Chapter 7.3

From Faith to Sight

The Progress of Divine Revelation

Table of Topics

A) From Creation to Scripture

B) From Creation to Covenant

C) From Prophet to Scripture

D) From Individual to Community

E) From Spiritual Childhood to Adulthood

F) From Faith to Sight

Extras & Endnotes

A) From Creation to Scripture

Primary Points

• Because the purpose of virtually all personal revelation is covenant-making, all the different methods of such divine revelation are intended to accomplish it.
• The Scripture gifts (e.g. divine knowledge, prophecy) and sign gifts (e.g. miracle working, tongues) of the Apostles and Prophets ceased when they fulfilled their purpose.
• God very rarely ever granted personal revelation to Prophets and Apostles in order to merely guide them in their everyday life. Their divine revelations were for public, covenant-making purposes, not individual ones.
• The progression of divine revelation from Christ, Prophets and Apostles, to Scripture, is also a progression from God speaking to individuals privately, to dealing with people in community.
• God didn’t even communicate the Gospel to us directly, which is the most valuable, vital, and personal revelation imaginable.
• Doing almost any good thing in unity with others is much more God’s plan for us than individual, unique revelations and plans.
• Many Christians have forsaken God-intended means of divine guidance because they require humble interdependence. Because they crave independence, the mega mystical approach of discovering a direct, personal revelation of a private will has flourished.
• There is a much greater emphasis in Scripture on our personal relationships with people, than on an intimate, private relationship with God.
• Kuyper: “[E]very child of God must exercise communion with the Father and the Son through the apostolate. . . . [T]his is St. John’s positive claim.”
• Perhaps the most important reason that the best and clearest divine revelation we currently have is a book, is because of the great value God places on faith.
• Only now that we have an opportunity to live by faith, unlike angels or demons
• The promotion of mega mysticism in the Church today is in danger of being a rebellion against God’s desire for us to live by faith instead of sight.
• Because experience is exalted over faith we are reminded that God likes it when we see, hear, and feel nothing, but still believe, trust, and obey Him.

God’s first revelation of Himself to humanity was “in the beginning” when He “created the Heavens and the Earth” and “man in His own image (Gen 1:1, 27). Ever “since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—His eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse” (Rom 1:20). The universal revelation of Creation, then, has accomplished much, giving all of adult humanity a clear communication of God’s “eternal power and divine nature.”

However, as noted above, divine acts such as Creation need divine explanation in order for us to interpret them correctly. ^[1] For example, while Creation reveals the existence of a god, Scripture reveals which God it is. More than that, Scripture tells us something about how, and, more importantly, a great deal about why, God created the Universe. Therefore, the revelation of Scripture must be honored and applied when interpreting the data of Science, because Scripture is the Creator’s commentary on His Creation.

In addition, personal revelation has not only aided our interpretation of universal revelation, but it adds a great deal to our knowledge of God. The Adventist theologian Norman Gulley explains the superiority of the former over the latter in terms of content when he writes:

General [universal] revelation says nothing about where humans come from, or why they are here, or where they are going. These three basic questions are not satisfied by general revelation, or through reason or intuition alone. ^[2]

In an age when the power of human discovery (science) is thought to be almost limitless, we need to be reminded how desperately we need personal revelation in addition to universal revelation. Accordingly, the NT scholar Rene Pache writes:

Man on earth is placed in a paradoxical situation. Endowed with intelligence and logic, he seems intended to know the reason for his existence and the meaning of it, as well as the origin of the universe and the person of his Creator. Actually, however, he finds himself surrounded by mysteries. Left to his own devices, he is incapable of answering the questions which press in on him so closely: From whence has he come? Why is he the victim of suffering and death? Will he ever find happiness and peace? What will occur after death: annihilation, judgment or eternal life? And above all towers this question: Does God exist? Then, if He does, why is He so far from us; and how can we manage to have an encounter with Him?

All religions and theologies testify to man’s indefatigable efforts to ferret out the truth and to find out about God. It must, however, be acknowledged that the results of this search have been deceptive and even tragic. How many imperfect gods, created in the image of man, and how many complicated systems, often absurd, have come into being as a result, each in turn setting aside the others! Modern science itself, of which we are so proud, does not help us solve the enigma behind the universe; and certain astronauts who have gone into outer space have naively protested that they did not “find anybody” there. ^[3]

Likewise, Jonathan Edwards (1703–1758) wrote:

I am persuaded that there is no one doctrine of that which we call natural religion [but] would, notwithstanding all philosophy and learning, forever be involved in darkness, doubts, endless disputes, and dreadful confusion. . . . ‘Tis one thing to prove a thing after we are showed how and another to find it out of ourselves. . . .

I am of the mind that mankind would have been like a parcel of beasts, with regard to their knowledge in all important truths, if there never had been any such thing as [personal] revelation in the world, and that they never would have risen out of their brutality. None ever came to tolerable notions of divine things, unless by the revelation contained in the Scriptures. ^[4]

While personal revelation can certainly be considered a progression from universal revelation, it does not make the latter obsolete, or false. As noted above, both are divine revelations provided by, and pointing to, the same God of truth and therefore both are equally true. As some theologians have put it, universal revelation is the seed from which the flower of personal revelation has grown.

B) From Creation to Covenant

While the divine revelation of Creation certainly fulfills the over-riding purpose of glorifying God, He has demonstrated an additional desire that goes beyond people simply knowing that He exists and He is great. Accordingly, one of the most important divine characteristics revealed in Scripture is that the Creator is a covenant-making God and He desires to enter a relationship with His chosen people. He desires more than worship which regenerated people could offer Him merely through the universal revelation of Creation. In addition, He wants friendship which requires personal revelation within a Covenant.

The implementation and maintenance of such a relationship requires a good deal of communication, and it is such covenant revelation that constitutes a great deal of the divine revelation recorded in Scripture. In fact, covenant-making is essentially the whole “story” of the Bible, consisting of two major divine-human relationships, involving the Jews and the Church, referred to as the Old and the New, and which have resulted in two written Testaments of those relationships (cf. Exod 24:7). ^[5]

The covenant-making desires of God explain the addition of personal revelation to the already existing universal revelation. The latter is not able to implement and maintain a friendship between the Creator and His elect children. This is an important point against the claims of natural theology ^[6] and universalists ^[7] who claim that universal revelation is sufficient for obtaining a saving relationship with God. If that were the case, personal revelation would have never been necessary, but because it is, it has been provided.

C) From Prophet to Scripture

Because the purpose of virtually all personal revelation is covenant-making, all the different methods of such divine revelation are intended to accomplish it. A survey of the Scriptures will reveal that periods of direct, divine personal revelation and accompanying miraculous authentication have occurred primarily in relationship to the implementation of the two covenants initiated by God with humanity. These periods and covenants, and the personal revelation and authentication that accompanied them, obviously center around Moses and Christ through whom these covenants were implemented, with a few others confirming their message and ministry after them. As noted above, the simple reason for the personal revelation at these times is the fact that any relationship (covenant) requires communication, including one between God and His people. When God desires a relationship with people, He provides the necessary covenant revelation of the terms and nature of that relationship.

Therefore, with the establishment of both the “old covenant” and “new covenant” (2 Cor 3:6, 14) there is a clear and consistent pattern of divine revelation. This process consists of 1) the divine provision and human reception of new covenant revelation to accompany the implementation of a new agreement between God and humans, 2) miraculous authentication of the new covenant revelation, 3) inscripturation of the new covenant revelation by those miraculously authenticated, and 4) the copying, recognition (canonization), distribution, and teaching of the inscripturated covenant revelation, making it available to all in the covenant. ^[8]

Prophets such as Moses, Apostles such as Paul, and a Teacher like Christ were temporary recipients of direct divine revelation for the purpose of implementing a human/divine covenant. However, the presence of such recipients of divine revelation and miraculous authentication has not been God’s plan for the maintenance of either the Old or New Covenants.

Therefore, the Scripture gifts (e.g. divine knowledge, prophecy) and sign gifts (e.g. miracle working, tongues) which the Apostles and Prophets possessed to fulfill their purpose, ceased. ^[9] This is because the essential function of Prophets and Apostles was to provide and authenticate the saving revelation necessary to implement the covenant and record the guiding revelation to maintain it. When this process was complete in the case of both the Old and New Covenants, Scripture and sign gifts ceased because their true function had ceased as well. In place of such divinely taught and miraculously authenticated men, God ordained that such men would record their covenant revelation in Scripture to be made available to all.

Accordingly, Jonathan Edwards preached in a sermon in May 1748: “The extraordinary influences of the Spirit of God imparting immediate revelations to men were designed only for a temporary continuance while the church was in its minority and never were intended to be statedly upheld in the Christian church,” ^[10]

More recently, the renowned Evangelical theologian Carl F. H. Henry (1913-2003), wrote:

Divine revelation does not continue sporadically throughout the post-biblical era; it is once-for-all. Were that not the case, Paul and John and Peter would be but the first of an unending list of names through whom the revelation in its technical sense has come to the world. Divine revelation came to and through the Apostles by the Spirit, and by the Spirit it comes through their inspired word to us. ^[11]

It is important to note that when we claim Scripture gifts (e.g. prophecy), and sign gifts (e.g. miracle working) have ceased, we do not mean to say that God no longer does miracles. While this is a common accusation of super-supernaturalists it is unfounded because they do not distinguish between the purposes of direct miracles that God does, and delegated miracle working which human messengers of new extra-biblical divine revelation, authoritative for all people, perform. God continues to directly heal people today in answer to our prayers, but we do not believe anyone is successfully commanding healings today which the sign gifts enabled Apostles and Prophets to do. Therefore, while divine miracles are still occurring today, human miracle working is not, and the difference is important. ^[12]

The revelations that Christ, the Apostles, and Prophets received were rarely just for their own benefit, nor were they to be verbally transmitted to a multitude of others. To the contrary, God consistently insisted that such revelation be written (cf. Deut 31:24-26; Isa 30:8; Jer 30:2). This was because: 1) God was not going to directly teach it to others as He did these special messengers, and 2) God wanted to provide a reliable and accessible record of His covenant revelation for all His people.

The purpose of such direct, divine communication through Scripture gifts and miraculous authentication through sign gifts becomes obvious when we recognize that during these unique periods of human history God was radically and forever changing the answer to the most critical question for any human being: How can I be accepted by the holy God and escape His eternal judgment? Such a monumental purpose calls for extraordinary divine revelation accompanied by extraordinary supernatural authentication.

This can be illustrated, for example, by remembering what was occurring at the time of the implementation of the New Covenant. First, the Old Covenant, which had been humanity’s guide to divine acceptance for almost 1500 years was being set aside (cf. Rom 7:1-6; 2 Cor 3:1-11; Heb 8:13). Secondly, God was revealing a plan of salvation that was so unique that mere human wisdom would condemn it as foolish (cf. 1 Cor 1:18-21). Thirdly, God was no longer going to dwell in temples, but was now going to personally indwell His covenant people with His presence through the Holy Spirit (cf. John 14:17). Fourthly, these revolutionary and divinely authoritative revelations were to be communicated by mere humans (cf. 2 Cor 4:5-7).

