelium at the gate of Eden – to its completion in the advent and work of Christ and the teaching of His apostles; a steadily advancing development, which, as it lies spread out to view in the pages of Scripture, takes to those who look at it from the consummation backward, the appearance of the shadow cast athwart preceding ages by the great figure of Christ. Even from the formal point of view, however, there has been pointed out a progressive advance in the method of revelation, consonant with its advance in content, or rather with the advancing stages of the building up of the kingdom of God, to subserve which is the whole object of revelation. Three distinct steps in revelation have been discriminated from this point of view. They are distinguished precisely by the increasing independence of revelation of the deeds constituting the series of the redemptive acts of God, in which, nevertheless, all revelation is a substantial element. Discriminations like this must not be taken too absolutely; and in the present instance the chronological sequence cannot be pressed. But, with much interlacing, three generally successive stages of revelation may be recognized, producing periods at least characteristically of what we may somewhat conventionally call theophany, prophecy and inspiration. What may be somewhat indefinitely marked off as the Patriarchal age is characteristically the period of Outward Manifestations, and Symbols, and Theophanies: during it God spoke to men through their senses, in physical phenomena, as the burning bush, the cloudy pillar, or in sensuous forms, as men, angels, etc…. In the Prophetic age, on the contrary, the prevailing mode of revelation was by means of inward prophetic inspiration: God spoke to men characteristically by the movements of the Holy Spirit in their hearts. Prevailingly, at any rate from Samuel downwards, the supernatural revelation was a revelation in the hearts of the foremost thinkers of the people, or, as we call it, prophetic inspiration, without the aid of external sensuous symbols of God (A.B. Davidson, Old Testament Prophecy, 1903, p. 148; compare pp. 12-14, 145 ff). This internal method of revelation reaches its culmination in the New Testament period, which is preeminently the age of the Spirit. What is especially characteristic of this age is revelation through the medium of the written word, what may be called apostolic as distinguished from prophetic inspiration. The revealing Spirit speaks through chosen men as His organs, but through these organs in such a fashion that the most intimate processes of their souls become the instruments by means of which He speaks His mind. Thus, at all events there are brought clearly before us three well-marked modes of revelation, which we may perhaps designate respectively, not with perfect discrimination, it is true, but not misleadingly, (1) external manifestation, (2) internal suggestion, and (3) concursive operation.

III. The Modes of Revelation.

1. Modes of Revelation:

Theophany may be taken as the typical form of external manifestation; but by its side may be ranged all of those mighty works by which God makes Himself known, including express miracles, no doubt, but along with them every supernatural intervention in the affairs of men, by means of which a better understanding is communicated of what God is or what are His purposes of grace to a sinful race. Under internal suggestion may be subsumed all the characteristic phenomena of what is most properly spoken of as prophecy: visions and dreams, which, according to a fundamental passage (Num 12:6), constitute the typical forms of prophecy, and with them the whole prophetic word, which shares its essential characteristic with visions and dreams, since it comes not by the will of man but from God. By concursive operation may be meant that form of revelation illustrated in an inspired psalm or epistle or history, in which no human activity – not even the control of the will – is superseded, but the Holy Spirit works in, with and through them all in such a manner as to communicate to the product qualities distinctly superhuman. There is no age in the history of the religion of the Bible, from that of Moses to that of Christ and His apostles, in which all these modes of revelation do not find place. One or another may seem particularly characteristic of this age or of that; but they all occur in every age. And they occur side by side, broadly speaking, on the same level. No discrimination is drawn between them in point of worthiness as modes of revelation, and much less in point of purity in the revelations communicated through them. The circumstance that God spoke to Moses, not by dream or vision but mouth to mouth, is, indeed, adverted to (Num 12:8) as a proof of the peculiar favor shown to Moses and even of the superior dignity of Moses above other organs of revelation: God admitted him to an intimacy of intercourse which He did not accord to others. But though Moses was thus distinguished above all others in the dealings of God with him, no distinction is drawn between the revelations given through him and those given through other organs of revelation in point either of Divinity or of authority. And beyond this we have no Scriptural warrant to go on in contrasting one mode of revelation with another. Dreams may seem to us little fitted to serve as vehicles of divine communications. But there is no suggestion in Scripture that revelations through dreams stand on a lower plane than any others; and we should not fail to remember that the essential characteristics of revelations through dreams are shared by all forms of revelation in which (whether we should call them visions or not) the images or ideas which fill, or pass in procession through, the consciousness are determined by some other power than the recipient’s own will. It may seem natural to suppose that revelations rise in rank in proportion to the fullness of the engagement of the mental activity of the recipient in their reception. But we should bear in mind that the intellectual or spiritual quality of a revelation is not derived from the recipient but from its Divine Giver. The fundamental fact in all revelation is that it is from God. This is what gives unity to the whole process of revelation, given though it may be in divers portions and in divers manners and distributed though it may be through the ages in accordance with the mere will of God, or as it may have suited His developing purpose – this and its unitary end, which is ever the building up of the kingdom of God. In whatever diversity of forms, by means of whatever variety of modes, in whatever distinguishable stages it is given, it is ever the revelation of the One God, and it is ever the one consistently developing redemptive revelation of God.

