04.05 - Revelation Written
(5) Revelation Written
Professor Fairbairn argues that because Revelation came to the minds of men, took form and shape in human language, and was declared by them in Prophetic and Apostolic utterances, it was sure to be recorded: “ because a spoken it was sure to become a written word, and to believe in a written revelation is as rational as to believe in a spoken revelation.” 2 On the contrary, Dr. Martineau argues “ that divine revelation is and must be immediate and intuitional, and cannot, from the very nature of the thing, be formulated in words, secured by inspiration and attested by miracles.” If it were so communicated and authenticated “ it would by these means avail itself of physical material and so become a natural and not a supernatural revelation.” The voice of God to man “ must be the voice of conscience, its light and know- 1 “ Revelation; its Nature and Record,” p. 6.
2 <: Christ in Modern Theology,” p. 494. Revelation 13:1-18 ledge, God’s revealing and appealing look; it is in the conscience of man alone that the voice of God becomes imperative and authoritative.” The one condition of revelation is that it must be immediate, living God with living man; spirit present with spirit; knowing Him, indeed, but rather being known of Him. The whole road of human ascent must be cut away. Where the Agent is Divine and the recipient human, there can be nothing for the mind to do but to let the light flow in, and by the lustre of its presence turn each common thought to sanctity.”
“ Revelation is immediate divine knowledge, strictly personal and individual, and must be born anew in every mind.” T
There is no objection to speak of revelation as “immediate and divine,” as the “voice of God in conscience,” or the work of the “ living God in the soul of man,” provided it is not intended to restrict it to that particular method, and to exclude all historical media whatsoever, and so limit divine revelation to the immediate action of God on the human mind, to the intuitional consciousness “ born anew in ever individual soul.” The enlightened conscience may correctly judge of what is true and false, right and just in respect of faith and practice, and when it echoes the voice of God and accords with the mind and spirit of God be authoritative; but that does not warrant the conclusion that conscience is the only medium of revelation, and the intuitive knowledge of God the only supernatural revelation possible; or that revelation coming in any other way and through any other media is no revelation at all.
1 “ Seat of Authority in Religion,” pp. 302-7. Nor do we see how the formulating of a revelation in words, embodying it in speech and confirming it by signs and powers, destroys its supernatural character, seeing words are the symbols of thoughts and truths to men; and the fullest revelation of God is in the living Eternal Word made flesh. This intuitional theory seems to confound the fact and truth of revelation with the method of its reception, and to identify the subject-matter of revelation with the How of its manifestation and cognition.
Even if we admit that all divine revelation comes to the Prophet and Apostle by intuition and conscience, it would still require the external medium of language for its expression and communication. Because the revelation of God is universal, and not alone for the sake of the individual to whom it is given, but be longs to the world of men, the world must hear it, and hear the voice of God by and through the speech of man. If revelation be the voice of God in conscience, what more likely than that voice should speak, and that the communication should be in the thought and language the man can understand and know? Speech is the property of spirit, and as such possible to God, and because speech is the way by which thought is communicated by man to his fellows, it is reasonable to suppose that God would speak to man, and speak by and through him to the race, so that the truth should be not in the words of man, but in the word of God.
Dr. Fairbairn asks: “And may not the word which God has spoken to another become a word which God speaks directly to me, yet which I never should have heard but for the older man of finer ear and clearer soul?” If, as Dr. Martineau holds, “mind can resolve cosmical phenomena into the speech of the causal mind, why may not conscience find men in history who embody the eternal will? Are there not persons who have acted, and still act, like a personalised conscience for the most cultivated peoples? And is not this one of the clear functions discharged by Jesus Christ? And if it is, what is He but an authority in religion? And if lie is, are not also the men who have been most conscious of God and His law? But if He and they are authorities, must not the record of their consciousness have some value, even of an authoritative kind, for the consciences of less inspired men?” It is on these grounds we claim authority for a written revelation of God to the race.