Finally, God will never again change the way that humanity is to escape His judgment. While the recipients of the Old Covenant could expect another period of covenant revelation and miraculous authentication, the recipients of the New Covenant cannot because there will be no Third Covenant. The New Covenant is also the Last Covenant and this is precisely why John, at the end of the NT revelation that was to accompany the implementation of this Last Covenant said: “I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.” (Rev 22:18). Therefore, unless God would desire to implement another such covenant, changing again His expectations for salvation to something other than grace, we need not expect the divine provision of the Scripture and sign gifts again. ^[13]

Robert Reymond, Professor of Systematic Theology at Knox Seminary would seem to generally describe the position we are advocating in regards to the purpose and process of personal revelation:

It is nonrepeatable historical events [and covenants] of redemption which call forth special revelatory explanation; it is special revelation in turn which calls forth miraculous authentication. Where the first [a new covenant] is absent, there is no necessity for the second [new revelation]; where the second is absent [new revelation], there is no necessity for the third [divine authentication through miracle working].

When the first [a new covenant] had been sufficiently and permanently interpreted (in inscripturated form) by the second [new revelation], and the second sufficiently authenticated by the third [miracle working], there was no further need for the continuation of either the second or the third [new revelation or miracle working], and in fact the revelatory process and the occurrence of authenticating miracles of power have ceased. ^[14]

This process is not only portrayed in Scripture, but proven in history. ^[15] Regarding the OT, it is agreed among scholars that revelation through the Prophetic gift ceased with the Prophet Malachi and the final recording of the OT revelation. Jewish history confirms that with the reception, copying, and distribution of the written Old Covenant revelation, a certain divine “silence” for God-sent prophecy and miracle workers ensued for over 400 years. Because God’s purpose for these Scripture and sign gifts had been fulfilled by producing and authenticating Scripture, these “miraculous” methods of revelation ceased.

However, with the arrival of Christ and the need for further revelation to accompany the implementation of the New Covenant, “miraculous” methods of revelation returned to the people of God. There was an abundance of new divine revelation apart from the written kind, and a flurry of miracle working to authenticate that revelation. During Christ’s ministry He was the only One who possessed the truth necessary to start, “the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). The revelation of the vital New Covenant truths could be found nowhere else but in His teaching.

When Christ’s ministry was completed, the source of these New Covenant truths passed to the Apostles and Prophets in the early Church. This is why the Apostle Paul tells us that the New Covenant Church was “built on the foundation of the Apostles and [NT] Prophets (i.e. Agabus, cf. Acts 13:1-3), with Christ Jesus Himself as the chief cornerstone” (Eph 2:20; see also 3:5). Because the message of the NT Apostles and Prophets with Scripture gifts was both unprecedented and revolutionary, God provided undeniably miraculous sign gifts such as healing on command, in order that the revolutionary New Covenant revelation might be divinely authenticated. But after the purpose of such gifts was completed, their need and availability ceased. No one was, or ever has been, empowered to speak, predict, or heal like Christ and the Prophets and Apostles. Accordingly, Dr. Reymond adds:

[E]ven the revelatory process that produced our Bible did not flow uninterruptedly. Between Genesis 49:1-27 and Exodus 3:4 there was a “blackout” of divine communication for over four hundred years. Then with the passing of Malachi, another four-hundred year “blackout” ensued before the angel Gabriel appeared to Zechariah the priest. These prior revelational “blackouts” show the naturalness of the revelational “blackout” that has been in place since the close of the New Testament canon. ^[16]

Indeed, the cessation of Apostles, Prophets, miracle workers, and tongues was the universal testimony and conviction of the Christian Church for over 1600 years, reflecting God’s own withdrawal of them. What else would we expect when there has been no new covenant implemented?

We would expect such unique ministries as miracle working Prophets and Apostles to be provided at the beginning of the implementation of a new covenant between God and man. Indeed, there were “fireworks” over Mt. Sinai at the implementation of the Old Covenant (cf. Exod. 19), a special manifestation of God Himself to all the people, but such manifestations did not indefinitely continue for the Israelites, and eventually only the OT Scriptures remained.

Likewise, there were “fireworks” at the very beginning of the implementation of the New Covenant in which God uniquely revealed Himself. But like the experience of those who entered the Old Covenant, the initial “fireworks” were not to continue. As the highly regarded British NT scholar William Sanday (1843–1920) put it, “The one permanent deposit left behind by this tidal wave of God-given energy was the New Testament.” ^[17] Subsequently, God has granted other miraculous “signs” of His continuing commitment such as the new birth and the fruits of the Holy Spirit.

Therefore, contrary to the opinion of our brothers and sisters in charismaticism that we should expect a continuity of the means of personal revelation recorded in the Bible, the biblical and historical record reflects a consistent discontinuity of these means, centered around the monumental and unique event of the implementation of a divine covenant.

Accordingly, in response to the Roman Catholic Church’s demand for miracles to attest the Reformation doctrines, John Calvin answered:

In demanding miracles of us, they act dishonestly for we are not forging some new gospel, but are retaining that very gospel whose truth all the miracles that Jesus Christ and his disciples ever wrought, serve to confirm. ^[18]

Likewise, Benjamin Warfield (1851–1921) comments in his exhaustive study on miracles:

“[Miracle workers] do not appear on the pages of Scripture vagrantly, here, there, and elsewhere indifferently, without assignable reason. They belong to revelation periods, and appear only when God is speaking to His people through [them as] accredited messengers. . . . Their abundant display in the Apostolic Church is the mark of the richness of the Apostolic age in revelation; and when this revelation period closed, the period of miracle working had passed by also. . . . Therefore it is that the miraculous working which is but the sign of God’s revealing power, cannot be expected to continue, and in point of fact does not continue, after the revelation of which it is the accompaniment has been completed. ^[19]

Along the same lines, the influential Baptist theologian Augustus Strong (1836-1921) wrote:

Miracle [working] is the natural accompaniments and attestations of new communications from God. The great epochs of miracles – represented by Moses, the Prophets, the first and second comings of Christ -are coincident with the great epochs of revelation. Miracles serve to draw attention to new truth, and cease when this truth has gained currency and foothold. ^[20]

More recently, Richard B. Gaffin, Professor of Systematic Theology at Westminster has written:

The history of redemption has an epochal character; it moves forward in decisive steps, not in a uniform or smoothly evolutionary fashion. Consequently, in view of the correlation just noted, high points in redemptive history are accompanied by copious outpourings of verbal revelation. . . .

The negative side of this correlation bears particularly on the issue of the canon and its closing. Times of inactivity in the history of redemption are, correlatively, times of silence in the history of revelation. The rebuilding of the temple and the return of the remnant from exile are the last critical developments before the coming of Christ. After that there is a lull; redemptive history pauses until the final surge forward at Christ’s coming. Correspondingly, the ministries of postexilic figures like Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, Ezra, and Nehemiah and the Old Testament books associated with them focus on those events, and then follows, as intertestamental Judaism in part subsequently recognized, a period of revelatory, Prophetic silence, until the time of Christ.

Similarly, after the exaltation of Christ and the founding of the church, there is a pause or delay in the epochal forward movement of redemptive history. Only one event in that history is still future: the return of Christ (with its concomitants). Accordingly, following the contemporaneous outpouring of revelation focused on the first coming of Christ, the history of revelation lapses into silence. Confirming that silence is the disappearance of the apostolate, that Prophetic institution established by Christ specifically to provide revelatory attestation and interpretation of the redemption consummated in his person and work. ^[21]

Likewise, the respected Reformed theologian Sinclair B. Ferguson has written:

The continuationist-restorationist view [e.g. prophetism, super-supernaturalism] does not take sufficient account of the fact that the New Testament itself divides the last days into apostolic and post-apostolic dimensions or periods. There is a foundation-laying period, marked by the ministry of the Apostles and Prophets, and there is a postfoundational, post-apostolic period in view (as Eph. 2:20 implies). It should not surprise us that phenomena occur in the former period which are not designed to continue beyond it, any more than the miracles of Moses, Elijah or Elisha continued to be performed by their gifted successors. . . .

Of course, arguments from silence are slippery; but this broader silence, especially in the Pastoral Letters, which were clearly written to regulate post-apostolic church life, does seem to be eloquent of a shift in orientation which had already taken place from the immediacy of tongues and their interpretation to the teaching of the apostolic tradition (cf. I Tim. 1:10-11; 3:9; 4:6; 6:3; 2 Tim. 1:13; 2:15; 3:10 – 4:5; Tit. 1:9; 2:1). It is particularly noteworthy that the Pastoral Letters do not anticipate the necessity of regulating the exercise of such gifts as prophecy and speaking in tongues. ^[22]

God’s process of revelation has been similar to His process of Creation. At the beginning of Creation, all kinds of supernatural, one-of-a-kind types of things were done. But after Creation was complete, those acts recorded in Genesis 1-2 were no longer needed or repeated. Instead of the initial and more supernatural act of creating a human from dust or a rib, God thereafter created them in a more natural fashion in a womb. Likewise, the implementation of a covenant between God and humanity requires both supernatural revelation and authentication. This is precisely what we see with the inauguration of the Old Covenant through Moses and the New Covenant through Christ and the Apostles.

However, once the covenant has been implemented, and its accompanying revelation recorded in Scripture, these more supernatural means are no longer needed, and divine communication settles into more natural means, like the written record of the supernatural revelation and authentication. Those who insist that we are to expect the revelational and miraculous experiences of Bible characters today are simply ignoring both the purpose and history of Creation and revelation.

Accordingly, the God-ordained process of implementing covenants by providing Scripture gifts of personal revelation and sign gifts of miraculous authentication, all to culminate in the recording of new Scripture, has several applications in contemporary debates over Christian doctrine. More specifically, is mega mysticism correct to claim that we are to be receiving direct divine inspiration for personal, extrabiblical guidance like Prophets, Apostles, and Jesus? Is charismaticism founded on truth or great error when it claims that the Scripture gifts of prophecy and divine knowledge are in operation today? Finally, is super-supernaturalism right in claiming that their churches possess the sign gifts of divine authentication such as healing and miracle working?

Such questions are incredibly important, as their answer determines where the Christian should be looking and listening for divine direction for their life. If God is indeed providing such divine direction apart from the Scriptures, then the Christian would not only be foolish, but sinful not to seek it and obey it. While elsewhere we suggest several biblical, historical, and even scientific reasons why the claims of prophetism, mega mysticism and super-supernaturalism are misplaced, here we will only note the ones applicable to our current subject.

First, while mega mysticism claims direct, divine inspiration for all kinds of purposes other than establishing a new covenant for humanity that is to be inscripturated, the biblical record teaches otherwise. Scripture records that God very rarely ever granted personal revelation to Prophets and Apostles in order to merely guide them in their everyday life. Their divine revelations were for public, covenant-making purposes, not individual ones.

Therefore, when such men are used as examples to support mega mysticism the primary purpose of their divine revelations is ignored. They were God’s unique instruments for the monumental responsibility of covenant making, and therefore uniquely received the kind of direct revelation mega mystics presume, but rarely, if ever can prove. Simply put, mega mysticism would not seem to take the covenant-making desires of God seriously enough. If it was recognized that God’s desire in virtually all personal revelation is covenant-making, instead of micro-managing our lives, the sufficiency of Scripture and the needlessness of mystical revelation would be more evident.