2. Equal Supernaturalness of the Several Modes:

On a prima facie view it may indeed seem likely that a difference in the quality of their supernaturalness would inevitably obtain between revelations given through such divergent modes. The completely supernatural character of revelations given in theophanies is obvious. He who will not allow that God speaks to man, to make known His gracious purposes toward him, has no other recourse here than to pronounce the stories legendary. The objectivity of the mode of communication which is adopted is intense, and it is thrown up to observation with the greatest emphasis. Into the natural life of man God intrudes in a purely supernatural manner, bearing a purely supernatural communication. In these communications we are given accordingly just a series of naked messages of God. But not even in the Patriarchal age were all revelations given in theophanies or objective appearances. There were dreams, and visions, and revelations without explicit intimation in the narrative of how they were communicated. And when we pass on in the history, we do not, indeed, leave behind us theophanies and objective appearances. It is not only made the very characteristic of Moses, the greatest figure in the whole history of revelation except only that of Christ, that he knew God face to face (Deu 34:10), and God spoke to him mouth to mouth, even manifestly, and not in dark speeches (Num 12:8); but throughout the whole history of revelation down to the appearance of Jesus to Paul on the road to Damascus, God has shown Himself visibly to His servants whenever it has seemed good to Him to do so and has spoken with them in objective speech. Nevertheless, it is expressly made the characteristic of the Prophetic age that God makes Himself known to His servants in a vision, in a dream (Num 12:6). And although, throughout its entire duration, God, in fulfillment of His promise (Deu 18:18), put His words in the mouths of His prophets and gave them His commandments to speak, yet it would seem inherent in the very employment of men as instruments of revelation that the words of God given through them are spoken by human mouths; and the purity of their supernaturalness may seem so far obscured. And when it is not merely the mouths of men with which God thus serves Himself in the delivery of His messages, but their minds and hearts as well – the play of their religious feelings, or the processes of their logical reasoning, or the tenacity of their memories, as, say, in a psalm or in an epistle, or a history – the supernatural element in the communication may easily seem to retire still farther into the background. It can scarcely be a matter of surprise, therefore, that question has been raised as to the relation of the natural and the supernatural in such revelations, and, in many current manners of thinking and speaking of them, the completeness of their supernaturalness has been limited and curtailed in the interests of the natural instrumentalities employed. The plausibility of such reasoning renders it the more necessary that we should observe the unvarying emphasis which the Scriptures place upon the absolute supernaturalness of revelation in all its modes alike. In the view of the Scriptures, the completely supernatural character of revelation is in no way lessened by the circumstance that it has been given through the instrumentality of men. They affirm, indeed, with the greatest possible emphasis that the Divine word delivered through men is the pure word of God, diluted with no human admixture whatever.

3. The Prophet God’s Mouthpiece:

We have already been led to note that even on the occasion when Moses is exalted above all other organs of revelation (Num 12:6 ff), in point of dignity and favor, no suggestion whatever is made of any inferiority, in either the directness or the purity of their supernaturalness, attaching to other organs of revelation. There might never afterward arise a prophet in Israel like unto Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face (Deu 34:10). But each of the whole series of prophets raised up by Yahweh that the people might always know His will was to be like Moses in speaking to the people only what Yahweh commanded them (Deu 18:15, Deu 18:18, Deu 18:20). In this great promise, securing to Israel the succession of prophets, there is also included a declaration of precisely how Yahweh would communicate His messages not so much to them as through them. I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, we read (Deu 18:18), and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. The process of revelation through the prophets was a process by which Yahweh put His words in the mouths of the prophets, and the prophets spoke precisely these words and no others. So the prophets themselves ever asserted. Then Yahweh put forth his hand, and touched my mouth, explains Jeremiah in his account of how he received his prophecies, and Yahweh said unto me, Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth (Jer 1:9; compare Jer 5:14; Isa 51:16; Isa 59:21; Num 22:35; Num 23:5, Num 23:12, Num 23:16). Accordingly, the words with which they spoke were not their own but the Lord’s: And he said unto me, records Ezekiel, Son of man, go, get thee unto the house of Israel, and speak with my words unto them (Eze 3:4). It is a process of nothing other than dictation which is thus described (2Sa 14:3, 2Sa 14:19), though, of course, the question may remain open of the exact processes by which this dictation is accomplished. The fundamental passage which brings the central fact before us in the most vivid manner is, no doubt, the account of the commissioning of Moses and Aaron given in Exo 4:10-17; Exo 7:1-7. Here, in the most express words, Yahweh declares that He who made the mouth can be with it to teach it what to speak, and announces the precise function of a prophet to be that he is a mouth of God, who speaks not his own but God’s words. Accordingly, the Hebrew name for prophet (nabh’), whatever may be its etymology, means throughout the Scriptures just spokesman, though not spokesman in general, but Spokesman by way of eminence, that is, God’s spokesman; and the characteristic formula by which a prophetic declaration is announced is: The word of Yahweh came to me, or the brief saith Yahweh ( , ne’um Yahweh). In no case does a prophet put his words forward as his own words. That he is a prophet at all is due not to choice on his own part, but to a call of God, obeyed often with reluctance; and he prophesies or forbears to prophesy, not according to his own will but as the Lord opens and shuts his mouth (Eze 3:26 f) and creates for him the fruit of the lips (Isa 57:19; compare Isa 6:7; Isa 50:4). In contrast with the false prophets, he strenuously asserts that he does not speak out of his own heart (heart in Biblical language includes the whole inner man), but all that he proclaims is the pure word of Yahweh.

4. Visionary Form of Prophecy:

The fundamental passage does not quite leave the matter, however, with this general declaration. It describes the characteristic manner in which Yahweh communicates His messages to His prophets as through the medium of visions and dreams. Neither visions in the technical sense of that word, nor dreams, appear, however, to have been the customary mode of revelation to the prophets, the record of whose revelations has come down to us. But, on the other hand, there are numerous indications in the record that the universal mode of revelation to them was one which was in some sense a vision, and can be classed only in the category distinctively so called.

