Part 50
' Ctirist died for our sins according to the Scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures'" (Kennett, Interpreter, V, 267). And if we seelf to appreciate the full bearing of this act and testimony we have a right to draw the same conclusion : " That within a very few years of the time of the crucifixion of Jesus, the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus was, in the mind of at least one man of education, absolutely irrefutable" (Kennett, op. cit., V, 267).
Besides, we find this narrative includes one small but significant statement which at once recalls a very definite feature of the Gospel tradition—the mention of "the third day." A reference to the passage in the Gospels where Jesus Christ spoke of His resurrection will show how prominent and persistent was this note of time. Why, then, should St. Paul have introduced it in his statement ? AVas it part of the teaching which he had "received"? What is the significance of this plain emphasis on the date of the resurrection ? Is it not that it iSears absolute testimony to the empty tomb ? From all this it may be argued that St. Paul believed the story of the empty tomb at a date when the recollection was fresh, when he could examine it for himself, when he could make the fullest possible inquiry of others, and when the fears and opposition of enemies would have made it impossible for the adherents of Jesus Christ to make any statement that was not absolutely true.
' Surely common sense requires us to beheve that that for which he so suffered was in his eyes established beyond the possibihty of doubt" (Kennett, op. cit., V, 271).
In view, therefore, of St. Paul's personal testimony to his own conversion, his interviews with those who had seen Jesus Christ on earth before and after His resurrection, and the prominence given to the resurrection in the apostle's own teaching, we may challenge attention afresh to this evidence for the resurrection. It is well known that Lord Lyttelton and his friend Gilbert West left Oxford University at the close of one academic year, each determining to give attention respectively during the long vacation to the conversion of St. Paul and the resurrection of Christ, in order to prove the baselessness of both. They met again in the autumn and compared experiences. Lord Lyttelton had become convinced of the truth of St. Paul's conversion, and Gilbert West of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. If, therefore, Paul's 2.5 years of suffering and service for Christ were a reality, his conversion was true, for everything he did began with that sudden change. And if his conversion was true, Jesus Christ rose from the dead, for everything Paul was and did he attributed to the sight of the risen Christ.
The next line of proof of the resurrection is the record in the Gospels of the appearances of the risen
Christ, and it is the last in order to
6. Sixth be considered. By some -writers it is Proof: The put first, but this is in forgetfuhiess Gospel of the dates vfhea the GospeLs ivere Record written. The resurrection was believed in by the Christian church for a number of years before our Gospels were written, and it is therefore impossible for these records to be our primary and most important evidence. We must get behind them if we are to appreciate fully the force and variety of the evidence. It is for this reason that, following the proper logical order, we have reserved to the last our consideration of the appearances of the risen Christ as given in the Gospels. The point is one of great importance (Denney, Jesus and the Gospel, 111).
Now. with this made clear, we proceed to consider the evidence afforded by the records of the post-resurrection appearances of Christ. Modern criticism of the Gospels during recent years has tended to adopt the view that Mk is the earhest, and that Mt and Lk are dependent on it. This is said to be "the one solid result (W. C. Allen, "St. Matthew," ICC. Preface, vii: Burkitt, The Gospel History, 37) of the literary criticism of the Gospels. If this is so, the question of the records of the resurrection becomes involved in the difficult problem about the supposed lost ending of Mk, which, according to modem criticism, would thus close -without any record of an appearance of the risen Christ. On this point, however, two things may be said at the present juncture:
2569 THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA Res. of Christ Retention of Sins
appearances will afford evidence of a chain of circumstances extending from the empty grave to the day of the ascension.
admitted to be strong, but taking them altogether, the argument is cumulative and sufficient. Every effect must have its adequate cause, and the only proper explanation of Christianity today is the resurrection of Christ. Thomas Arnold of Rugby, no mean judge of historical evidence, said that the resurrection was the "best-attested fact in human history." Christianity welcomes all possible sifting, testing, and use by those who honestly desire to arrive at the truth, and if they will give proper attention to all the facts and factors involved, we believe they will come to the conclusion expressed years ago by the Archbishop of Armagh, that the resurrection is the rock from which all the hammers of criticism have never chipped a single fragment
When we examine carefully all these converging lines of evidence and endeavor to give weight to all
the facts of the case, it seems impossible 7. Summary to escape from the problem of a physiandConcal miracle. That the prima facie elusion view of the evidence afforded by the NT suggests a miracle and that the apostles really believed in a true physical resurrection are surely beyond all question. And yet very much of present-day thought refuses to accept the miraculous. The scientific doctrine of the uniformity and continuity of Nature bars the way, so that from the outset it is concluded that miracles are impossible. We are either not allowed to believe (see Orr, The Resurrection of Jesus, 44), or else we are told that we are not required to believe (C. H. Robinson, Studies in the Resurrection of Christ, ch ii), in the reanimation of a dead body. If we take this view, "there is no need, really, for investigation of evidence: the question is decided before the evidence is looked at" (Orr, op. cit., 46). We challenge the tenableness of this position. It proves too much. We are not at all concerned by the charge of believing in the abnormal or unusual. New things have happened from the beginning of the present natural order, and the Christian faith teaches that Christ Himself was a "new thing," and that His coming as "God manifest in the flesh" was something absolutely unique. If we are not allowed to believe in any Divine intervention which we may call supernatural or miraculous, it is impossible to account for the Person of Christ at all. "A Sinless Personality would be a miracle in time." Arising out of this, Christianity itself was unique, inaugurating a new era in human affairs. No Chris-
{The Great Question, 24).