God does not need to tell us whether to be a doctor or dentist, to marry June or Jane, or to live in Spokane or Saskatoon in order to be in a covenant relationship with us. His purposes for personal revelation to His people is much grander than dictating the details of our lives. Rather, God provides it to save us. Accordingly, one of the Church’s greatest authorities on the nature of covenants and revelation, Geerhardus Vos (1862-1949), wrote, “revelation does not stand alone by itself, but is (so far as Special Revelation is concerned) inseparably attached to another activity of God, which we call Redemption.” ^[23] And because covenant-making virtually fulfills His purpose for personal revelation, it rarely, if ever includes mystical revelation. This is why the emphasis of Scripture is covenant revelation, and there are no biblical precedents or promises for mystical revelation. ^[24]

The second application of our view of the relationship between Prophets and Scripture is the claim in charismaticism that the Scripture and sign gifts have resumed after the Church’s universal testimony to their cessation for well over 1500 years. Understanding the purpose of such gifts then, we would need to also assume that God is now implementing a new covenant of salvation because this is what has been demonstrated in both Scripture and history. Of course, God is not doing so and the claim to the resumption of gifts of direct divine revelation and miracle working is unfounded.

Accordingly, these mistaken perspectives unfortunately downgrade the God-ordained high and holy purpose that Scripture and sign gifts were intended to have. They were provided for nothing less than God’s decision to implement and authenticate a new covenant and the false claims to them for other purposes is not only unbiblical, but harmful to the Body of Christ. If modern so-called “prophets” and “miracle workers” possess the same gifts as those who supernaturally revealed and authenticated the covenants recorded in Scripture, then what authoritative superiority do Moses, Christ, and Paul have over them? None, if the modern claims to the same gifts are true. ^[25] Which is something God never intended, but which is the logical conclusion to popular teaching and practices in mega mysticism, prophetism, super-supernaturalism, and charismaticism, resulting in the very devaluation of the authority of Scripture that is too often practiced among them to a significantly greater degree than those holding to the historical understanding of these issues. ^[26]

Pastoral Practices

• As a pastor, you need to decide what you believe and will teach concerning the great debate over extra-biblical revelation in the Church today. Is God providing prophecies and “words of knowledge” today that should be heeded as the Word of God? While you may not agree with the position we take in KOG, we would ask you to carefully study through the points made in this volume supporting the view that these gifts are no longer operating. The issue is simply too critical to not carefully study it.

D) From Individual to Community

It is important in our day to notice that the progression of divine revelation from Christ, Prophets and Apostles, to Scripture, is also a progression from God speaking to individuals privately, to dealing with people in community. In fact, the revelatory history of both the OT and NT reflect this general pattern. In the OT we encounter personal revelation from God through theophanies ^[27] experienced by individuals such as Adam, Noah, and Abraham. These revelations were primarily for the sake of the individuals, because God’s covenants at this time were initially confined primarily to individuals.

However, when God’s plan of redemption expanded to a covenant with a nation, God changed His means of covenant revelation from “private” personal encounters to “public” revelations through Prophets, starting with Moses. Accordingly, we read in Hebrews, “In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the Prophets at many times and in various ways” (1:1). The author does not mention some kind of personal, private revelation to the people, but rather reflects the fact that revelation was through a chosen intermediary. While the Prophets themselves experienced direct, divine revelation, the people in general did not. However, the reason for the Prophet’s divine encounters was for the sake of the people, passing on to them what God had told the Prophet. And the Prophet was to complete the covenant process by ensuring that the covenant revelation he had received privately was recorded publicly.

Often charismatic and mega mystical teachers attempt to describe God’s use of Prophets such as Moses to communicate with His people as a divine mistake or judgment on the people. K. Jentoft notes the error of a popular mega mystical writer, Mark Virkler:

The scripture verse Virkler quotes on the cover of his book Hearing God’s Voice, is “We have heard His voice . . . We have seen this day that God speaks to man.” In fact, the passage in Deut. 5:24-8 [refers to] objective [revelation- not the mystical kind Virkler promotes]. . . .

Virkler’s comment on this passage is:

They didn’t expect that the voice of God would come with the fire of God, and they decided they would rather not have a relationship with Him if He was going to be that way! Instead they chose to send Moses to God as their representative, to let him have the relationship and find out what God wanted them to do.

Virkler’s book claims that the people decided against having a relationship with God when they requested that Moses be the mediator. How could God say, “They have done well in all that they have spoken,” [Deut 5:28] if they were rejecting God as Virkler claims? Obviously God was pleased because He desired to speak to His people through a man as a mediator, and the first official mediator was Moses. ^[28]

Also, in addition to Scripture, God raised up Teachers after Prophets in order to further communicate the written word publicly to the people. Thus, in the OT we see a transition from individuals like Noah, to Prophets like Moses, to Teachers like the Levites and Ezra (cf. Ezra 7:10; Neh 8:7-8), all illustrating a progression in divine revelation from a private, individualistic focus and purpose to a public and communal one.

The same is true of NT revelatory history. We no longer have Apostles and Prophets proclaiming direct divine revelation from God to the people. Rather, we have the record of these revelations and therefore their ministries have ceased, and the ministry of an Apostle like Paul and a Prophet like Agabus was replaced by a Teacher like Timothy (cf. 1 Cor 12:28). Accordingly, the Apostle directs in his last recorded piece of divine revelation to Timothy: “the things [revealed to me by divine revelation and which] you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses, entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others” (2 Tim 2:1-2). The Apostle did not expect Timothy to receive direct, divine revelation for the Church, let alone for himself, but the Apostle constantly pointed him to the written revelation Timothy was to teach from (cf. 1 Tim 4:13; 2 Tim 3:15-4:2).

And even after the NT revelation was written, it was not provided individually for many centuries. The early Church that turned the world upside down, by and large did not possess Bibles. NT scholar Edwin Blum describes the Church’s experience not only from the beginning, a situation that persisted for at least the first 1600 years of Christianity:

Estimates of literacy in the NT period vary from ten to 30 percent of the population. Books and writing materials were expensive. These two factors alone meant that many or most of the early Christians would not be able to read the letters of Paul or other Christian literature. So the early churches often had one person read the text aloud and the rest of the group would listen (see Rev 1:3). It must also be remembered that almost all reading at that time was aloud. Acts 8:30 is a reflection of that practice.

Our modern personal possession of Bibles was not the experience of the many millions of Christians that lived for the first 1600 years of Christianity. This remains true for many millions of Christians today.

Therefore, individualized private divine revelation for merely personal purposes is the exception, rather than the norm in biblical religion. Likewise, from God’s perspective, the pinnacle of divine revelation in the Church age is not the mystical kind directed privately to the individual for their own personal use, but the divine revelation that is directed to and for the community of His people.

This is something we would ask our more mystical brothers and sisters to consider more carefully. It is natural to yearn for personal, private, individualized communication from God, especially if we view this as an important way in which God must demonstrate His love for us. The thought is that surely a God Who cares for us and wants a relationship with us would prioritize personal, individual contact with us. However, God didn’t even communicate the Gospel to us directly, which is the most valuable, vital, and personal revelation imaginable.

Of course there are some very attractive aspects of mega mysticism, but it is in danger of making our pre-Heaven relationship with God what we want it to be, rather than what it is supposed to be by God’s own current design. The revelatory experiences of Christ, Prophets, and Apostles were not intended to tell us how God will interact with us, but rather, to teach us that in Scripture we communally have a direct, divine revelation. While mega mystics are searching for a private, individualized, divine inspiration of God’s will, the Master would rather have a community of His people be united under the biblical, moral, and common sense direction of His ordained authorities. Doing almost any good thing in unity with others is much more God’s plan for us than individual, unique revelations and plans. It is our concern that the popular disregard for biblical unity and human authorities is at least part of the reason that mega mysticism has become so popular itself.

This same unbiblical individualism is what has influenced far too many Christians to neglect the automatic divine guidance that comes from living in community and being committed to meeting the needs found there. This independent spirit has also devalued the great importance God places on getting counsel from others and obeying God-ordained authorities “in everything” (cf. Col 3:20, 22; Eph 5:24) including their mere preferences. ^[29] In other words, we are to experience and “hear” God through others much more than many Christians believe. Consequently, many Christians have forsaken important God-intended means of divine guidance because they require humble interdependence. In addition, because they have forsaken these means of divine guidance, and they crave independence, the mega mystical approach of discovering a direct, personal revelation of a private will has flourished.

We are here reminded of an episode in the life of the Apostle. He relates to the Corinthians:

Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort, ⁴ Who comforts us in all our troubles, so that we can comfort those in any trouble with the comfort we ourselves have received from God. (2 Cor 1:3-4)

Sounds like he had some amazing “quiet time” and private individual experience with God doesn’t it? But we believe careful study reveals otherwise. First, Paul goes into more detail about his “troubles” when he writes:

We do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about the hardships we suffered in the province of Asia. We were under great pressure, far beyond our ability to endure, so that we despaired even of life. (2 Cor 1:8)

Of this time in Asia, Paul writes:

Now when I went to Troas to preach the Gospel of Christ and found that the Lord had opened a door for me, ¹³ I still had no peace of mind, because I did not find my brother Titus there. So I said good-by to them and went on to Macedonia. (2 Cor 2:12-13)

Notice that the Apostle’s distress was so great that he left a place where he had found “the Lord had opened a door for” him “to preach the Gospel.” And why could he not find any “peace of mind” there? “Because I did not find my brother Titus there.” Shouldn’t the presence of God been enough to comfort the Apostle and enable him to do ministry? Apparently not.

On leaving “Troas” and going “on to Macedonia” the Apostle writes:

For when we came into Macedonia, this body of ours [still] had no rest, but we were harassed at every turn—conflicts on the outside, fears within. ⁶ But God, who comforts the downcast, comforted us by the coming of Titus, ⁷ and not only by his coming but also by the comfort you had given him. He told us about your longing for me, your deep sorrow, your ardent concern for me, so that my joy was greater than ever. (2 Cor 7:5-7)

What enabled the Apostle to go from despairing “even of life” (1:8) to “joy . . . greater than ever”? A private revelation from God? An ecstatic, emotional experience when alone with God? No. The presence, love, and encouragement of another human being. And this is precisely why he, a human being, could give the same comfort to the Corinthians. ^[30]

God created us to need one another. He does not want a personal, private relationship with Him to be enough, not even for the Apostle Paul. Authentic Christianity is to be lived out in community. In fact, there are few things in American Christianity more opposed to Authentic Christianity than its deeply ingrained individualism. Our relationship with God is thought to be primarily a private matter, just between us and Him.