The whole nomenclature of prophecy presupposes, indeed, its vision-form. Prophecy is distinctively a word, and what is delivered by the prophets is proclaimed as the word of Yahweh. That it should be announced by the formula, Thus saith the Lord, is, therefore, only what we expect; and we are prepared for such a description of its process as: The Lord Yahweh … wakeneth mine ear to hear, He hath opened mine ear (Isa 50:4, Isa 50:5). But this is not the way of speaking of their messages which is most usual in the prophets. Rather is the whole body of prophecy cursorily presented as a thing seen. Isaiah places at the head of his book: The vision of Isaiah … which he saw (compare Isa 29:10, Isa 29:11; Oba 1:1); and then proceeds to set at the head of subordinate sections the remarkable words, The word that Isaiah … saw (Isa 2:1); the burden (margin oracle)…which Isaiah … did see (Isa 13:1). Similarly there stand at the head of other prophecies: the words of Amos … which he saw (Amo 1:1); the word of Yahweh that came to Micah … which he saw (Mic 1:1); the oracle which Habakkuk the prophet did see (Hab 1:1 margin); and elsewhere such language occurs as this: the word that Yahweh hath showed me (Jer 38:21); the prophets have seen … oracles (Lam 2:14); the word of Yahweh came … and I looked, and, behold (Eze 1:3, Eze 1:4); Woe unto the foolish prophets, that follow their own spirit, and have seen nothing (Eze 13:3); I … will look forth to see what he will speak with me,… Yahweh … said, Write the vision (Hab 2:1 f). It is an inadequate explanation of such language to suppose it merely a relic of a time when vision was more predominantly the form of revelation. There is no proof that vision in the technical sense ever was more predominantly the form of revelation than in the days of the great writing prophets; and such language as we have quoted too obviously represents the living point of view of the prophets to admit of the supposition that it was merely conventional on their lips. The prophets, in a word, represent the divine communications which they received as given to them in some sense in visions.

It is possible, no doubt, to exaggerate the significance of this. It is an exaggeration, for example, to insist that therefore all the divine communications made to the prophets must have come to them in external appearances and objective speech, addressed to and received by means of the bodily eye and ear. This would be to break down the distinction between manifestation and revelation, and to assimilate the mode of prophetic revelation to that granted to Moses, though these are expressly distinguished (Num 12:6-8). It is also an exaggeration to insist that therefore the prophetic state must be conceived as that of strict ecstasy, involving the complete abeyance of all mental life on the part of the prophet (amentia), and possibly also accompanying physical effects. It is quite clear from the records which the prophets themselves give us of their revelations that their intelligence was alert in all stages of their reception of them. The purpose of both these extreme views is the good one of doing full justice to the objectivity of the revelations vouchsafed to the prophets. If these revelations took place entirely externally to the prophet, who merely stood off and contemplated them, or if they were implanted in the prophets by a process so violent as not only to supersede their mental activity but, for the time being, to annihilate it, it would be quite clear that they came from a source other than the prophets’ own minds. It is undoubtedly the fundamental contention of the prophets that the revelations given through them are not their own but wholly God’s. The significant language we have just quoted from Eze 13:3 : Woe unto the foolish prophets, that follow their own spirit, and have seen nothing, is a typical utterance of their sense of the complete objectivity of their messages. What distinguishes the false prophets is precisely that they prophesy out of their own heart (Ezek 13:2-17), or, to draw the antithesis sharply, that they speak a vision of their own heart, and not out of the mouth of Yahweh (Jer 23:16, Jer 23:26; Jer 14:14). But these extreme views fail to do justice, the one to the equally important fact that the word of God, given through the prophets, comes as the pure and unmixed word of God not merely to, but from, the prophets; and the other to the equally obvious fact that the intelligence of the prophets is alert throughout the whole process of the reception and delivery of the revelation made through them. See INSPIRATION; PROPHECY.

That which gives to prophecy as a mode of revelation its place in the category of visions, strictly so called, and dreams is that it shares with them the distinguishing characteristic which determines the class. In them all alike the movements of the mind are determined by something extraneous to the subject’s will, or rather, since we are speaking of supernaturally given dreams and visions, extraneous to the totality of the subject’s own psychoses. A power not himself takes possession of his consciousness and determines it according to its will. That power, in the case of the prophets, was fully recognized and energetically asserted to be Yahweh Himself or, to be more specific, the Spirit of Yahweh (1Sa 10:6, 1Sa 10:10; Neh 9:30; Zec 7:12; Joe 2:28, Joe 2:29). The prophets were therefore ‘men of the Spirit’ (Hos 9:7). What constituted them prophets was that the Spirit was put upon them (Isa 42:1) or poured out on them (Joe 2:28, Joe 2:29), and they were consequently filled with the Spirit (Mic 3:8), or, in another but equivalent locution, that the hand of the Lord, or the power of the hand of the Lord, was upon them (2Ki 3:15; Eze 1:3; Eze 3:14, Eze 3:22; Eze 33:22; Eze 37:1; Eze 40:1), that is to say, they were under the divine control. This control is represented as complete and compelling, so that, under it, the prophet becomes not the mover, but the moved in the formation of his message. The apostle Peter very purely reflects the prophetic consciousness in his well-known declaration: ‘No prophecy of scripture comes of private interpretation; for prophecy was never brought by the will of man; but it was as borne by the Holy Spirit that men spoke from God’ (2Pe 1:20, 2Pe 1:21).