The theology of the resurrection is very important and calls for special attention. Indeed, the prominence given to it in the NT
8. Theology affords a strong confirmation of the of the fact itself, for it seems incredible that Resurrecsuch varied and important truths tion should not rest on historic fact. The doctrine may briefly be summarized:
(1) evidential: the resurrection is the proof of the atoning character of the death of Christ, and of His Deity and Divine exaltation (Rom 1 4) ; (2) evangelistic: the primitive gospel included testimony to the resurrection as one of its characteristic features, thereby proving to the hearers the assurance of the Divine redemption (1 Cor 15 1-4; Rom 4 25); (3) spiritual: the resurrection is regarded as the source and standard of the holiness of the believer. Every aspect of the Christian life from the beginning to the end is somehow associated therewith (Rom 6); (4) eschatological: the resurrection is the guaranty and model of the believer's resurrection (1 Cor 15). As the bodies of the saints arose (Mt 27 52), so ours are to be quickened (Rom 8 11), and made like Christ's
tian, therefore, can have any difficulty in accepting the abnormal, the unusual, the miraculous. If it be said that no amount of evidence can establish a fact which is miraculous, we have still to account
glorified body (Phil 3 21), thereby becoming spiritual bodies (1 Cor 15 44), that is, bodies ruled by their spirits and yet bodies. These points
for the moral miracles which are really involved and associated with the resurrection, esp. the decep-
offer only the barest outline of the fulness of NT teaching concerning the doctrine of the resurrection of Christ.
tion of the disciples, who could have found out the truth of the case; a deception, too, that has proved
Literature.—Orr, The Resurrection of Jesus, 190S: W. J. Sparrow Simpson. The Resurrection and Modern Thought; WestCOtt, The Historic Faith and The Gospel of the Resurrection. Very full literary references in Bowen, The Resurrection in the NT, 1911, which, although negative in its own conclusions, contains a valuable refutation of many negative arguments.
so great a blessing to the world. Surely to those who hold a true theistic view of the world this a
priori view is impossible. Are we to refuse to allow
to God at least as much liberty as we possess our-
selves? Is it really thinkable that God has less spontaneity of action than we have? We may like
W. H. Griffith Thomas RETAIN, rS-tan': Several Heb words are thus
or dislike, give or withhold, will or not will, but the course of Nature must flow on unbrokenly. Surely God cannot be conceived of as having given such a
tr'': ptn, hazak, "to hold fast" (Jgs 7 8; 19 4; Job 2 q'AV [RV "hold fast"]; Mic 7 18); n?37,
constitution to the universe as limits His power to
'agar, "to shut up" (only in Dnl 10 8.16; 11 6); tyun, tamakh, "to hold" (Prov 3 18; 4 4; 11 16 AV [RV "obtain"]); in one case hdld' (Eccl 8 8). In the NT Kpariu), kralio, is used in Jn 20 23 of the "retaining" of sins by the apostles (see Retention OF Sins); in Rom 1 28, RV has "refused to have," m "Gr, 'did not approve,' " for AV "did not like to retain" {echo); and in Philem ver 13, substitutes "fain have kept" for "retained" {katecho). Sir 41 16 has "retain" for diaphuldsso, "keep."
intervene if necessary and for sufficient purpose with the work of His own hands. Not only are
all things of Him, but all things are through Him, and
to Him. The resurrection means the presence of
miracle, and "there is no evading the issue with which this confronts us" (Orr, The Resurrection of
Jesus, 53). Unless, therefore, we are prepared to
accept the possibility of the miraculous, all explana-
tion of the NT evidence is a pure waste of time.
Of recent years attempts have been made to account
for the resurrection by means of ideas derived from Bab and other Eastern sources. It is argued that mythology provides the key to the problem, that not only analogy but derivation is to be found. But apart from the remarkable variety of conclusions of Bab archaeologists there is nothing in the way of historical proof worthy of the name. The whole idea is arbitrary and baseless, and nreiudiced by the attitude to the supernatural. There
RETALIATION, r^-tal-i-a'shun, re-. See Law in THE NT; Punishments; Retbibution.