For example, while private prayer is primarily thought of, taught, and emphasized, the Scriptures also emphasize communal prayer, with Jesus Himself instructing us to pray together, addressing God as “Our Father,” and asking Him together to “give us,” “forgive us” and “lead us,” (Matt 6:9-13) all of which is communal language (cf. Matt 18:19-20; Acts 1:12-14; 2:42; 4:23-31; 12:5; Col 1:9; 4:12-12; 2 Thess 1:11; 1 Tim 2:8). Likewise, today, personal quiet times and individual Bible study are emphasized as being as important as the collective hearing of the preached word of God, a perspective that would lack any substantial biblical precedent or support. ^[31]

In fact, apart from texts concerning our salvation, there is a much greater emphasis in Scripture on our personal relationships with people, than on an intimate, private relationship with God. In our individualistic private culture do not miss the importance of that fact. When the King said the greatest commandment was to love God, He immediately added the identical ^[32] command to love others (cf. Matt 22:36-40; cf. Matt 25:31-46; 1 John 4:19-21). The greatest commandment is not to love God, but rather to love God and people. This is because we are greatly limited in being able to love God apart from loving people. Not even our love for God is as personal and direct as we would like, for the primary way to love Him is to love a person.

This is why there are over 100 “one another” commands in the NT. Likewise, we would estimate that 90% of the commands in the NT require community to even obey. A lone Christian cannot obey any of them, not even just between “them and God.” Accordingly, mystics and monks can be quite sinful in their lifestyle, rather than the holy people they have been traditionally thought to be.

Likewise, the Apostle Peter made it clear that we humble ourselves in our relationship with God by humbling ourselves before people (cf. 1 Pet 5:5-6). In fact, a relationship with God that is merely upward, is in reality inward and ultimately selfish. Loving God directly the mystical way is often a much easier, if not artificial, kind of love than that required to love people. Unlike pagan mysticism in general, biblical Christianity on this side of Heaven is not only, or perhaps even primarily about a personal, experiential intimacy with God, but is equally and inseparably about our relationships with His image bearers and children.

Accordingly, in contrast to American individualism, the Scriptures reveal that God often views and deals with us in a more communal manner. Therefore, it offends our American individualism when we read: “[T]he sons of Israel [collectively] acted unfaithfully in regard to the things under the ban, for Achan [an individual] . . . took some of the things under the ban, therefore the anger of the LORD burned against [all] the sons of Israel (Josh 7:1). It was not only the Israelites that God treated this way, but He almost exclusively dealt with wicked people as whole nations, not individuals (e.g. Philistines, Edomites, Amorites, etc.). Exceptions like Rahab (cf. Josh 6:17-25) were recorded precisely because her experience was so rare.

This communal dealing with God’s people is not only an OT phenomenon. The communal nature of God’s dealings with His New Covenant people is reflected in the divine revelation recorded to seven local churches in Revelation. First, the King did not speak directly to individuals in these churches, let alone their leaders. Instead, He revealed His messages to the Apostle John, who was then to write and send His revelation to the Pastor ^[33] of the church (cf. Rev 2:1), who in turn would communicate it to the gathered congregation. That is a conspicuously indirect route for Christ to take in order to speak with these churches. Too indirect for mega mystics to appreciate.

Secondly, the Lord consistently addressed His people in the churches as homogeneous groups, rather than individuals. For example, He speaks as if all the members of the Ephesian church could be commended for perseverance and reproved for waning love (cf. Rev 2:1-7). Perhaps there were people in the Ephesian church who did not reflect either of these descriptions. Yet no matter, Christ saw them as a body, inseparably linked to one another, such that He could stereotype them. Such was the case with all of these churches such that whatever Christ wanted to say to these believers, He could say it to them all and He had no need to provide individual revelation. God does not view us simply as individuals, but as inseparably connected to one another, such that our relationship with others directly affects our relationship with God (cf. Matt 5:23-4; 6:12-14). God Himself lives in a Trinity of community, and not merely as individuals.

This distinctly indirect and communal nature of divine revelation is reflected in how the New Covenant and Christianity itself was founded. God did not, nor ever has, directly revealed the Gospel to the vast majority of His people as He did to the Apostles (cf. Gal 1:12-13). Accordingly, the Apostle John writes:

That which was from the beginning, which we [Apostles] have [personally] heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched-this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life appeared; we [Apostles] have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son, Jesus Christ. We write this to make our joy complete. This is the message we have heard from Him and declare to you. (1 John 1:1-5)

Notice that the Apostle is celebrating the fact that we can have fellowship with Christ and complete our joy through the indirect relationship provided through the Apostolate. He does not apologize for being an intermediary, nor suggest that something more personal and direct is available to the believers he is writing to. Commenting on the Apostle’s description of the indirect and communal nature of divine revelation in the current Church age, the great Dutch theologian Abraham Kuyper (1837–1920) wrote:

The Apostle’s reasoning is as transparent as glass. Life was manifested in such a way that it could be seen and handled . . . They who saw and handled it were the Apostles; and they were also to declare this life unto the elect. By this declaration, the required fellowship between the elect and the apostolate is established and in consequence of this, there is fellowship also for the elect with the Father and the Son. . . .

[E]very child of God must exercise communion with the Father and the Son through the apostolate. . . . [T]his is St. John’s positive claim. . . Only when these things are clear to the soul, the glorious word of Christ, “Father, I pray not for them alone, but for them, also which shall believe on Me through their word,” will be well understood. ^[34]

We should not only affirm, but rejoice in the Christ-like authority that the revelatory Apostles and their writings have, because they are our only link to hearing everything Christ would have us believe and obey. Perhaps we have over-emphasized the “friendship” nature of our relationship with Christ (cf. John 15:15) which would imply continual, personal, individual communication. On the other hand, when we remember that Christ is the King, and we are His subjects, perhaps the God-ordained method of generally communicating to us through representatives will be more acceptable. Regardless, the communal nature of divine revelation is biblical, primary, and increasingly disparaged in American Christianity.

Evidently, individualism is not just American, but it was Corinthian as well, as revealed in 1 Corinthians 12-14. In 12:7 the Apostle Paul teaches them that any and every “manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good,” and this certainly included any and all divine revelations. He goes on to remind them that God views Christians as, “one body [of] Christ,” being “all baptized by one Spirit into one body,” regardless of their individual characteristics (12:12-13). To the individualist’s claim to the body of believers, “I don’t need you!” (12:21), the Apostle replies that “God has combined the members of the body . . . so that there should be no division in the body” (12:24-25). The body of Christ is to reflect the human body to such a degree that, “if one part suffers, every part suffers with it” (12:26).

It seems unlikely that the Apostle could conceive of God habitually granting revelation to just an individual, which was not also intended to be of value to the body. This is precisely why he insists throughout 1 Corinthians 14 that any private revelations are to be made public, because the Apostle assumes that any revelations that may come from God to individuals will not be intended for only private use, but for the community (cf. 1 Cor 14:5, 13, 26-28).

We are not saying that such individual, direct, private revelation cannot happen. We believe even in our times God has personally revealed Himself to individuals through visions, for example. ^[35] But these occurrences are extremely rare and there is a biblical bias against it because of the communal nature of God and divine revelation.

God does not value individualized, private, divine communication like independent humans do because He yearns for community. Contrary to the core values of mega mysticism, God would have us living in unity around Scripture and the direction of His ordained authorities in the local church, rather than giving us independent revelations for personal direction. Therefore, He is not likely to very often provide the type of private, direct, personalized revelation that so many seek, but which would promote the very independence that is harmful to our soul, and which God is so opposed to. In fact, because of the particularly independent nature of Americans, we are probably the most unlikely recipients of mega mystical revelation.

Another illustration of the communal rather than individualistic nature of divine revelation concerns the popular topic of divine guidance. While Scripture emphasizes humbly seeking the counsel of flesh and blood people (cf. Prov 11:14; 12:15; 15:22; 19:20; 20:18), and submitting ourselves to the desires and preferences of the God-ordained authorities in our life (cf. Rom 13:1-5; Eph 5:21-24; 6:1-2, 5-8; 1 Pet 5:6), ^[36] mega mysticism in particular emphasizes the value and expectation of getting our direction directly from God. In fact, it is often emphasized that one should seek extrabiblical direction directly from God first and foremost, compared to getting direction from other people God has placed in our lives for this very purpose.

We are reminded here of the familiar parable about the man who expected God to save him from flood waters in a miraculous and direct way. After refusing help from a number of mere people, he drowned and discovered that God had expected him to be rescued by people. There is no doubt that in American Christianity the individualistic mega mystical means of divine guidance is much more “center stage” than seeking counsel and submission to authorities, and it could not be clearer that the biblical emphasis is exactly the opposite.

Consequently, too many American Christians believe the biblical virtue of being “dependent on God” can be primarily fulfilled in their own private relationship with God without a biblical dependence on others. And that is precisely what happens when we allow a culture that so highly values individualism and independence to pervert our understanding of Authentic Christianity. As a result, God’s intended means of personal revelation such as Scripture and public teaching are devalued and distracted from by so called “prophets,” private revelations, and even private Bible study.

It is perhaps because the primary communal nature of divine revelation has been so lost in our day, that modern, confident, and articulate statements regarding it are rare. Thankfully, we are not confined to only contemporary theology and can be instructed by our predecessors. Accordingly, Dr. Warfield wrote:

It might, indeed, be a priori conceivable that God should deal with men atomistically, and reveal Himself and His will to each individual, throughout the whole course of history, in the penetralium of his own consciousness. This is the mystic’s dream. It has not, however, been God’s way. He has chosen rather to deal with the race in its entirety, and to give to this race His complete [written] revelation of Himself in an organic whole.

And when this historic process of organic revelation had reached its completeness, and when the whole knowledge of God designed for the saving health of the world had been incorporated into the living body of the world’s thought-there remained, of course, no further revelation to be made, and there has been accordingly no further revelation made.

God the Holy Spirit has made it His subsequent work, not to introduce new and unneeded revelations into the world, but to diffuse this one complete revelation throughout the world and to bring mankind into the saving knowledge of it. ^[37]

More succinctly, and with some exaggeration, Dr. Warfield wrote elsewhere: “We may be mystics, or we may be Christians. We cannot be both,” ^[38] again, reflecting the communal nature of divine revelation. Likewise, the entire history of divine revelation overwhelmingly supports the perspective of Warfield’s counterpart in Europe, Dr Kuyper, when he wrote:

To speak plainly, there is no inspiration which goes out directly from God to the consciousness of every one of the elect separately, and offers the same content to all, one by one; on the contrary, there is one central revelation given for all, and it is from this central revelation that every elect one is to draw for himself his knowledge of God.

Public charity may provide each poor man a sum of money with which to buy provisions for himself, or may spread in a hall a common table from which all poor people may be fed. And thus it might be conceived that God should give to every sinner whom He chose a special light in the soul, an individual inspiration in his consciousness, and that every one should have enough of this for himself. This is what the mystics of every sort affirm.

But such has not been the will of God. God the Lord has spread one table for His entire Church, has given one organically connected revelation for all, and it is from this one revelation designed for all, and which neither repeats nor continues itself, that the churches of all places and times, and in those churches every child of God, has to draw his knowledge of the Eternal Being. And the witness of this one central revelation which neither repeats nor continues itself, lies for us in the Holy Scripture. ^[39]

Pastoral Practices

• Perhaps you should evaluate your own teaching and practice in your church regarding whether or not there is an unbiblical emphasis on an individual, private relationship with God, and a neglect of the community that God desires. Small group ministries are perhaps the best way to cultivate the latter, and there is probably no other way to consistently obey the over 100 “one another” commands in the NT. Those who are not committed to a small group of fellow Christians may be typical of American Christians, but they are not Authentic Christians.