5. Passivity of Prophets:

What this language of Peter emphasizes – and what is emphasized in the whole account which the prophets give of their own consciousness – is, to speak plainly, the passivity of the prophets with respect to the revelation given through them. This is the significance of the phrase: ‘it was as borne by the Holy Spirit that men spoke from God.’ To be borne (, pherein) is not the same as to be led (, agein), much less to be guided or directed (, hodegen): he that is borne contributes nothing to the movement induced, but is the object to be moved. The term passivity is, perhaps, however, liable to some misapprehension, and should not be overstrained. It is not intended to deny that the intelligence of the prophets was active in the reception of their message; it was by means of their active intelligence that their message was received: their intelligence was the instrument of revelation. It is intended to deny only that their intelligence was active in the production of their message: that it was creatively as distinguished from receptively active. For reception itself is a kind of activity. What the prophets are solicitous that their readers shall understand is that they are in no sense coauthors with God of their messages. Their messages are given them, given them entire, and given them precisely as they are given out by them. God speaks through them: they are not merely His messengers, but His mouth. But at the same time their intelligence is active in the reception, retention and announcing of their messages, contributing nothing to them but presenting fit instruments for the communication of them – instruments capable of understanding, responding profoundly to and zealously proclaiming them.

There is, no doubt, a not unnatural hesitancy abroad in thinking of the prophets as exhibiting only such merely receptive activities. In the interests of their personalities, we are asked not to represent God as dealing mechanically with them, pouring His revelations into their souls to be simply received as in so many buckets, or violently wresting their minds from their own proper action that He may do His own thinking with them. Must we not rather suppose, we are asked, that all revelations must be psychologically mediated, must be given after the mode of moral mediation, and must be made first of all their recipients’ own spiritual possession? And is not, in point of fact, the personality of each prophet clearly traceable in his message, and that to such an extent as to compel us to recognize him as in a true sense its real author? The plausibility of such questionings should not be permitted to obscure the fact that the mode of the communication of the prophetic messages which is suggested by them is directly contradicted by the prophets’ own representations of their relations to the revealing Spirit. In the prophets’ own view they were just instruments through whom God gave revelations which came from them, not as their own product, but as the pure word of Yahweh. Neither should the plausibility of such questionings blind us to their speciousness. They exploit subordinate considerations, which are not without their validity in their own place and under their own limiting conditions, as if they were the determining or even the sole considerations in the case, and in neglect of the really determining considerations. God is Himself the author of the instruments He employs for the communication of His messages to men and has framed them into precisely the instruments He desired for the exact communication of His message. There is just ground for the expectation that He will use all the instruments He employs according to their natures; intelligent beings therefore as intelligent beings, moral agents as moral agents. But there is no just ground for asserting that God is incapable of employing the intelligent beings He has Himself created and formed to His will, to proclaim His messages purely as He gives them to them; or of making truly the possession of rational minds conceptions which they have themselves had no part in creating. And there is no ground for imagining that God is unable to frame His own message in the language of the organs of His revelation without its thereby ceasing to be, because expressed in a fashion natural to these organs, therefore purely His message. One would suppose it to lie in the very nature of the case that if the Lord makes any revelation to men, He would do it in the language of men; or, to individualize more explicitly, in the language of the man He employs as the organ of His revelation; and that naturally means, not the language of his nation or circle merely, but his own particular language, inclusive of all that gives individuality to his self-expression. We may speak of this, if we will, as the accommodation of the revealing God to the several prophetic individualities. But we should avoid thinking of it externally and therefore mechanically, as if the revealing Spirit artificially phrased the message which He gives through each prophet in the particular forms of speech proper to the individuality of each, so as to create the illusion that the message comes out of the heart of the prophet himself. Precisely what the prophets affirm is that their messages do not come out of their own hearts and do not represent the workings of their own spirits. Nor is there any illusion in the phenomenon we are contemplating; and it is a much more intimate, and, we may add, a much more interesting phenomenon than an external accommodation of speech to individual habitudes. It includes, on the one hand, the accommodation of the prophet, through his total preparation, to the speech in which the revelation to be given through him is to be clothed; and on the other involves little more than the consistent carrying into detail of the broad principle that God uses the instruments He employs in accordance with their natures.

No doubt, on adequate occasion, the very stones might cry out by the power of God, and dumb beasts speak, and mysterious voices sound forth from the void; and there have not been lacking instances in which men have been compelled by the same power to speak what they would not, and in languages whose very sounds were strange to their ears. But ordinarily when God the Lord would speak to men He avails Himself of the services of a human tongue with which to speak, and He employs this tongue according to its nature as a tongue and according to the particular nature of the tongue which He employs. It is vain to say that the message delivered through the instrumentality of this tongue is conditioned at least in its form by the tongue by which it is spoken, if not, indeed, limited, curtailed, in some degree determined even in its matter, by it. Not only was it God the Lord who made the tongue, and who made this particular tongue with all its peculiarities, not without regard to the message He would deliver through it; but His control of it is perfect and complete, and it is as absurd to say that He cannot speak His message by it purely without that message suffering change from the peculiarities of its tone and modes of enunciation, as it would be to say that no new truth can be announced in any language because the elements of speech by the combination of which the truth in question is announced are already in existence with their fixed range of connotation. The marks of the several individualities imprinted on the messages of the prophets, in other words, are only a part of the general fact that these messages are couched in human language, and in no way beyond that general fact affect their purity as direct communications from God.