RETENTION, rS-ten'shun, OF SINS (Kpax^w,
krat4d,' "to lay fast hold of" [Jn 20 23]): The opposite of "the remission of sins." Where there was no evidence of repentance and faith, the community of believers were unauthorized to give assurance of forgiveness, and, therefore, could only warn that the guilt of sin was retained, and
IS literally no link of connection between these oriental
cults and the Jewish and Christian beliefs in the resur-
rection.
And so we return to a consideration of the various
lines of proof. Taking them singly, they must be
Retribution THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA 2570
ture teaches that punishment, retribution, must
that the sinner remained beneath God's judgment.
follow sin. Within the sphere of physical law this
is clearly exemplified. No breach of the so-called laws of Nature is tolerated. Strictly speaking, the laws of Nature cannot be broken, but let a man fail
While sach retention lias its place in connection with
all preaching of the gospel, since the offers of grace are conditional, it is esp. exercised. lils:e the absolution, in the personal deahng of a pastor with a communicant, preparatory to the reception of the Lord's Supper. As the absolution is properly an assurance of individual forgiveness, so the retention is an assurance of individual non-forgiveness. Tliat the retention is exercised by the ministry, not as an order, but as the representatives of the congregation of believers to which Christ gave the power of the keys, is shown by Alford, Gr Test., on above passage. See also Melanchthon, Avv^^^^^^ to the "Schmalkald Articles."
to keep in harmony with them, and the natural consequences will be trouble, punishment, retri-
bution. Harmony with law is blessing; collision with law is loss. Thus law in Nature "worketh wrath" to the neglecters of it. Punishment neces-
sarily results. So we may well expect that in the higher sphere, God's moral laws cannot be neg-
lected or violated with impunity, and Scripture fully
H. E. Jacobs RETRIBUTION, ret-ri-bii'shun:
justifies the expectation and shows that sin must
be punished. All things considered, the fact of punishment for sinners need not surprise; the fact
1. NT Terms 2. A Revelation of Wrath as Well as Grace 3. Witness of Natural Theology
of pardon is the surprising thing. The surprise of pardon has ceased to surprise us because we are so familiar with the thought. We know the "how"
4. Retribution the Natural Consequence of Sin
5. Also the Positive Infliction of Divine Wrath
6. Instances of Use of org^ and thumos
of it because of the revelation of grace. Grace, however, saves on certain conditions, and there is no such thing known in Scripture as indiscriminate, necessary, universal grace. It is only from the Bible that we know of the salvation by grace. That same revelation shows that the grace does not come
7. Instances of Use of Greek Words for "Vengeance"
8. Words Meaning "Chastisement" Not Used of the Impenitent 9. Judgment Implies Retribution 10. Moral Sense Demands Vindication of God's Righteousness 11. Scripture Indicates Certainty of Vindication Literature
to all, in the sense of saving all; though, of course,
The word as appUed to the Divine administration
it may be considered as presented to all. Those who are not touched and saved by grace remain shut up in their sins. They are, and must be, in the nature of the case, left to the consequences of
is not used in Scripture, but undoubtedly the idea
is commonly enough expressed. The
1. NT words which come nearest to it are Terms ipyv, orge, and SvfjAs, ihumos, wrath attributed to God; iKSiKiu, ekdikeo,
their sins, with the added guilt of rejecting the offered grace. "Except ye believe that I am he," said Incarnate Grace, "ye shall die in your sins" (Jn 8 24).
^kSIktio-h, ekdikesis, eKSiKos, ekdikos, and SIkij, dike,
all giving the idea of vengeance; K&\aais, kdlasis, and Tifiuipla, timorla, "punishment"; besides Kphui,
Another conclusion we may draw from the gen-
krino, and its derivatives, words expressive of judgment.
eral Scriptural representation is that the future retribution is one aspect of the natural
Rom 2 is full of the thought of retribution. The
4. Retribuconsequence of sin, yet it is also in tion the another aspect the positive inUiclion Natural of Divine wrath. It is shown to be the Consenatural outcome of sin in such pasquence of sages as "Whatsoever a man soweth. Sin that shall he also reap" (Gal 6 7); "He that soweth unto his own flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption" (Gal 6 8). It
apostle, in vs 5.6, comes very near to using the word
itself, and gives indeed a good descrip-
2. A Revetion of the thing: the day of wrath and
lation of revelation of the righteous judgment Wrath as of God, "who will render to every man Well as according to his works." It is well Grace in approaching the subject to remind ourselves that there is undoubtedly, as the apostle says, a Revelation of wrath. We are so accustomed to think of the gracious revelation which the gospel brings us, and to approach the subject of the doom of the impenitent under the influence of the kindly sentiments engendered thereby, and with a view of God's gracious character as revealed in salvation, that we are apt to overlook somewhat the sterner facts of sin, and to misconceive the Divine attitude toward the impenitent
is not without suggestiveness that the Heb word 'dwon means both iniquity and punishment, and when Cain said "My punishment is greater than I can bear" (Gen 4 13), he really said "My iniquity
is greater than I can bear"; his iniquity became his punishment. A due consideration of this thought goes a long way toward meeting many of the objections brought against the doctrine of future punishment.