E) From Spiritual Childhood to Adulthood

We would suggest that the Old and New Covenants, and the divine revelation contained in them, reveal a progression of how God desires to interact with His people, treating those in the former primarily as beloved, but immature children, and those in the latter more like empowered adults. Accordingly, God says through the Prophet Jeremiah:

The time is coming . . . when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand [like little children] to lead them out of Egypt. . . . This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time,” declares the LORD. “I will put My law in their minds and write it on their hearts. (Jer 31:31-33; cf. Deut 1:30-31; Hos 11:1-3)

Here, God would seem to describe the Old Covenant as one of spiritual childhood in which He took His people “by the hand” and gave them direction for each step they were to take. However, by putting His moral will in our hearts through regeneration in the New Covenant, we can now live like empowered spiritual adults.

The Apostle Paul likewise describes the Old Covenant as one of spiritual childhood, and the New Covenant as one of adult freedom. He writes in Galatians:

[B]efore faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. Therefore the Law has become our tutor [paidagōgos: lit. “a trainer of boys”] to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith.  ²⁵ But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. . . . Now I say, as long as the heir is a child [nepios: lit. “one who does not speak”], he does not differ at all from a slave although he is owner of everything, but he is under guardians and managers until the date set by the father. (Gal 3:23-5, 4:1-2 NASB)

In ancient Greece little children were placed under the care of a mature slave in the wealthier families. Day in and day out they told the child what to do, and children had little, if any freedom to make their own decisions on anything. It is this confinement of childhood that the Apostle uses as an analogy of the Law of Moses, which dictated direction for virtually every area of Jewish life. However, with the New Covenant, salvation by “faith has come [and] we are no longer under a tutor” (3:25) as a small child. As William Barclay (1907–1978) interpreted the Apostle here, “The childhood which belonged to the law should now be passed; the freedom of manhood has come.” ^[40]

This progression from spiritual childhood to adulthood is also reflected in the progression from written law in the Old Covenant to the indwelling of the Spirit in the New. As Jeremiah had promised: “This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time,” declares the LORD. “I will put My law in their minds and write it on their hearts” (Jer 31:33). There is a significant change in the locus of revelation being described here-from the written word in a book to the indwelling of a Person Who was the Author of that book. The Apostle speaks of this when he writes:

But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code. (Rom 7:6; cf. 2 Cor 3:6)

NT scholar F. F. Bruce (1910–1990) comments:

Paul views his pre-Christian life as an observant Jew as a life of submission to an external code. But now the Spirit supplies from within that regulative principle which once the law, and that imperfectly, supplied from without. ^[41]

Indeed, we could ask, what more commands do we need than the fruits of the Spirit listed in Galatians 5:22-23? ^[42]

This progression from spiritual childhood to empowered adulthood in the divine revelation provided in the respective covenants will be illustrated in three ways in chapter 7.6 regarding guiding revelation. First, there is a drastic decrease in the amount and specificity of divine commands between the covenants. In the OT God’s revelation dictates direction for virtually every aspect of His people’s lives. In the NT, however, not only do the number of commands drastically decrease, but they are much less specific. Accordingly, while the Law of Moses included hundreds of specific instructions, the Law of Christ can essentially be summed up in the command to love God and others (cf. Matt 7:12; Gal 6:2; Rom 13:8-10; 1 Cor 9:21).

This progression is also illustrated in two other ways, also discussed in chapter 7.6. Not only is there a decrease in the specificity and quantity of divine commands between the covenants, but there is also a significant increase in the difficulty or quality of those commands. For example, the Sermon on the Mount especially reveals that God is not interested in simply outward obedience to specific laws like the Pharisees practiced. Rather, with the New Covenant, God is looking for a spiritual transformation where obedience is the internal nature of His people. Therefore, because of the spiritual regeneration that comes with the New Covenant, loving those who love you is not enough, but one is also now expected to love their enemies (cf. Matt 5:43-47). This too reflects a spiritual maturity between the covenants.

Thirdly, there is an increase in the doctrinal revelation between the covenants. Even a cursory reading of the Bible reflects the fact that the majority of the OT is direction, while a much higher percentage of the NT is doctrine. The OT focuses on what God wanted His people to do. The NT more on what He wants them to believe. This is, again, partly because the commands have been simplified to loving God and people. This too reflects a transition from spiritual childhood to adulthood in that, naturally speaking, as children get older, they not only need to know what to do, but why they are to do it. In God’s desire to treat His New Covenant people more like adults, He has revealed a good deal more doctrine in the NT. It is the doctrines that reveal the divine purpose of divine commands and this knowledge is also a reflection of spiritual maturity.

This obvious desire on God’s part to progress from a covenant of spiritual childhood in the OT to one of spiritual adulthood in the NT, corrects a great deal of theology on the topic of divine revelation. For example, mega mysticism promotes the idea that God desires to micromanage our lives like small children, giving us detailed, extrabiblical guidance about virtually every aspect of our life. It is children, both spiritually and physically speaking, that need to be told everything. Those with more maturity know what their Father wants. While mega mysticism suggests that it is the more mature Christian who will experience a continual “conversation” with God, we would respectfully suggest it may be a more immature Christian who would need one. Accordingly, the renowned OT scholar Bruce Waltke writes:

God wants you to love Him. . . . Christians . . . are willing to try to follow a specific pattern of behavior [set] out for them, but the abstract concept of “loving God” is harder to grasp. Consequently, they are leery of someone telling them to, in the words of Calvin, “love God and do what you please.” They would prefer that someone tell them exactly what to do. That’s why they resort to divination [seeking signs, and certain feelings] to seek God’s will.

That, however, is an immature way of living in Christ. If you will spend time with Him in His Word and if you will talk with Him in prayer each day, you will soon develop what Paul calls “the mind of Christ.” As you learn to love Him, He will conform the desires of your heart to match His desires. Then there will no longer be a question of seeking His will so much as a desire to please Him. ^[43]

Likewise, Gary Friesen reminds us that mega mystical teaching about an extra-biblical will of God can actually put us in spiritual bondage to a law like the OT saints:

Does the wise father guide his child by formulating a plan that covers every detail of the child’s life and then revealing that plan step-by-step as each decision must be made? Of course not. The father who is truly wise teaches his child the basic principles of life. He teaches what is right and wrong, what is wise over against what is foolish. He then seeks to train the child to make his own decisions making proper use of those correct guidelines.

Such a father is overjoyed when he knows that the child has matured to the point where he is able to function independently as an adult, making wise decisions on the basis of principles learned in his youth. The grown-up son or daughter is thereby prepared to live in the real world and make responsible choices with respect to mate, vocation, and the other decisions of life. . . . .

The other [biblical] images indicate a similar pattern. The good shepherd sets boundaries for his sheep, but allows freedom of movement within those boundaries. He establishes limits for the safety of the sheep, but does not use his staff to point out which specific tuft of grass ought to be eaten by which animal. . . .

In the progress of His revelation, God moved from a structured system of regulations governing a wide range of specific behaviors to a system where behavior is to be determined by principles and governed by personal relationship. There was progress from law to Christ; from the bondage of close, restrictive supervision appropriate to immature and willful children to the freedom of responsible adulthood. One profound consequence of the coming of Christ is the believer’s liberation from the Mosaic Law. . . .

[I]f a particular decision is not addressed by God’s commands, and one’s goals and attitudes are right, then one cannot sin with regard to the decision in itself. For instance, the Bible says nothing about where a student ought to go to college. So that student’s choice of a school cannot in itself be sinful. ^[44]

Pastoral Practices

• Do we treat the Christians in our church like children, trying to legalistically dictate many of the decisions that God would leave up to their preferences? Do we simply preach the command to love and let people decide how to live that out? Do we foster and promote mega mysticism because we do not believe in the God-ordained sufficiency of the command to love?

F) From Faith to Sight

While the earthly life of Christ was the ultimate revelation of God in the past, and the indwelling Spirit and Scripture is such for the present, there is still to come a revelation of God that will surpass all of these. Our present interaction with God through the Scriptures and Spirit requires faith. We cannot see the God we are experiencing on a daily basis. Indeed, the Apostle Peter said, “Though you have not seen Him, you love Him; and even though you do not see Him now, you believe in Him and are filled with an inexpressible and glorious joy,” (1 Pet 1:8). Likewise, the Apostle Paul said of the Christian, “we live by faith, not by sight.”

Living by faith in our relationship with God essentially means that God does not directly reveal Himself to our physical senses. We do not see Him, hear Him, nor can touch Him. As we have discussed thoroughly elsewhere, biblical faith depends on evidence and reasons for sure, but just not the kind that comes through direct contact with our physical senses. ^[45]

Admittedly, not all of God’s people have had to live completely by such faith. Adam & Eve heard the Creator walking and talking (cf. Gen 3:8-13). Moses saw His backside (Exod 33:11, 23). The Prophets Isaiah and Ezekiel “saw the Lord” (cf. Isa 6:1; Ezek 1:1). The Apostle Paul saw Heaven (2 Cor 12:1-4). Even so, Christ and the Apostle John tell us that no one has seen God, not even the Twelve Apostles (cf. John 6:46; John 1:18; 1 John 4:12). ^[46] This is because even in Christ, God the Son was contained in human flesh.

This was in part what Martin Luther (1483–1546) was referring to when he referred to God as the dues abscondus, the “hidden God.” While God the Son was concealed in a man, God Himself “lives in unapproachable light” (1 Tim 6:16). All of this was what the Prophet Isaiah spoke of when he exclaimed, “Truly you are a God who hides Himself, O God and Savior of Israel” (Isa 45:15). Like any person, it is simply God’s prerogative to reveal and conceal of Himself what He chooses, and He certainly has not revealed as much as He could. While we might revel in all of the amazing revelation that God has provided of Himself, we recognize its limitations.

It is limited, first of all, because God desires to do so. We read, “It is the glory of God to conceal a matter” (Prov 25:2). So while we have made the point that divine revelation glorifies God, so does divine concealment. Secondly, divine revelation is limited because we are limited. None of the methods of divine revelation currently available to us are sufficient to enable finite beings to completely know their infinite Creator. We read in Job: “How great is God–beyond our understanding! The number of His years is past finding out” (36:26). The Apostle Paul says the same when he exclaims:

Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable His judgments, and His paths beyond tracing out! Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been His counselor?” (Rom 11:33-4).

Still, what God has revealed of His word, ways, works, and will, we can, and are expected to understand and believe. Moses expresses this balance when he says: “The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law” (Deut 29:29) and experience an obedient, God-pleasing relationship with Him.

Not only is our mental capacity incapable of embracing a full revelation of God, but so is our physiology. God told Moses, “You cannot see My face, for no one may see Me and live” (Exod 33:20). Our flesh and blood bodies are simply not able to see God anymore than we are able to look at the sun. Only when we receive our spiritual bodies will we be able to truly see His face.