6. Revelation by Inspiration:

A new set of problems is raised by the mode of revelation which we have called concursive operation. This mode of revelation differs from prophecy, properly so called, precisely by the employment in it, as is not done in prophecy, of the total personality of the organ of revelation, as a factor. It has been common to speak of the mode of the Spirit’s action in this form of revelation, therefore, as an assistance, a superintendence, a direction, a control, the meaning being that the effect aimed at – the discovery and enunciation of divine truth – is attained through the action of the human powers – historical research, logical reasoning, ethical thought, religious aspiration – acting not by themselves, however, but under the prevailing assistance, superintendence, direction, control of the Divine Spirit. This manner of speaking has the advantage of setting this mode of revelation sharply in contrast with prophetic revelation, as involving merely a determining, and not, as in prophetic revelation, a supercessive action of the revealing Spirit. We are warned, however, against pressing this discrimination too far by the inclusion of the whole body of Scripture in such passages as 2Pe 1:20 f in the category of prophecy, and the assignment of their origin not to a mere leading but to the bearing of the Holy Spirit. In any event such terms as assistance, superintendence, direction, control, inadequately express the nature of the Spirit’s action in revelation by concursive operation. The Spirit is not to be conceived as standing outside of the human powers employed for the effect in view, ready to supplement any inadequacies they may show and to supply any defects they may manifest, but as working confluently in, with and by them, elevating them, directing them, controlling them, energizing them, so that, as His instruments, they rise above themselves and under His inspiration do His work and reach His aim. The product, therefore, which is attained by their means is His product through them. It is this fact which gives to the process the right to be called actively, and to the product the right to be called passively, a revelation. Although the circumstance that what is done is done by and through the action of human powers keeps the product in form and quality in a true sense human, yet the confluent operation of the Holy Spirit throughout the whole process raises the result above what could by any possibility be achieved by mere human powers and constitutes it expressly a supernatural product. The human traits are traceable throughout its whole extent, but at bottom it is a divine gift, and the language of Paul is the most proper mode of speech that could be applied to it: Which things also we speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Spirit teacheth (1Co 2:13); The things which I write unto you … are the commandment of the Lord (1Co 14:37). See INSPIRATION.

7. Complete Revelation of God in Christ:

It is supposed that all the forms of special or redemptive revelation which underlie and give its content to the religion of the Bible may without violence be subsumed under one or another of these three modes – external manifestation, internal suggestion, and concursive operation. All, that is, except the culminating revelation, not through, but in, Jesus Christ. As in His person, in which dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, He rises above all classification and is sui generis; so the revelation accumulated in Him stands outside all the divers portions and divers manners in which otherwise revelation has been given and sums up in itself all that has been or can be made known of God and of His redemption. He does not so much make a revelation of God as Himself is the revelation of God; He does not merely disclose God’s purpose of redemption, He is unto us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification and redemption. The theophanies are but faint shadows in comparison with His manifestation of God in the flesh. The prophets could prophesy only as the Spirit of Christ which was in them testified, revealing to them as to servants one or another of the secrets of the Lord Yahweh; from Him as His Son, Yahweh has no secrets, but whatsoever the Father knows that the Son knows also. Whatever truth men have been made partakers of by the Spirit of truth is His (for all things whatsoever the Father hath are His) and is taken by the Spirit of truth and declared to men that He may be glorified. Nevertheless, though all revelation is thus summed up in Him, we should not fail to note very carefully that it would also be all sealed up in Him – so little is revelation conveyed by fact alone, without the word – had it not been thus taken by the Spirit of truth and declared unto men. The entirety of the New Testament is but the explanatory word accompanying and giving its effect to the fact of Christ. And when this fact was in all its meaning made the possession of men, revelation was completed and in that sense ceased. Jesus Christ is no less the end of revelation than He is the end of the law.

IV. Biblical Terminology.

1. The Ordinary Forms:

There is not much additional to be learned concerning the nature and processes of revelation, from the terms currently employed in Scripture to express the idea. These terms are ordinarily the common words for disclosing, making known, making manifest, applied with more or less heightened significance to supernatural acts or effects in kind. In the English Bible (the King James Version) the verb reveal occurs about 51 times, of which 22 are in the Old Testament and 29 in the New Testament. In the Old Testament the word is always the rendering of a Hebrew term , galah, or its Aramaic equivalent , gelah, the root meaning of which appears to be nakedness. When applied to revelation, it seems to hint at the removal of obstacles to perception or the uncovering of objects to perception. In the New Testament the word reveal is always (with the single exception of Luk 2:35) the rendering of a Greek term , apokalupto (but in 2Th 1:7; 1Pe 4:13 the corresponding noun , apokalupsis), which has a very similar basal significance with its Hebrew parallel. As this Hebrew word formed no substantive in this sense, the noun revelation does not occur in the English Old Testament, the idea being expressed, however, by other Hebrew terms variously rendered. It occurs in the English New Testament, on the other hand, about a dozen times, and always as the rendering of the substantive corresponding to the verb rendered reveal (apokalupsis). On the face of the English Bible, the terms reveal, revelation bear therefore uniformly the general sense of disclose, disclosure. The idea is found in the Bible, however, much more frequently than the terms reveal revelation in English Versions of the Bible. Indeed, the Hebrew and Greek terms exclusively so rendered occur more frequently in this sense than in this rendering in the English Bible. And by their side there stand various other terms which express in one way or another the general conception.

In the New Testament the verb , phaneroo, with the general sense of making manifest, manifesting, is the most common of these. It differs from apokalupto as the more general and external term from the more special and inward. Other terms also are occasionally used: , epiphaneia, manifestation (2Th 2:8; 1Ti 6:14; 2Ti 1:10; 2Ti 4:1; Tit 2:13; compare , epiphano, Tit 2:11; Tit 3:4); , deiknuo (Rev 1:1; Rev 17:1; Rev 22:1, Rev 22:6, Rev 22:8; compare Act 9:16; 1Ti 4:15); , exegeomai (Joh 1:18), of which, however, only one perhaps – , chrematzo (Mat 2:12, Mat 2:22; Luk 2:20; Act 10:22; Heb 8:5; Heb 11:7; Heb 12:25); , chrematismos (Rom 11:4) – calls for particular notice as in a special way, according to its usage, expressing the idea of a divine communication.