The other statement, however, remains true and must be emphasized, that there is an actual in-
sinner. It is certainly well that we should let the grace of the gospel have full influence upon all our thinking, but we must beware of being too fully engrossed with one phase of the Divine character.
fliction of Divine wrath. All the great
5. Also the statements about the Divine judgment Positive imply this, and while it is wrong not
It is an infirmity of human nature that we find it
Infliction to take account of the natural workof Divine ing out of sin in its terrible conseWrath quences, it is equally wrong, perhaps more so, to refuse to recognize this positive Divine infliction of punishment. This, indeed, is the outstanding feature of retribution as it assumes form in Scripture. Even the natural consequences of sin, rightly viewed, are part of the Divine infliction, since God, in the nature of things, has conjoined sin and its consequences, and part of the positive infliction is the judicial shutting up of the sinner to the consequences of his sin. So in the case of Cain, his iniquity became his punishment, inasmuch as God sentenced him to bear the consequences of that iniquity. On the other hand, we might say that even the terribly positive outpourings of God's wrath upon the sinner are the natural consequences of sin, since sin in its very
difficult to let two seemingly conflicting conceptions find a place in our thought. We are apt to surrender ourselves to the sway of one or the other of them according to the pre.ssure of the moment.
Putting ourselves back into the position of those who have only the light of natural theology, we find that all deductions from the per-
3. Witness fections of Go<l, as revealed in His of Natural works, combined with a consideration Theology of man's sin and want of harmony with the Holy One, lea-i to the conclusion anno\mce(l by the apostle: "The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men" (Rom 1 18). Wrath implies punishment, punishment is decreed, punishment is denounced. The word of God but confirms the verdict which conscience forecasts, Na-
2571 THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA Retribution
nature calls down the Divine displeasure. Indeed, these two phases of future punishment are so very closely connected that a right view of the matter compels us to keep both before us, and no full explanation of the punishment is possible when either phase is ignored. The terms in Scripture applied to the doom of sinners all imply Divine displeasure, punitive action,
10-19; 15 1-7; 16 1-19; 19 15). In each case
it refers to the manifestation, the blazing forth of the wrath; in the last two passages it is used in combination with orge, and is rendered "fierceness," the fierceness of His wrath.
Ekdikeo, which means to avenge, Is twice used of God CEev 6 10; 19 2): and ekdikesia, "vengeance," 6t (Lie 18 7 fl; Rom 12 19; 2 Thess 1 8; 7 PrpplrTTcA ^^ 10 30). In the first two instances it
retribution. The two outstanding Gr 6. Inwords for "wrath," orge and thumos, stances of are both freely applied to God. Orge Use of indicates settled displeasure, whereas orgs' and thumos is rather the blazing out of the thumos anger. The former is, as we should expect, more frequently applied to God, and, of course, all that is capricious and reprehensible in human wrath must be eliminated from the word as used of God. It indicates the settled opposition of His holy nature against sin. It was an affection found in the sinless Saviour Himself, for "he looked round about on them with anger" (Mk 3 5). In the Baptist's warning "to flee from the wrath to come" (Mt 3 7; Lk 3 7), it is unquestionably the wrath of God that is meant, the manifestation of that being further described as the burning of the chaff with unquenchable fire (Mt 3 12). In Jn 3 36 it is said of the unbeliever that "the wrath of God" abideth on him. In Rom it is used at least 9 t in reference to God, first in Rom 1 18, the great passage we have already quoted about "the wrath of God revealed from heaven." The connection
i w J
'** ^'"l ^^ Jesus concerning the Divine or Words action; ekdikos, "avenger," occurs once for"Venin apphcation to God (1 Thess 4 6); ooanro" dike, "judgment" or "vengeance" is twice geauce ^^^^ q, ^^^ ^^ Thess 1 9; .Jude ver 7). The use of these terms shows that the punishment infilcted on sinfui men is strictiy punishment of the vindicatory sort, the vindication of outraged justice, the infliction of deserved penalty. Very significant is the passage in 2 The.ss 1 6. " It is a righteous thing with God to recompen.se afBlction to them that afflict you." There is no question of bettering the offender. It is very remarkable that the terms in Gr which would carry the meaning of punishment for the good of
the offender are never used in the NT of the
8. Words infliction which comes upon the Impenl-
TVTpflnirKr tent; these are paidela and paideuo, iirnT^' ^n*^ they are frequently used of the " chasChastisetisement" of believers, but not of the irament" Not penitent. It is often claimed that the
TTspfi nt thp word kolasis used in Mt 25 46 carries the u&eu oi me meaning of chastisement for the improveImpenitent ment of the offender, but although Aristotle, in comparing it with timoria, may seem to suggest that it is meant for the improvement of the offender (what he really says is that it Is to-il pdschontos heneka, "on account of the one suffering It," "has the punished one in view," whereas timoTia is tou poiountos, "on account of the one inflicting" "that he may be satisfied"), the usage even in classical Gr is predominantly against making the supposed distinction. Both words are used Interchangeably by the leading classical authors, including Aristotle himself, and kolasia is continually employed where no thought of betterment can be in question, while ail admit that in Hellenistic Gr the distinction is not maintained, and in any case timoria is also used of the punishment of the sinner (He 10 29).