Finally, perhaps the most important reason that the best and clearest divine revelation we currently have is a book, is because of the great value God places on faith. Why wouldn’t God just give us glimpses of Him or Heaven? Because of how much faith without sight pleases and glorifies Him.

The fact is, God is not as real to us as we would like Him to be. Not even to the most spiritual and godly Christians. This is because faith is never as real as sight. Do we doubt for a moment that God was more real to Adam, Moses, and Isaiah than He is to us? It is obvious that no living Christian knows Jesus as personally as the Twelve did. And He was more real and personal to these men for the simple reason that they saw something of His Person with their human senses that very few of God’s people have throughout the Church Age.

It is natural to envy such men, and unfortunately the parade of people today claiming to have seen or heard God as well does not help. Let us admit it. We despise living by faith instead of by sight. We yearn to pierce the veil that God Himself has established between us and Him and interact with Him as we are accustomed to interacting with humans. This is why contemporary Christian music is full of songs that ask God to let us see, hear, and even touch Him. ^[47] Indeed, we envy the Prophets and Apostles who have, and chafe under the obligation that in this life, “we live by faith, not by sight” (2 Cor 5:7).

It is natural for us as humans to desire the intimacy we had with God in the Garden. Adam and Eve did not need to live by faith, but could live by sight and sound. But that was lost. This is now the Age of Faith in which we do not see or hear God. And in the mean time He has given us His Book and prayer. But the Day is coming when the Age of Faith will be over and we will go back to the Garden, experiencing God as we do any other person. But that time is not now.

This is analogous to our desire to be sinless. This too is what Adam and Eve had in the Garden. But it was lost. Which is why we now live in the Age of Grace for the forgiveness of our sins, because in this Age we will always sin. Unfortunately, our “holiness” brothers claim that we can have what Adam and Eve had now- complete sanctification as they call it. No we can’t. This is the Age of sin and therefore the Age of grace. The Age of Perfection comes later.

While desires for Garden of Eden-like intimacy with God and sinlessness are natural and understandable, they are misplaced in the Age we live in and make us vulnerable to pride and deception. In theses Ages of faith and grace it is arrogant to claim a conversational relationship with God and the practical holiness of God. And one who would claim such things has fallen into the hands of the great liar and will be manipulated by him for all sorts of destructive and embarrassing things.

Along these lines, the Dutch Reformed theologian Herman Bavinck wrote regarding the typical mystic’s claim to a sensual (i.e. of the senses, not sexual) relationship with God:

[These] notions can be considered an anticipation of an ideal that will be realized in the future. Nevertheless, they indicate a very dangerous line of thought. They all proceed from a confusion between the present dispensation and that of the hereafter. While the New Jerusalem will no longer need a sun or moon, these two heavenly bodies nevertheless remain necessary here on earth. The fact that we will one day walk by sight does not cancel out the necessity of walking by faith in this dispensation. Although the church militant and the church triumphant are fundamentally one, there is nevertheless a difference between them in position and life in the present. The boundary line cannot and may not be erased. We will never achieve a heavenly life while we are here on earth. We walk by faith, not by sight. ^[48]

 

It is only when we understand how much God is pleased with faith, that we can begin to embrace it. While the time will come when faith will not exist, in this age, “without faith it is impossible to please God” (Heb 11:6). It is only now that we have an opportunity to live by faith. Not even angels or demons live by faith. Only we have the awesome opportunity and privilege to live by faith and not by sight, hearing, or touch in our relationship with God. While we might envy the very few in human history who have seen or heard more of God’s Person than we, we are reminded that the King told such people, “Because you have seen Me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed” (John 20:29).

Our present interaction with God through the Scriptures and Spirit requires faith. A God of the senses and a God of faith are incompatible. We cannot see, hear, or touch the God we love, serve, adore, and would die for. And that is precisely how He wants it. . . for now. Of course God is our Father Who knows and cares for our life, the King is our friend Who will always be with us to the end of the Age of Faith, and the Holy Spirit lives inside of us, but God intends all of these relationships to preserve the need for faith. Therefore, God Himself will rarely, if ever, reveal Himself personally in a voice, vision, etc.

Indeed, the Apostle Peter said, “Though you have not seen Him, you love Him; and even though you do not see Him now, you believe in Him and are filled with an inexpressible and glorious joy” (1 Pet 1:8). It is important to notice that the Apostle assumed that none of the multitudes of believers that he was writing to in his day had ever seen or heard Jesus. While many are claiming today that such “an inexpressible and glorious joy” could only come from a personal sensory encounter with God, the Apostle says it can occur simply through faith. The Apostle invites us to experience “an inexpressible and glorious joy” without seeing, hearing, or feeling Christ, and in the process we maintain the right to claim we are still living by God-pleasing faith, not sight.

It is this very “faith” that the Apostle says is “of greater worth than gold,” must “be proved genuine,” and will “result in praise, glory, and honor when Jesus Christ is [actually] revealed” (v. 7). This is good news for the vast majority of God’s people throughout human history who, being just as sincere, sacrificial, and spiritual as any others, have not encountered God with their human senses.

The promotion of mega mysticism, super-supernaturalism, and charismaticism in the Church today is in danger of being a rebellion against God’s desire for us to live by faith instead of sight. The mantra within these theological camps is to live by sight or feeling, not by faith. This is why emotional impressions and impulses, dreams, and mere coincidences or natural occurrences are quickly interpreted as the direct inspiration or hand of God, because it makes God seem more real. The popular charismatic author Jack Deere is quite typical of this perspective when he says:

[T]here is something very wrong in our relationship with God when we do not see, hear, and feel from him, and yet leave our “time with him” feeling satisfied. . . . In order to fulfill God’s highest purpose for our lives we must be able to hear His voice both in the written word and in the Word freshly spoken from heaven. ^[49]

On the contrary, there would be “something very wrong in our relationship with God” if we did “see, hear, and feel” Him in the Age of Faith we live in. That is not the stuff that God-pleasing faith is made of. We would forfeit the one brief, exclusive opportunity we have to live by faith now. ^[50]

For all of the great “faith” claimed in mega mysticism, super-supernaturalism, and charismaticism, their doctrine and practice encourage us to experience God with our senses, the very opposite of faith. Consequently, they, and those who would follow them, are in danger of being among those who have the least faith.

What did the Apostle say? “Though you have not seen Him, you love Him; and even though you do not see Him now, you believe in Him and are filled with an inexpressible and glorious joy” (1 Pet. 1:8). The Apostle seems squarely at odds with much of American Christianity, and it is time for God’s people to decide if they will seek the God of the senses through visions, voices, miracles, impulses, and mere feelings, or the God of faith.

One mega mystical author has written:

You can’t build a relationship [with God] on one-way speeches [like Scripture and prayer]. You need frequent, sustained, intimate contact between two persons, both of whom speak and both of whom listen. ^[51]

Here again is that effort to make God more human, and make our current relationship with Him more like Heaven. Some of the language used, and claims made, by modern mystics make it difficult for them to explain just how our relationship with Christ will be different in Heaven. They speak as if the coming kind of personal, conversational, “sight and sound” relationship is already available. Are all Christians to expect what Moses experienced in hearing and seeing God? If not, than mega mysticism is left with just “feeling” God, or extrabiblical, amoral impulses that they cannot verify. ^[52] And we had better be able to have a God-pleasing relationship with the King without an ongoing conversation with Him because most, if not all Christians will truly never have one until Heaven.

Our mega mystical brothers and sisters need to be reminded that when:

the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to Him, “Teacher, we want to see a miraculous sign from You.” He answered, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign!” ^[53]

And yet Christians are commonly encouraged to seek a “miraculous sign” of God’s love, working, or guidance.

God decides what we need to see, hear, and feel in order to have the necessary evidence to believe what He wants us to believe, and therefore, many in the Church today need to be a lot more content with the revelation He has already provided. Isn’t “faith . . . being certain of what we do not see” (Heb. 11:1)? And isn’t this the faith that without which “it is impossible to please God” (v. 6)? In this day where experience is exalted over faith we need to be reminded that God likes it when we see, hear, and feel nothing, but still believe, trust, obey, and adore Him.

We do not wish to imply that biblical characters who experienced miraculous revelation, or those who might do so today, are automatically any less people of faith. Abraham, for example, experienced a great deal of miraculous revelation but is known as a man of great faith. However, such people rarely, if ever, were seeking such revelation. God just does it. It is those who are seeking, depending on, and constantly presuming miraculous revelation that we fear have lost the value that God places on faith.

We naturally are like “some Greeks” who told the Apostle Philip, “we would like to see Jesus” (John 12:21)! We would love to have a conversation with God! But we will not simply ignore the fact that there are no biblical promises or normative precedent for such a thing, that it has not been the experience of the vast majority of the most spiritual, godly, and influential Christians throughout Church history, that such unverifiable claims are open to a great deal of self-presumption, that those who claim such things are no more holy, loving, or fruitful than those who do not, that Scripture and our New Nature are very sufficient means of divine revelation, and we are not in heaven yet! As another writer has put it, “This road of our earthly pilgrimage is headed for a reunion [and revelation] that cannot be rushed.” ^[54] All of these things are constantly ignored by the unbiblical revelatory isms in our day.

Here we are reminded of something Alexander Mackie wrote many years ago in the conclusion of his study on claims to miraculous events and communication throughout Church history:

Men are eager for the supernatural. The ordinary way of morality as a school for spiritual development is often irksome. The bringing in of the Kingdom of God through patient toil is not an undertaking which commends itself to many minds. Cataclysmic religion is far more interesting. Voices, visions, and miracles are a much more simple and attractive method of solving the problems of life than is to be found along the bare and sometimes unattractive path of duty. The lure of the presence of the supernatural is a will-o’-the-wisp that many minds follow gladly, never stopping to investigate claims or pretensions as to the reality of the supernatural. ^[55]

Because we live in the Age of Faith instead of the coming Age of Sight, we do not know God as we will, nor in the manner we will. But the Age of Faith will end (cf. Rom. 8:24-25, 2 Cor. 4:18, 5:7, Heb. 11:1). While the earthly life of Christ was the ultimate divine revelation of God in the past and the indwelling of the Spirit in our New Nature and the provision of Scripture is such for the present, there is still to come, a revelation of God that will far surpass all of these. Here we must pause and notice how drastically the nature of divine revelation is to change.