In the Old Testament, the common Hebrew verb for seeing (, ra’ah) is used in its appropriate stems, with God as the subject, for appearing, showing: the Lord appeared unto …; the word which the Lord showed me. And from this verb not only is an active substantive formed which supplied the more ancient designation of the official organ of revelation: , ro’eh, seer; but also objective substantives, , mar’ah, and , mar’eh, which were used to designate the thing seen in a revelation – the vision. By the side of these terms there were others in use, derived from a root which supplies to the Aramaic its common word for seeing, but in Hebrew has a somewhat more pregnant meaning, , hazah. Its active derivative, , hozeh, was a designation of a prophet which remained in occasional use, alternating with the more customary , nabh’, long after , ro’eh, had become practically obsolete; and its passive derivatives hazon, hizzayon, hazuth, mahazeh provided the ordinary terms for the substance of the revelation or vision. The distinction between the two sets of terms, derived respectively from ra’ah and hazah, while not to be unduly pressed, seems to lie in the direction that the former suggests external manifestations and the latter internal revelations. The ro’eh is he to whom divine manifestations, the hozeh he to whom divine communications, have been vouchsafed; the mar’eh is an appearance, the hazon and its companions a vision. It may be of interest to observe that mar’ah is the term employed in Num 12:6, while it is hazon which commonly occurs in the headings of the written prophecies to indicate their revelatory character. From this it may possibly be inferred that in the former passage it is the mode, in the latter the contents of the revelation that is emphasized. Perhaps a like distinction may be traced between the hazon of Dan 8:15 and the mar’eh of the next verse. The ordinary verb for knowing, , yadha, expressing in its causative stems the idea of making known, informing, is also very naturally employed, with God as its subject, in the sense of revealing, and that, in accordance with the natural sense of the word, with a tendency to pregnancy of implication, of revealing effectively, of not merely uncovering to observation, but making to know. Accordingly, it is paralleled riot merely with , galah (Psa 98:2 : ‘The Lord hath made known his salvation; his righteousness hath he displayed in the sight of the nation’), but also with such terms as , lamadh (Psa 25:4 : ‘Make known to me thy ways, O Lord: teach me thy paths’). This verb yadha forms no substantive in the sense of revelation (compare , daath, Num 24:16; Psa 19:3).

2. Word of Yahweh and Torah:

The most common vehicles of the idea of revelation in the Old Testament are, however, two expressions which are yet to be mentioned. These are the phrase, word of Yahweh, and the term commonly but inadequately rendered in the English Versions of the Bible by law. The former (debhar Yahweh, varied to debhar ‘Elohm or debhar ha-‘Elohm; compare ne’um Yahweh, massa’ Yahweh) occurs scores of times and is at once the simplest and the most colorless designation of a divine communication. By the latter (torah), the proper meaning of which is instruction, a strong implication of authoritativeness is conveyed; and, in this sense, it becomes what may be called the technical designation of a specifically divine communication. The two are not infrequently brought together, as in Isa 1:10 : Hear the word of Yahweh, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law (margin teaching) of our God, ye people of Gomorrah; or Isa 2:3 margin; Mic 4:2 : For out of Zion shall go forth the law (margin instruction), and the word of Yahweh from Jerusalem. Both terms are used for any divine communication of whatever extent; and both came to be employed to express the entire body of divine revelation, conceived as a unitary whole. In this comprehensive usage, the emphasis of the one came to fall more on the graciousness, and of the other more on the authoritativeness of this body of divine revelation; and both passed into the New Testament with these implications. The word of God, or simply the word, comes thus to mean in the New Testament just the gospel, the word of the proclamation of redemption, that is, all that which God has to say to man, and causes to be said looking to his salvation. It expresses, in a word, precisely what we technically speak of as God’s redemptive revelation. The law, on the other hand, means in this New Testament use, just the whole body of the authoritative instruction which God has given men. It expresses, in other words, what we commonly speak of as God’s supernatural revelation. The two things, of course, are the same: God’s authoritative revelation is His gracious revelation; God’s redemptive revelation is His supernatural revelation. The two terms merely look at the one aggregate of revelation from two aspects, and each emphasizes its own aspect of this one aggregated revelation.

Now, this aggregated revelation lay before the men of the New Testament in a written form, and it was impossible to speak freely of it without consciousness of and at least occasional reference to its written form. Accordingly we hear of a Word of God that is written, (Joh 15:25; 1Co 15:54), and the Divine Word is naturally contrasted with mere tradition, as if its written form were of its very idea (Mar 7:10); indeed, the written body of revelation – with an emphasis on its written form – is designated expressly ‘the prophetic word’ (2Pe 1:19).