is a suggestive one and is often overlooked. In the passage Paul has quite a chain of reasons; he
is ready to preach the gospel at Rome for he is not ashamed of the gospel; he is not ashamed of the gospel for it is the power of God unto salvation; it
is the "power of God" for therein is revealed the righteousness of God by faith; and this salvation by faith is a necessity "for the wrath of God is revealed," etc. Thus the Divine wrath on account of sin is the dark background of the gospel message. Had there been no such just wrath upon men, there had been no need for the Divine salvation. The despising of God's goodness by the impenitent means a treasuring up of "wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God" (Rom 2 3-5). God "visiteth with wrath"
All the representations of the coming day of judgment tell of the fact of retribution, and Christ
Himself distinctly asserts it. Apart
9. Judgfrom His great eschatological disment courses, concerning which criticism Implies still hesitates and stammers, we have Retributhe solemn close of the Sermon on the tion Mount, and the pregnant statement of Mt 16 27, "The Son of man shall come
in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then
(3 5). In Rom 4 15 the apostle shows that "the law worketh wrath" (ie. brings down the Divine dis-
shall he render unto every man according to his deeds," and all the apostolic teaching upon the solemn theme is but the unfolding of the same great thought.
pleasure), while in 5 9 he shows that believers are saved from wrath—undoubted wrath of God. The other two instances are in 9 22. Men are "by nature children of wrath" (Eph 2 3); surely not "wrathful children," but liable to the wrath of God, and because of evil deeds cometh "the wrath
The conception of God as a perfect moral governor demands that His righteousness shall be fully vindi-
cated. Looking at the course of his-
10. Moral tory as it unfolds itself before us, we Sense Decannot fail to be struck with the anommands Vinalies which are presented. Rightdication of eousness does not always triumph, God's goodness is often put to shame, Righteouswickedness appears to be profitable, ness and wicked men often prosper while good men are under a cloud. Sometimes signal Divine interpositions proclaim that God is indeed on the side of righteousness, but too often it seems as if He were unmindful, and men are tempted to ask the old question, "How doth God know? And is there knowledge in the Most High?" (Ps 73 11), while the righteous say in
of God upon the sons of disobedience" (Eph 5 6; Col 3 6). Christ "delivereth us from the wrath
to come" (1 Thess 1 10); wrath has come upon the opposing Jews (2 16); but believers are not appointed unto wrath (5 9). With all these specific
passages in view, to say nothing of the general
teaching of the apostle on the question of coming judgment and punishment, it is utterly impossible
to eliminate the idea of the Divine displeasure
against sinners, and His consequent retributive
action toward them. Even Ritschl, who absolutely
denies the great principle of retribution, of positive
displeasure, admits that Paul teaches it; hence the
their distress, "Jeh, how long shall the wicked, how long shall the wicked triumph?" (Ps 94 3). The moral sense cries out for some Divine vindication, and the Scriptures, in harmony with this feeling,
only way for him out of the difficulty is to reject
Paul's teaching as unauthoritative. Other referen-
ces to the "wrath of God" are in He 3 11; 4 3; and 6 passages in the Apocalypse—Rev 6 16 f ; 11
indicate that the final judgment will bring such
18; 14 10; 16 19; 19 15. Two of these refer to the
vindication.
"wrath of the Lamb," one of the most terrible
In the OT it is frequently presented as the solu-
phrases in the whole of the NT. Thumos is only
tion of the baffling problems which beset the ethical
used in the Apocalypse concerning God (Rev 14
Reu Revelation THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA 2572
traditions of the tribe, wTOUght into the form of a biography of the supposed ancestor of the tribe. This interpretation raises more difficulties than it
sphere, as for instance in that fine utterance of religious philosophy in Ps 73; the Psalmist has before
him all the puzzling elements of the 11. Scripproblem; the prosperity, the insolent ture Indiand aggressive prosperity of the wicked, cates Carthe non-success, the oppression, the tainty of misery of the righteous; he is well-nigh Vindication overwhelmed by the contemplation, and nearly loses his footing on the eternal verities, until he carries the whole problem into the light of God's presence and revelation, and then he understands that the end will bring the true solution.
solves, and depends for coherence upon too many assumptions and conjectures. The narrative as it stands is quite intelligible and self-consistent. There is no good reason to doubt that, as far as it goes, it is an authentic record of the life of Jacob's son.