For example, because the revelation of God for His glory will be so complete in the Eternal Kingdom, we would suggest that virtually all current modes of divine revelation will cease operating. For example, it can be reasonably assumed that not even Scripture will be needed. The King said that the purpose of His first coming was “not . . . to abolish . . . but to fulfill . . . the Law and the Prophets.” However, when “Heaven and Earth disappear” and “everything is accomplished” in His second coming, “the smallest letter” and “the least stroke of a pen” which currently make up Scripture will “disappear” (Matt 5:17-18). ^[56]

Accordingly, Dr. Kuyper wrote:

With the dawn of the Day of days the Sacred Volume will undoubtedly disappear. As the New Jerusalem will need no sun, moon, or temple, but the Lord God will be its light, so will there be no need of Scripture, for the revelation of God shall reach His elect directly through the unveiled Word. But so long as the Church is on earth, face-to-face communion withheld, and our hearts accessible only by the avenues of this imperfect existence, Scripture must remain the indispensable instrument by which the Triune God prepares men’s souls for higher glory. ^[57]

Imagine the joy we will experience when we truly do see and hear Him and faith is no longer needed! That will be the ultimate revelation of God, not only because of its intensity, but its eternity. This is why the ultimate personal encounter with God will be the day “when He appears . . . because we shall see Him just as He is” (1 John 3:2), and unlike Moses, we “will see His face” (Rev 22:4; cf. Matt 5:8). Job described this future revelation in this way:

I know that my Redeemer lives, and that He will stand upon the earth at last. And after my body has decayed, yet in my body I will see God! I will see Him for myself. Yes, I will see Him with my own eyes. I am overwhelmed at the thought! (Job 19:25-27 NLT)

Yet it is not that we will simply receive an initial appearance of God, and see Him no more. Rather, in a way that would seem to combine the intimacy that the Twelve enjoyed with Christ personally, with the universality that we enjoy now through the Holy Spirit, all of God’s people will experience an intimate, personal, relationship with God when the Kingdom is fully established on earth, and it can be said: “Now the dwelling of God is with men, and He will live with them. They will be His people, and God Himself will be with them and be their God” (Rev 21:3; cp. Zech 2:10-11). That is when we will be “at home with the Lord” (2 Cor 5:8) living with Him so we can see His glory (cf. John 17:24). While God certainly lives with His people now in a spiritual way through the indwelling of the Spirit, He will then live with us in a “physical” way, as we will dwell in His very presence.

Even though we do not see, hear, live with, and eat with God now, we will in Heaven (cf. Rev 19:9). The revelation of God, and the glory it was to accomplish, will be so complete that even such great virtues as faith and hope will vanish right along with the old earth, sky, and stars (cf. Rom. 8:24-25, 2 Cor. 4:18, 5:7, Heb. 11:1). We will no longer need faith and hope because the second coming of Christ will terminate the Age of Faith and inaugurate the eternal Age of Sight.

Pastoral Practices

• There would seem to be several important perspectives here that should be taught to our people. The nature and importance of faith, the lack of real faith in some denominations that intimidate others by claiming the opposite, and the great hope of the revelation to come, would all be examples.

Extras & Endnotes

Devotion to Dad

Our Father in Heaven, we embrace the opportunity we have during this short life to live by faith instead of sight. While we eagerly await that time that we will see You with our eyes, we know we are privileged to be the only creatures living by faith, and rejoice in how much it pleases you to do so. Help us to avoid the popular yearning to make our relationship with You more direct than it really is, and to be content to live by faith now.

 

Gauging Your Grasp

1. What is God’s pattern for implementing a covenant? How have we applied this to mega mysticism?
2. Why do we suggest that American individualism affects the kind of divine revelation we expect from God? What biblical support do we give for a more communal understanding of how divine revelation works? Do you agree or disagree with these perspectives?
3. Why do we suggest that people have abandoned biblical means of guidance such as teaching, counsel, etc., and crave a direct, private revelation from God?
4. We state: “Apart from our salvation, there is a much greater emphasis in Scripture on our personal relationships with people, than on an intimate, private relationship with God.” Why do you think this is true? What does this have to say about the modern emphasis on our private relationship with God?
5. What is the meaning of Abraham Kuyper’s statement: “[E]very child of God must exercise communion with the Father and the Son through the apostolate. . . . [T]his is St. John’s positive claim.” Particularly in our mega mystical age, what is the significance of such a statement?
6. What do we claim is the most important reason that the best and clearest divine revelation we currently have is a book?
7. Why does God want us to live by faith instead of our physical senses in our relationship with Him now?
8. How does the emphasis on living by faith in God instead of what we physically see, hear, or feel of Him related to modern debates regarding divine revelation?

Publications & Particulars

1. While personal revelation certainly has a greater effect on the interpretation of universal, B. B. Warfield adds:

   Each is incomplete without the other. 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 further revelation of this great God’s intervention in the world for the salvation of sinners could not be either intelligible, credible or operative. B. B. Warfield, “The Biblical Idea of Revelation,” in Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, ed. Samuel G. Craig (Presbyterian and Reformed, 1948), 24. ↑

2. Norman Gulley, Systematic Theology: Prolegomena (Andrews University, 2003), 230. ↑

3. Rene, Pache, The Inspiration and Authority of Scripture, (Moody, 1969), 11. ↑

4. Edwards, I.109. ↑

5. In his classic study of the relationship between the divine covenants and the biblical testaments, the OT scholar Meredith Kline (1922-2007) wrote:

   Our traditional designations “Old Testament” and “New Testament” have been all the while more precisely appropriate than we have realized. According to the common understanding this nomenclature merely reflects the close association of the biblical books with the history of the covenants, or it provides a very succinct table of contents of the Bible. But “testament,” or “covenant,” denotes more than a prominent element in the contents of the Bible. The documents which combine to form the Bible are in their very nature-a legal sort of nature, it turns out-covenantal. In short, the Bible is the old and the new covenants. (The Structure of Biblical Authority [Eerdmans, 1972], 74-5) ↑

6. For further discussion of natural theology see section 2.12.B and 7.4.C.6. ↑

7. For further discussion of universalism see section 6.10.A-B. ↑

8. The anonymous teacher quoted above also has written along these lines:

   The herald of a divine dispensation must have proof to offer that he does come from God, and such proof as pledges the divine attributes to the truth of his teaching. This is the reason why the Old Testament dispensation was one of signs. On special occasions justifying the divine interference, and in the persons of its great teachers, the Prophets, supernatural proof was given in two ways of God’s presence with his messengers in a manner superior to and beyond his ordinary and providential presence in the affairs of life. The divine omniscience was pledged to the truth of their words by the prediction of future events and his omnipotence by their working things beyond the ordinary range of nature. The two Old Testament proofs of a revelation were prophecy and miracle. We can think of no others, and nothing less would suffice. ↑

9. See much of Books 8-12 for the biblical and historical validation of the cessation of the Scripture and Sign gifts. ↑

10. Jonathan Edwards, quoted in, The Rational Biblical Theology of Jonathan Edwards John Gerstner, 3 vols. (Berea, 1991), I.160 ↑

11. Carl F. H. Henry, God, Revelation and Authority, 6 vols. (Word, 1979), 4:276. ↑

12. For an introduction on the difference between direct divine miracles and delegated human miracle working see section 10.1.D. ↑

13. While we would claim there will be no other divine/human covenants other than those already communicated in Scripture, Geerhardus Vos suggested:

    There lies only one epoch in the future when we may expect objective-central redemption to be resumed, viz., at the Second Coming of Christ. At this time there will take place great redemptive acts concerning the world and the people collectively. These will add to the volume of truth we now possess (5-6). ↑

14. Robert Reymond, What About Continuing Revelations And Miracles In The Presbyterian Church Today?: A Study Of The Doctrine Of The Sufficiency Of Scripture (Presbyterian & Reformed, 1977), 413. ↑

15. We believe the cessation of the Scripture and sign gifts is expressly taught by Paul in 1 Corinthians 13:8-13 and proven in history. See chapters 8.5-6. ↑

16. Reymond, 408-9. ↑

17. William Sanday, Inspiration (Longmans, Green & Co., 1903), 333-4. ↑

18. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, in The Comprehensive John Calvin Collection, CD-ROM, (Ages Software, 1998), Prefatory Address. ↑

19. Warfield, 25-27. Notice Dr. Warfield’s specific mention of “miracle working”. Charismatic teachers such as Jack Deere routinely misrepresent Dr. Warfield as saying that miracles occurred only during periods of revelation. This would of course be easy to disprove, but that is not what Dr. Warfield believed and his teaching remains convincing in spite of recent attempts to answer his Historicist arguments. It could be said, however, that Dr. Warfield could have been more careful to speak more consistently of “miracle workers” rather than “miracles” in his classic study Counterfeit Miracles. For further discussion of Dr. Warfield’s approach see section 11.7.D and endnotes. ↑

20. Augustus H. Strong, Systematic Theology, 3 Vols. (Judson, 1907, 1953), 128. ↑

21. Robert B. Gaffin, “The New Testament as Canon” in Inerrancy & Hermeneutic, ed. Harvey Conn (Baker, 1988), 178. ↑

22. Sinclair B. Ferguson, The Holy Spirit (Intervarsity, 1996), 229-31. ↑

23. Vos, 5-6. The following is a more complete statement by Vos on the relationship between covenant making and revelation:

    [Special revelation] has not completed itself in one exhaustive act, but unfolded itself in a long series of successive acts. In the abstract, it might conceivably have been otherwise. But as a matter of fact this could not be, because revelation does not stand alone by itself, but is (so far as Special Revelation is concerned) inseparably attached to another activity of God, which we call Redemption.

    Now redemption could not be otherwise than historically successive, because it addresses itself to the generations of mankind coming into existence in the course of history. Revelation is the interpretation of redemption; it must, therefore, unfold itself in installments as redemption does. (Ibid). ↑

24. For further biblical arguments regarding the popular claim that God is constantly providing extra-biblical revelation for the purpose of decision making see Book 14. ↑

25. Of course many in charismaticism attempt to redefine the biblical Scripture and sign gifts into something less authoritative and miraculous then they were in Scripture so that they match the diminished forms they are claimed to have today. The classic example of this is Wayne Grudem’s redefinition of the gift of prophecy, claiming NT and OT prophecy were different, with the latter being the less authoritative and miraculously authenticated kind practiced today (cf. chapter 9.4). This in spite of the NT example of Agabus who spoke directly for God and perfectly predicted the future twice (cf. Acts 11:27-8; 21:10ff). ↑

26. For further discussion of the downgrading of biblical authority resulting from super-supernaturalism’s claim to the sign gifts see section 11.3.B. ↑

27. Theophanies are appearances of God in human or angelic form. For further discussion see section 10.9.C. ↑

28. K. Jentoft, Hearing God’s Voice – Guaranteed” Critical Issues Commentary, #105, 2008, 5. ↑

29. For further discussion on the enormous amount of divine revelation God has ordained to come through human authorities see chapter 7.14. ↑

30. Older commentators seemed reluctant to notice the communal nature of Christian encouragement in 2 Corinthians including Chrysostom, Homilies on Second Corinthians, I.3; Calvin, Hodge, and Barnes (all at http://www.ccel.org). More recently, C. K. Barrett does not discuss this at all (The Second Epistle to the Corinthians [Hendrickson, 1973], 60-61)

    However, more recently, Colin Kruse has written: “in [2 Cor] 7:5ff, where Paul describes the events immediately preceding the writing of this letter, he speaks of the release from anxiety experienced when Titus joined him in Macedonia” (2 Corinthians [Eerdmans, 1987, repr. 1997], 60).

    Likewise, Paul Barnett writes regarding the source and nature of the comfort Paul received:

    God comforted Paul by Titus, who had been comforted by the Corinthians (7:6-7), enabling Paul in turn (by means of these words in this letter) to comfort the Corinthians—and indeed members of other churches—with the comfort of God. . . . Thus God’s “comfort” comes full circle among his people. . . .