3. The Scriptures:

More distinctly still, the Law comes to be thought of as a written, not exactly, code, but body of Divinely authoritative instructions. The phrase, It is written in your law (Joh 10:34; Joh 15:25; Rom 3:19; 1Co 14:21), acquires the precise sense of, It is set forth in your authoritative Scriptures, all the content of which is ‘law,’ that is, divine instruction. Thus, the Word of God, the Law, came to mean just the written body of revelation, what we call, and what the New Testament writers called, in the same high sense which we give the term, the Scriptures. These Scriptures are thus identified with the revelation of God, conceived as a well-defined corpus, and two conceptions rise before us which have had a determining part to play in the history of Christianity – the conception of an authoritative Canon of Scripture, and the conception of this Canon of Scripture as just the Word of God written. The former conception was thrown into prominence in opposition to the Gnostic heresies in the earliest age of the church, and gave rise to a richly varied mode of speech concerning the Scriptures, emphasizing their authority in legal language, which goes back to and rests on the Biblical. usage of Law. The latter it was left to the Reformation to do justice to in its struggle against, on the one side, the Romish depression of the Scriptures in favor of the traditions of the church, and on the other side the Enthusiasts’ supercession of them in the interests of the inner Word. When Tertullian, on the one hand, speaks of the Scriptures as an Instrument, a legal document, his terminology has an express warrant in the Scriptures’ own usage of torah, law, to designate their entire content. And when John Gerhard argues that between the Word of God and Sacred Scripture, taken in a material sense, there is no real difference, he is only declaring plainly what is definitely implied in the New Testament use of the Word of God with the written revelation in mind. What is important to recognize is that the Scriptures themselves represent the Scriptures as not merely containing here and there the record of revelations – words of God, toroth – given by God, but as themselves, in all their extent, a revelation, an authoritative body of gracious instructions from God; or, since they alone, of all the revelations which God may have given, are extant – rather as the Revelation, the only Word of God accessible to men, in all their parts law, that is, authoritative instruction from God.

Literature.

Herman Witsius, De Prophetis et Prophetia in Miscell. Sacr., I, Leiden, 1736, 1-318; G. F. Oehler, Theology of the Old Testament, English translation, Edinburgh, 1874, I, part I (and the appropriate sections in other Biblical Theologies); H. Bavinck, Gereformeerde Dogmatiek2, I, Kampen, 1906, 290-406 (and the appropriate sections in other dogmatic treatises); H. Voigt, Fundamentaldogmatik, Gotha, 1874, 173 ff; A. Kuyper, Encyclopedia of Sacred Theology, English translation, New York, 1898, Division III, Chapter ii; A. E. Krauss, Die Lehre von der Offenbarung, Gotha, 1868; C. F. Fritzsche, De revelationis notione biblica, Leipzig, 1828; E. W. Hengstenberg, The Christology of the O T, ET2, Edinburgh, 1868, IV, Appendix 6, pp. 396-444; E. Konig, Der Offenbarungsbegriff des Altes Testament, Leipzig, 1882; A. B. Davidson, Old Testament Prophecy, 1903; W. J. Beecher, The Prophets and the Promise, New York, 1905; James Orr, The Christian View of God and the World, 1893, as per Index, Revelation, and Revelation and Inspiration, London and New York, 1910. Also: T. Christlieb, Modern Doubt and Christian Belief, English translation, New York, 1874; G. P. Fisher, The Nature and Method of Revelation, New York, 1890; C. M. Mead, Supernatural Revelation, 1889; J. Quirmbach, Die Lehre des h. Paulus von der naturlichen Gotteserkenntnis, etc., Freiburg, 1906.

Fuente: International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

Revelation

God reveals Himself to Moses

Exo 3:1-6; Exo 3:14; Exo 6:1-3

The law is revealed

Exo 20; Lev 1

The pattern of the temple is revealed

1Ch 28:11-19

The sonship of Jesus is revealed

Mat 3:17; Mat 16:17; Mat 17:5 Inspiration; Prophecy; Prophet; Word of God, Inspiration of

Fuente: Nave’s Topical Bible

Revelation

The communication to man of the Divine Will. This communication has taken, in the history of religions, almost every conceivable form, e.g., the results of lot casting, oracular declarations, dreams, visions, ecstatic experiences (induced by whatever means, such as intoxicants), books, prophets, unusual characters, revered traditional practices, storms, pestilence, etc. The general conception of revelation has been that the divine communication comes in ways unusual, by means not open to the ordinary channels of investigation. This, however, is not a necessary corollary, revelation of the Divine Will may well come through ordinary channels, the give-and-take of everyday experience, through reason and reflection and intuitive insight. — V.F.

Fuente: The Dictionary of Philosophy

Revelation

apokalypsis (G602) Revelation, Coming

epiphaneia (G2015) Appearing

phanerosis (G5321) Manifestation

Apokalypsis is used only once in the Old Testament (1Sa 20:30) and then in the subordinate sense of “nakedness.” Apokalypsis occurs three times in the Apocrypha (Sir 11:27; Sir 22:22; Sir 41:23), though without the grander meaning it has in the New Testament. In the New Testament, apokalypsis is predominantly, though not exclusively, a Pauline word that occurs some nineteen times. It is translated in the Authorized Version by a variety of words: “coming” (1Co 1:7), “manifestation” (Rom 8:19), “appearing” (1Pe 1:7), and once as “to lighten.” In the New Testament, apokalypsis always has the majestic sense of God’s unveiling of himself to his creatures, an unveiling that we call by its Latin name revelation. In the New Testament, the verb apokalyptein (G601) commonly has this same sense, though this is not the first time that it was so used. In the Septuagint version of Daniel, for example (Dan 2:19; Dan 2:22; Dan 2:28), this sense was anticipated. Apokalyptein does not always mean “to reveal”; sometimes it simply means “to uncover” or “to lay bare” (Pro 21:19; Luk 12:2).

Jerome incorrectly claimed that apokalypsis is not used outside of the Septuagint and New Testament:

Apokalypsis is a word exclusive to the Scriptures, employed by none among the Greeks in the time of their sages. Hence they appear to me, as in other words which the Septuagint translators transferred from Hebrew to Greek, to have earnestly attempted to express the proper signification of a foreign tongue, forming new words for new things, and to give utterance when anything hidden or concealed is presented and brought to light by removing the covering.