At the first census in the wilderness Reuben numbered 46,500 men of war (Nu 1 21); at the second they had fallen to 43,730; see
2. Tribal Numbers. The standard of the camp History of Reuben was on the south side of the tabernacle; and with him were Simeon and Gad; the total number of fighting men in this division being 151,450. Tg Pseudojon says that the standard was a deer, with the legend "Hear O Israel, the Lord thy God is one Lord." On the march this division took the second place (Nu 2 10 ff). The prince of the tribe was Elizur ben Shedeur, whose oblation is described in 7 30 ff The Reubenite among the spies was Shammua ben Zaccur (13 4). It is possible that the conspiracy against Moses, organized by the Reubenites Dathan and Abiram, with the assistance of Korah the Levite
So too the somber ruminations of the Preacher upon the contradictions and anomalies and mysteries
of human life,
' 'under the sun," close in the reflection which throws its searchlight upon all the blackness "This is the end of the matter: .... Fear God, and keep his commandments; for this is the whole duty
of man. For God will bring every work into judgment, with every hidden thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil" (Eccl 12 13 f). In the light of the same truth, the apostles labored, believing that when the Lord comes He "will both bring to
light the hidden things of darkness, and make mani-
fest the counsels of the hearts" (1 Cor 4 5). The more fully the subject is considered, the more we must feel that for the vindication of righteousness, the justification of the Divine procedure, the recti-
(Nu 16), was an attempt on the part of the tribe to assert its rights as representing the firstborn. It is significant that the children of Korah did not perish
(26 11). May not the influence of this incident on Moses' mind be traced in his "blessing," wishing for the continuance of the tribe, indeed, but not in great strength (Dt 33 6)? This was a true forecast of the tribal history.
fication of wrongs, the explanation of mysteries, the reward and triumph of the righteous and the confession and punishment of the wicked, a great
final, retributive judgment is Scriptural, reasonable, necessary.
Literature.—See arts, on Punishment, Everlasting; Judgment; Sheol, etc, and works cited there.
When the high plateau E. of the Dead Sea and the Jordan fell into the hands of the Israelite invaders, these spacious pastoral uplands irresistibly attracted the great flock-masters of Reuben and Gad, two tribes destined to be neighbors during succeeding centuries. At their earnest request Moses allowed them their tribal possessions here subject to one condition, which they loyally accepted. They should not "sit here," and so discourage their brethren who went to war bej'ond the Jordan. They should provide for the security of their cattle, fortify cities to protect their little ones and their wives from the inhabitants of the land, and their men of war should go before the host in the campaign of conquest until the children of Israel should have inherited every man his inheritance (Nu 32 1-27). Of the actual part they took in that warfare there is no record, but perhaps "the stone of Bohan the son of Reuben" (Josh 15 6; 18 17) marked some memorable deed of valor by a member of the tribe. At the end of the campaign the men of Reuben, having earned the gratitude of the western tribes, enriched by their share of the spoils of the enemy, returned with honor to their new home. Along with their brethren of Gad they felt the dangers attaching to their position of isolation, cut off from the rest of their people by the great cleft of the Jordan valley. They reared therefore the massive altar of Ed in the valley, so that in the very throat of that instrument of severance there might be a perpetual witness to themselves and to their children of the essential unity of Israel. The western tribes misunderstood the action and, dreading religious schism, gathered in force to stamp it out. Explanations followed which were entirely satisfactory, and a threatening danger was averted (Josh 22). But the instincts of the eastern tribes were right, as subsequent history was to prove. The Jordan valley was but one of many causes of sundering. The whole circumstances and conditions of life on the E. differed widely from those on the W. of the river, pastoral pursuits and life in the open being contrasted with agricultural and city life.
Archibald M'Caiq REU, re'u, roo (Wl , r^'u; 'PaYav, Rhagaii): A son of Peleg, a descendant of Shem (Gen 11 18 ff;
1 Ch 1 25; Lk 3 35).
REUBEN, rooTaen, ru'ben ("3^N"1, r^'ubhen; PoDpt)v, Rhouhtn) : The eldest son of Jacob, born to him by Leah in Paddan-aram (Gen
1. Jacob's 29 32). This verse seems to suggest Eldest Son two derivations of the name. As it stands in MT it means "behold a son"
but the reason given for so calling him is "The Lord hath looked upon my affliction," which in Heb is ra'ahh''onyl, \it. "He hath seen my affliction." Of
his boyhood we have only the story of the mandrakes (Gen 30 14). As the firstborn he should really have been leader among his father's sons. His birthright was forfeited by a deed of peculiar infamy (35 22), and as far as we know his tribe never took the lead in Israel. It is named first, indeed, in Nu 1 5.20, but thereafter it falls to the fourth place, Judah taking the first (2 10, etc). To Reuben's intervention Joseph owed his escape from the fate proposed by his other brethren (Gen 37 29). Some have thought Reuben designed to set him free, from a desire to rehabilitate himself with his father. But there is no need to deny to Reuben certain noble and chivalrous qualities. Jacob seems to have appreciated these, and, perhaps, therefore all the more deeply lamented the lapse that spoiled his life (Gen 49 3 f). It was Reuben who felt that their perils and anxieties in Egypt were a fit recompense for the unbrotherly conduct (42 22). To assure his father of Benjamin's safe return from Egypt, whither Joseph required him to be taken, Reuben was ready to pledge his own two sons (ver 37). Four sons born to him in Canaan went donm with Reuben at the descent of Israel into Egypt (46 8 f).