    The closeness and reciprocity of fellowship within, and between, congregations as expressed here by Paul is rather pointed, given the Corinthians’ coolness to him at that time. It also calls into question the individualism of modern Christianity and the sense of remoteness within and among many contemporary churches. (The Second Epistle to the Corinthians [Eerdmans, 1997], 73; cf. Kruse,

    Nonetheless, Dr. Barnett adds:

    How does God comfort his people? Although the later reference [regarding Titus, 7:5ff] reveals God’s use of human intermediaries (7:6-7), in this verse there is no hint of such mediation. The exercise of “comfort” appears as a charisma, a concrete manifestation of the grace of God, a divine intervention. (Ibid.).

    In our opinion, Dr. Barnett should have stopped commenting when he pointed out the mediation of Titus. We believe we have demonstrated that this is the comfort Paul is referring to, and Dr. Barnett’s assumption that Paul is speaking of a private, exclusive experience with God is unwarranted and erodes the points he made previously. ↑

31. Perhaps it could be argued that the communal reception of divine revelation was valued in biblical times above the individual private kind because of the lack of printed Scriptures. However, would we claim that in such places as China, where Christians have traditionally only had the preached word (based on rare copies of Scripture), rather than the written word, that their Christianity is somehow less vital than that of American Christians who typically own multiple Bibles? ↑

32. The word the King uses to compare the two commands is omois which means “equal.” Accordingly, W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison remark:

    “A second is like it” is purely numerical, that is, second in the order given but not second in importance; and [omois] here means, as BAGD, s.v., puts it, ‘equally great or important, equal to’. Hence the following commandment is ‘in no way less important’ than the first: both qualify as ‘the greatest’ imperative (cf. 7.12). Their equality reflects their unity. (The Gospel According to St. Matthew [T & T Clark, 1988-1997], III:243)

    The idea that the commands to love God and people are identical would seem strengthened by other factors as well. First, the King was asked for only one commandment, the greatest, but He gave both because only together are they the greatest. Secondly, Mark records the King as adding, “There is no commandment greater than these” (Mark 12:31), again reflecting their identical nature. As NT scholar R. T. France puts it, “Neither is to be raised above the other; each depends on the other for its true force. (Matthew, TNTC [Eerdmans, 1985, repr. 1999], 320. ↑

33. Understandably, there is a great deal of discussion on what aggelō refers to here. In our opinion, the best interpretation is that it refers to the Pastors/Teachers who would be leaders over these congregations.

    In ancient Greek, aggelos simply meant “messenger” and could equally refer to human or angelic (divine or demonic) messengers (cf. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Early Christian Literature (BAGD), F. W. Danker ed., 3^rd ed. [University Of Chicago Press, 2001]). While it is most often used to refer to God’s angels in Scripture, several times it refers to human messengers (cf. Matt 11:10, Mark 1:2; Luke 7:24, 27; 9:52; James 2:25; in LXX Gen 32:3, 6; Hag 1:13; Mal 2:7; 3:1). Accordingly, in the context of someone who was to give a message to a local church, “angel” doesn’t fit, but the Pastor of the church would. In support of our view, John MacArthur writes:

    Angeloi (angels) is the common New Testament word for angels, leading some interpreters reasonably to conclude that angels are in view in this passage. But the New Testament nowhere teaches that angels are involved in the leadership of the church. Angels do not sin and thus have no need to repent, as the messengers, along with the congregations they represented, are exhorted to do (cf. 2:4–5, 14, 20; 3:1–3, 15, 17, 19).

    Dr. Robert L. Thomas notes a further difficulty with this view: “It presumes that Christ is sending a message to heavenly beings through John, an earthly agent, so that it may reach earthly churches through angelic representatives” (Revelation 1–7: An Exegetical Commentary [Moody, 1992], 117).

    Therefore, angeloi is better rendered “messengers,” as in Luke 7:24; 9:52; and James 2:25. Some suggest that these messengers were representatives from each of the seven churches who came to visit John on Patmos and take the book of Revelation back with them. But since Christ is said to hold them in His right hand, they were more likely leading elders and pastors (though not the sole leaders, since the New Testament teaches a plurality of elders), one from each of the seven churches. (MacArthur’s New Testament Commentaries [Findex.com])

    See extended discussion by Albert Barnes at Rev 1:20 (online at http://www.ccel.org ) to support our translation. See also, William Hendriksen, More Than Conquerors (Baker, 1967), 58.

    Leon Morris and F. F. Bruce oddly lean toward the aggelō as meaning the general spirit of the church (cf. Leon Morris, Revelation [Eerdmans, 1987, repr. 1996], 56-57; F. F. Bruce, The Book of Revelation [Eerdmans, 1977], 63).

    G. E. Ladd is wrong to assume that aggelō must be translated “angel” (A Commentary on The Revelation of John [Eerdmans, 1972], 35). Michael Wilcock claims there are “many difficulties” with understanding the messengers of the churches as the church leaders, but does not describe what his perceived difficulties with this view are (The Message of Revelation [Intervarsity, 1975], Rev 1:20). G. K. Beale is strongly in favor of translating aggelō here as an angel and even going so far as to suggest the angel of a church is held accountable by God for the condition of the church. Again, these commentators do not value enough the number of times aggelō refers to human messengers in both the NT and ancient Greek literature. ↑

34. Abraham Kuyper, The Work of the Holy Spirit, tran. Henri De Vries, (Eerdmans, 1946), 144. ↑

35. For what we believe are acceptable examples of God speaking to an individual in a personal miraculous way through a vision see section 10.11.A.4. ↑

36. For further discussion of human authorities as a vital source of divine revelation see chapter 7.14. ↑

37. B. B. Warfield, Counterfeit Miracles (Banner of Truth Trust, 1972), 26. ↑

38. Abraham Kuyper, Studies in Theology (Oxford, 1932), 666. ↑

39. Abraham Kuyper, Principles of Sacred Theology (Eerdmans, 1953), 359-60. ↑

40. William Barclay, The Letters to the Galatians and the Ephesians (Westminster, 1976), 35. ↑

41. F. F. Bruce, Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free, 139. ↑

42. For further discussion on the divine revelation of the indwelling Spirit see chapter 7.12. ↑

43. Bruce K. Waltke, Finding the Will of God: A Pagan Notion? (Eerdmans, 1995), 89-90. ↑

44. Gary Friesen and John Maxon, Decision Making and the Will of God (Multnomah, 2004), 85-6, 117. ↑

45. For further discussion of the fact that biblical faith rests on evidence and reason see chapters 6.12-14. ↑

46. For further discussion regarding the apparent contradiction in the fact that Isaiah “saw the Lord” (Isa 6:1) and Christ’s statement that “no one has seen God,” (John 6:46) see 10.10.B and endnotes. ↑

47. Speaking of the exaggerated intimacy present today in Christian worship, David McLeod of Emmaus Bible College writes in a review of Jack Deere’s Surprised by the Power of the Spirit:

    [Jack] Deere’s discussion of “passion” for Jesus sounds a lot like the “eros piety” confronted by Anders Nygren. Eros piety, found in Greek religion, Gnosticism, and the mystery religions expresses “an appetite, a yearning desire for God which seeks Him in order to satisfy the believer’s spiritual hunger by the [physical and sensual] possession and enjoyment of the divine perfections.”

    It is seen in many choruses, which are almost romantic in quality. The agape love of the NT is not “a longing and striving after something that man lacks and needs but a response of gratitude for something freely and bountifully given.” It is a wholehearted surrender to God, whereby the believer becomes God’s willing slave, content to be at His disposal, having full trust and confidence in Him.

    Sensitivity and humility are needed in evaluating [modern] spiritual life teaching. I would point out, however, that the NT does not use the kind of quasi-romantic expressions that Deere uses (i.e., falling in love with Jesus). Nor does it promise the kind of immediacy of contact that he hungers for. I would suggest that we all need to remember that heaven and the kingdom come later (Acts 14:22). Today we live by faith and not by sight. (Emmaus Journal, “Surprised by the Power of the Spirit: A Review Article” 10:1, (Summer 2001), 146). ↑

48. Herman Bavinck, Prolegomena, Church Dogmatics Vol. 1 (Baker, 2003), 473. ↑

49. Jack Deere, Surprised by the Voice of God (Zondervan, 1996), 291-2. ↑

50. Along these lines, Chrysostom (c. 347–407) wrote of the nature and value of faith:

    When then Christ shall come and all the angels with Him, and be manifested as God, and all things made subject unto Him; will not even the Greek believe? It is quite plain that he will also fall down and worship, and confess Him God, though his stubbornness exceed all reckoning. For who, at sight of the heavens opened and Him coming upon the clouds, and all the congregation of the powers above spread around Him, and rivers of fire coming on, and all standing by and trembling, will not fall down before Him, and believe Him God?

    Tell me, then; shall that adoration and knowledge be accounted unto the Greek for faith? No, on no account. And why not? Because this is not faith. For necessity hath done this, and the evidence of the things seen, and it is not of choice, but by the vastness of the spectacle the powers of the mind are dragged along. It follows that by how much the more evident and overpowering the course of events, by so much is the part of faith abridged. For this reason miracles are not done now.

    And that this is the truth, hear what He saith unto Thomas (St. John xx. 29.) “Blessed are they who have not seen, and yet have believed.” Therefore, in proportion to the evidence wherewith the miracle is set forth is the reward of faith lessened. So that if now also miracles were wrought, the same thing would ensue. (Homily on 1 Corinthians, 7.5; online at http://www.ccel.org ↑

51. Reference unavailable, which may be a fortunate thing for the author. ↑

52. For further discussion of the unbiblical nature of mega mysticism see the forthcoming Book 2.8. ↑

53. Collin Brown says in his entry under “Miracle” in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: “The demand for conclusive signs is [condemned] (Mt. 12:39; 16:4; cf. Lk. 11:16, 29; Jn. 4:48; 1 Cor. 1:22). Such a demand is indicative of a refusal to respond to what has been already revealed” (Geoffrey W. Bromiley, ed., 4 vols. [Eerdmans, 1988], III:371). ↑

54. Reference unavailable to our regret. ↑

55. Alexander Mackie, The Gift of Tongues: A Study in the Pathological Aspects of Christianity (Doran, 1921), 258. ↑

56. The fact that the mode of Scripture may cease in the coming eternal age does not mean that its contents become obsolete. On the contrary, many of its commands, teaching, and promises are eternal. Accordingly, we read in Psalms: “Long ago I learned from your statutes that you established them to last forever” (119:152; cf. 119:111). Likewise, the King said, “Heaven and Earth will pass away, but My words will never pass away” (Matt 24:35). Finally, the Lord promised:

    As for Me, this is My covenant with them,” says the LORD. “My Spirit, Who is on you, and My words that I have put in your mouth will not depart from your mouth, or from the mouths of your children, or from the mouths of their descendants from this time on and forever,” says the LORD. (Isa 59:21)

    Therefore, while the authority and efficacy of this biblical revelation remains, Scripture as a mode of divine revelation need not remain. Which is precisely what Isaiah is prophesying when he describes the covenant revelation being put in the people’s mouths. ↑

57. Kuyper, 60. ↑