Progressive Revelation is the theological/biblical (and Judaeo-Christian) understanding of the process of God’s increasing self-revelation over time. The only other understandings of divine revelation are a) denial of divine revelation (deists, atheists, pantheists, etc.) or b) some kind of mass-download-ish ‘instant’ revelation.
Categories
9 replies on “progressive revelation”
Would this help explain why the Jews thought they had to sacrifice animals to please God and how that practice gradually faded away as God revealed more of himself? (i.e. he doesn’t really need people to sacrifice animals to him)
Yeah, that’s the understanding of the NT authors (most strikingly the author of Hebrews – saying that “it is impossible that the blood of goats could take away sins”).
However, interestingly, the OT prophets/psalmists questioned the emphasis on sacrifice:
and my personal favourite…
(sorry for the flurry of quotes)
So why do you think that God was so insistent on sacrifices in other books of the bible (i.e. Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy)? Or do you think that perhaps there might have been a bit of false attribution going on back then?
That is the question to ask. I think the story of Abraham and Isaac and the halted sacrifice provides a clue. Abraham would have spoken/thought in whatever Semetic or pre-Semetic language he spoke/thought in, and would have breathed the air of pre-monotheism (animism/polytheism/etc.) and normative child/first-born sacrifice. So, then, it was most fitting/proper for God (as opposed to speaking to him in, say, Maori or Spanish – and rather than zapping him with understandings which came centuries later) to reveal himself (and his will/desire) progressively, bit-by-bit, starting with where Abraham was (as opposed to where he wasn’t). So in the story of Abraham and Issac, then we see not only a halting of that particular child-sacrifice, but we also hear God’s ‘Stop!’ to child sacrifice in general.
Having said that, OT experts have long recognised a duality between the pro-temple -and thus pro-sacrifice- books/voices and the anti-temple -and thus anti-sacrifice- books/voices. ((same with pro/anti king books/voices)) The prophets (right up to John the baptist and Jesus, of course) were characteristically ‘anti-temple’ so to speak.
but yeah, ‘false’ (or perhaps I’d prefer ‘fuzzy’) attribution would be a fair assessment I think – and I suppose the New Testament authors agree here.
Yeah I think the OT sacrifices/practices in general were upheld in Judaism not because God required those specific protocols or items (such as blood). But because God was sharing abstract ideas with humanity like holiness, redemption, forgiveness etc.
And because these ideas are abstract, to communicate them you need to speak the ‘language’ or communicate in a significant way, culturally, to the people.
These people had traditions that were culturally significant to them (significant in the way that they accurately communicate ideas/feelings) and God used the language of sacrifice (which was embedded in their culture) to teach them his values, rather than having them adopt a less gory (in our eyes) practice that wasn’t meaningful/significant/communicative/accurate for them.
For instance, if God sent a prophet to set up pews, confessionals, and the eucharist somewhere in the middle east at that time, people wouldn’t have understood, I don’t think. Because its not the cultural language of the people.
Sorry that’s a poor example. I simply mean God wanted to communicate clearly with people and so had to bend to their cultural values, not in order to set up or entirely embrace traditions, but just for them to understand.
Gospel is the story, culture is the language that it is spoken in. Culture varies, so the gospel will appear different, even though it is the same story. But then I guess you must ask whether God’s story can actually transcend through all cultures or will it meet a culture which is so alien that the native story of the gospel and all its references and values are lost in translation.
Thanks Laban,
Totally agree – except for a picky point that ‘holiness, redemption, forgiveness etc.’ are rather ‘down to earth’ things, and not really ‘abstract’ :) Good comment though :)
Both/and abstract/down to earth
!!
:D
I think you have something there :)