The incidents recorded are regarded by a certain school of OT scholars as the vague and fragmentary
2573 THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA Reu Revelation
The land given by Moses to the tribe of Reuben reached from the Arnon, Wddxj el-Mojib, in the S., to the border of Gad in the N. In Nu 32 34 cities ot Gad are named which lay far S., Aroer being on the very lip of the Arnon; but these are probably to be taken as an enclave in the territory of Reuben. From Josh 13 15 ff it is clear that the northern border ran from some point N. of the Dead Sea in a direction E.N.E., passing to the N. of Heshbon. The Dead Sea formed the western boundary, and it marched with the desert on the E. No doubt many districts changed hands in the course of the history. At the invasion of Tiglath-pileser, e.g., we read that Aroer was in the hands of the Reubenites, "and eastward .... even unto the entrance of the wilderness from the river Euphrates" (1 Ch 5 8f). Bezer the city of refuge lay in Reuben's territory (Josh 20 8, etc). A general description of the country will be found under Moab ; while the cities of Reuben are dealt with in separate articles.
the fate that befell them at the hands of Pul, king of Assyria, who carried them away, "and brought them unto Halah, and Habor, and Hara, and to the river of Gozan" (1 Ch 6 25 f). The resemblance of Reuben's case to that of Simeon is striking, for Simeon also appears to have been practically absorbed in the tribe of Judah. The prestige that should have been Reuben's in virtue of his birthright is said to have passed to Joseph (1 Ch 5 1). And the place of Reuben and Simeon in Israel is taken by the sons of Joseph, a fact referred to in the blessing of Jacob (Gen 48 5). Ezekiel finds a place for Reuben in his picture of restored Israel (48 6). He appears also—in this case preceded by Judah only—in Rev 7 5. W. EwiNG REUBENITES, roo'ben-Its p?31S^n, ha-r-^'uhhem; 8f|(j.oi 'Vov^iyv, dimoi Rhouhtn): Members of the tribe of Reuben (Nu 26 7, etc). Adina, one of David's mighty men, was a Reubenite (1 Ch 11 42).
Reuben and Gad, occupying contiguous districts, and even, as we have seen, to some extent overlapping, are closely associated in the history. Neither took part in the glorious struggle against Sisera (Jgs 5 15 ff). Already apparently the sundering influences were taking effect. They are not excepted, however, from "all the tribes of Israel" who sent contingents for the war against Benjamin
REUEL, roo'el (bsw;i, r'^u'el, "God is his friend"; LXX 'Pa-you'^X, /JtogoweZ)
(1) In the genealogical system Reuel is both a son of Esau by Basemath (Gen 36 4.10.13.17; 1 Ch X 35.37) and the father of the father-in-law of Moses, Hobab (Nu 10 29). In the account of the marriage of Zipporah to Moses (Ex 2 16-21) Jethro seems to be called Reuel (cf Hobab). The various names of Jethro perplexed the Talmudists, too; some held that his real name was "Hobab," and that Reuel was his father. Reuel is probably a clan name (Gray, "Nu," ICC), and Hobab is a member of the clan ("son") of Reuel (Nu 10 29 AV reads "Raguel").
(Jgs 20 10; 21 5), and the reference in 5 15 seems to show that Reuben might have done great things had he been disposed. The tribe therefore was still powerful, but perhaps absorbed by anxieties as to
its relations with neighboring peoples. In guarding their numerous flocks against attack from the S., and sudden incursions from the desert, a warlike spirit and martial prowess were developed. They were "valiant men, men able to bear buckler and sword, and to shoot with bow, and skilful in war"
(2) The father of Eliasaph, the prince of Gad (Nu 2 14), called (by some copyist's mistake) "Deuel" in 1 14; 7 42.47; 10 20. LXX has uniformly Rhagouel.
(1 Ch 5 18). They overwhelmed the Hagrites with Jetur and Naphish and Nodab, and greatly enriched themselves with the spoil. In recording the raid the Chronicler pays a compliment to their religious loyalty: "They cried to God in the battle, and he was entreated of them, because they put their trust in him" (5 19 ff). Along with Gad and Manasseh they sent a contingent of 120,000 men "with all manner of instruments of war for the
(3) A Benjamite (1 Ch 9 8). Horace J. Wolf REUMAH, roo'ma (H'aiS") , r'umah) : The concubine of Nahor (Gen 22* 24).