The nonexistence in Jerome’s time of exhaustive lexicons or concordances of the greater writers of antiquity may well excuse his mistake. Plato used apokalyptein several times, and in the later Greek of Plutarch, apokalypsis appears frequently. Jerome was correct in that the religious use of apokalypsis was unknown in the heathen world, and the corresponding Latin word revelatio (revelation) was absolutely unknown in classical Latin. Elsewhere, Jerome made a similar mistake regarding the verb katabrabeuein (G2603; Col 2:18), which he understood as a Pauline cilicism.

In its higher Christian use, Arethras explained apokalypsis as “the explanation of hidden mysteries, the guidance of the soul being enlightened either through divine visions or in a dream as a result of divine illumination.” According to Theophylact, when apokalypsis is used with optasia, optasia refers only to what is shown or seen, possibly without being understood; apokalypsis, however, includes not only the thing shown and seen but its interpretation or unveiling as well. Theophylact said: “Apokalypsis has something more than optasia, for the latter grants only to see, but the former reveals also something deeper than what is seen.” Thus Daniel’s vision of the four beasts was seen but not understood, until the one who stood by gave Daniel the interpretation. What is true of optasia also will be true of horama and horasis.

Epiphaneia is used only twice in the Septuagint but frequently in 2 Maccabees, where it always refers to God’s supernatural apparitions in aid of his people. In secular Greek, epiphaneia always refers to the gracious appearances of the higher powers who aided humans. Epiphainein (G2014) also was used in the same way, though sometimes it had a much humbler meaning. Epiphaneia is used only six times in the New Testament, always in Paul’s writings. On five occasions the Authorized translators translated it as “appearing,” but on the sixth (2Th 2:8) they seem to have shrunk from what they thought was a tautology”appearance of his coming”and instead translated epiphaneia tes parousias as “brightness of his coming,” thus giving epiphaneia an improper meaning. On one occasion (2Ti 1:10, and so epiphainein,Tit 2:11; Tit 3:4), epiphaneia refers to our Lord’s first epiphany, his “appearance [epiphaneia] in the flesh,” but on all other occasions it refers to his second appearing in glory, the “appearance [epiphaneia] at his parousia”(2Th 2:8), “the glorious appearing [epiphaneia] of our great God.”

In comparison, apokalypsis is the more comprehensive and grander word. It depicts the progressive and immediate unveiling of the otherwise unknown and unknowable God to his church throughout the ages. This revelation is imparted to the body that is thereby designated or constituted as his church, the object of his more immediate care that is called to spread this knowledge of him to the rest of mankind. The world may know something of God (his eternal power and Godhead) from the things that are seen, things that except for the darkening of the human heart through sin would reveal him more clearly (Rom 1:20). But there is no apokalypsis except to the church. The epiphaneiai are contained in the apokalypsis as separate points or moments. If God is to be immediately known to humans, he must in some shape or other appear to those whom he has chosen for this honor. Epiphanies must be theophanies as well. The church has claimed as such not only the communications of the type recorded in Gen 18:1; Gen 28:13, but also all of those instances where the angel of the Lord or of the covenant appears. The church has regarded all of these as preincarnate appearances of the Son of God, the most glorious epiphany that has yet occurred, though Christ’s second coming will be an even more glorious epiphany.

Phanerosis is used only twice in the New Testament (1Co 12:7; 2Co 4:2). Although it is a lofty term, phanerosis does not refer (as the other words do) either to the first or second appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ (though it could have done so), as does the verb phanerousthai (G5319), which is used to refer to both. The fathers often used phanerosis in this way. Thus Athana-sius called the incarnation “the bodily manifestation [phanerosis] of the Father’s Logos.” It is difficult to understand why phanerosis was not used to depict the same glorious facts as the other words that were so closely allied with it in meaning and to understand whether this was accidental or intentional.

Fuente: Synonyms of the New Testament

Revelation

“an uncovering” (akin to apokalupto; see above), “is used in the NT of (a) the drawing away by Christ of the veil of darkness covering the Gentiles, Luk 2:32; cp. Isa 25:7; (b) ‘the mystery,’ the purpose of God in this age, Rom 16:25; Eph 3:3; (c) the communication of the knowledge of God to the soul, Eph 1:17; (d) an expression of the mind of God for the instruction of the church, 1Co 14:6, 1Co 14:26, for the instruction of the Apostle Paul, 2Co 12:1, 2Co 12:7; Gal 1:12, and for his guidance, Gal 2:2; (e) the Lord Jesus Christ, to the saints at His Parousia, 1Co 1:7, RV (AV, ‘coming’); 1Pe 1:7, RV (AV, ‘appearing’), 1Pe 1:13; 1Pe 4:13; (f) the Lord Jesus Christ when He comes to dispense the judgments of God, 2Th 1:7; cp. Rom 2:5; (g) the saints, to the creation, in association with Christ in His glorious reign, Rom 8:19, RV, ‘revealing’ (AV, ‘manifestation’); (h) the symbolic forecast of the final judgments of God, Rev 1:1 (hence the Greek title of the book, transliterated ‘Apocalypse’ and translated ‘Revelation’).” * [* From Notes on Thessalonians, by Hogg and Vine, pp. 228, 229.] See APPEARING, COMING, LIGHTEN, B, Note, MANIFESTATION.

Fuente: Vine’s Dictionary of New Testament Words

Revelation

or APOCALYPSIS, is the name given to a canonical book of the New Testament. See APOCALYPSE.

Fuente: Biblical and Theological Dictionary