REVELATION, rev-5-la'shun:
battle, .... men of war, that could order the battle array," men who "came with a perfect heart to Hebron, to make David king" (12 37 f). Among David's mighty men was Adina, "a chief of the Reubenites, and thirty with him" (11 42). In the 40th year of David's reign overseers were set over the Reubenites "for every matter pertaining to God, and for the affairs of the king" (26 32). Perhaps
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
in spite of the help given to David the Reubenites had never quite got over their old loyalty to the house of Saul. At any rate, when disruption came they joined the Northern Kingdom (1 K 11 31). The subsequent history of the tribe is left in much obscurity. Exposed as they were to hostile
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
influences of Moab and the East, and cut off from fellowship with their brethren in worship, in their
1. The Ordinary Forms 2. "Word of the Lord" and "Torah" 3. " The Scriptures " Literature
isolation they probably found the descent into
idolatry all too easy, and the once powerful tribe sank into comparative insignificance. Of the immediate causes of this decline we have no knowl-
/. The Nature of Revelation.—The religion of the Bible is a frankly supernatural religion. By this
is not meant merely that, according
edge. Moab established its authority over the
1. The to it, all men, as creatures, live, move Religion of and have their being in God. It is the Bible meant that, according to it, God has the Only intervened extraordinarily, in the Supernatucourse of the sinful world's develop-
land that had belonged to Reuben; and Mesha,
in his inscription (M S), while he speaks of Gad, does not think Reuben worthy of mention. They had probably become largely absorbed in the north-
ern tribe. They are named as suffering in the
invasion of Hazael during the reign of Jehu (2 K 10 32 f). That "they trespassed against the God of
ral Rement, for the salvation of men other-
ligion wise 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
their fathers, and played the harlot after the gods
of the peoples of the land" is given as the reason for
Revelation THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA 2574
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.
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 (Dt 4
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
7; Ps 145 IS). 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 Jeh had chosen it, not it Him, and that Jeh'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 Jeh; 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 2.3; 17 4.5.6.16; 18 18; 22 18; cf Rom 4 13), the bringing together again of the divided families of the earth under the glorious reign of Jeh, and the reversal of the curse under which the whole world lay for its sin (Gen 12 3). Meanwhile, however, Jeh 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 (Ps 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" (Jn 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.
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.
It is quite obvious that there are brought before us in these several representations two species or stages
of revelation, which should be dis2. General criminated to avoid confusion. There and Special is the revelation which God continuRevelation ously 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 Ps 19: "The heavens declare the glory of God .... their line is gone out through all the earth" (vs 1.4); "The law of Jeh is perfect, restoring the soul" (ver 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 Jeh, 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 Jeh, my rock, and my redeemer" (ver 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.
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 (Acts 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 (Acts 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).
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
2575" THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA Revelation
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 ^ts double form was the Divine purpose for man
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 Ho at once works out His saving purpose and molds the world for its reception, choosing a people for Him.self and training it through long and weary ages, until at last when the fulness 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
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
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 Ep. to the Rom.
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 intelli-
gible, 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 mtimacy
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 fGen 3 8), and at the second origin of the human race, the Flood (Gen 8 21.22; 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 Jeh, 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 aflBliated 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
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 imphes 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 imme-
diate and not merely mediate communion. In that
case we may understand that if man had not faUen. 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
Revelation THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA 2576
to Nebuchadnezzar (DnI 2 18') and to the soldier in the camp of Midian (Jgs 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
adapted to produce knowledge, esp. 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
life of the heathen peoples lay outside the supernatural revelation of God. The heathen were suffered to walk In their own ways (Acts 14 16).
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
//. The Process ofRevelation.—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 Bib. 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,
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 redemp-
tive acts of God, but placing it among the redemp-
tive 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
until, when the fulness 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 expUcit, 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
their meaning. It is, in one word, itself a redemp-
tive 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 wrought out by these redemptive acts of God. One of the most grievous of the
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
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
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.
it the correction of this deformation and the re-
flection 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
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
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 ever more 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.
1. Place of directed to the building up of the Revelation kingdom of God in the world, that it is among the sometimes confounded with them or Redemptive thought of as simply their reflection Acts of God 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 Bib. 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 preeminent 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.
This is not the place to trace, even in outhne, from the material point of view, the development
of God's redemptive revelation from
2. Stages its first beginnings, in the promise of Material given to Abraham—or rather in what Develophas been called the Protevangelium ment 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
2577 THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA Revelation
age. And they occur side by side, broadly speak-
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
ing, 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 (Nu 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 fulness 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.
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, OT Prophecy, 1903, p. 148; cf pp. 12-14, 145 ff). This internal method of revelation reaches its culmination in the NT period, which is preeminently the age of the Spirit. What is esp. 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