This brief article will evaluate the uses and misuses of general revelation in biblical hermeneutics. After defining terms, I will highlight areas in hermeneutics where the use of general revelation can be beneficial, as well as areas where misuse can and does occur. Overall, I’ll argue that a proper understanding of general revelation is indispensable in the determination of its proper use in hermeneutics.

 

The Idea of General Revelation: Toward a Definition

There is a general agreement in theological scholarship that the phrase “general revelation” refers to God’s communication of Himself to all people at all times and places. Although this understanding is generally true, questions about the means and content of this revelation have been raised over time. In their definition of general revelation, Bruce Demarest and Gordon Lewis touch on these issues. According to them, general revelation is “the disclosure of God in nature, in providential history, and in the moral law within the heart, whereby all persons at all times and places gain a rudimentary understanding of the Creator and his moral demands.”[1] In  addition, Demarest explains that general revelation, “mediated through nature, conscience, and  the providential ordering of history, traditionally has been understood as a universal witness  to God’s existence and character.”[2] Thus, general  revelation, which reveals some truths about God, is mediated through these means.

However, as Robert L. Thomas has demonstrated, it is in the aspect of content where the definition needs further elucidation. As he correctly argues, there are four main reasons why this is so. Three deserve brief highlighting here. First, in their attempt to expand the concept of general revelation to include data that “have come to light only recently and have not been available at all times,”[3]  some scholars fail to notice the obvious contradiction: this data has (and still is) not always been available to all people at all places. An example here would be mathematical formulae recently discovered.

“It is therefore contradictory,” writes Thomas, “to posit that double sense to the term ‘general’ when speaking of general revelation because the two senses mutually exclude each other. To be classed as revelation, truth revealed to certain people and not to others would have to be some sort of special revelation.”[4]

The second reason is straightforward: all the key texts that are adduced in support of general revelation (e.g., Ps 19:1–6; Ro 1:19–21 and Ac 14:15, 17), “unite in projecting one grand subject of that revelation: God Himself.”[5]  Thus, efforts  by some theologians to “widen the scope of general revelation to include information or theories  about aspects of creation, man, or anything else besides God do not have support from the Bible, which limits the scope of general revelation to information about God.”  Therefore, this calls for another category of revelation.

Finally, even those who cherish the expansion of the scope of the definition of general revelation must reckon with Paul’s grand assertion in Romans 1:18ff., that men suppress the truth communicated in general revelation. Thus, “[F]or human discoveries to be categorized under the heading of general revelation, those discoveries must be objects of rejection by the non-Christian world, not revelations of truth.”[6] Therefore, “to suggest that discoveries of the secular Western mind are direct results of positive responses to general revelation is to contradict what Scripture says about unregenerate mankind’s response to that revelation.”[7] A different category should be sought for this kind of revelation.

This category is what theologians call common grace. This is God’s common goodness to all humankind (Mt 5:45). As P. E. Hughes explains, to God’s common grace, we can attribute His “continuing care for his creation, as he provides for the needs of his creatures, restrains human society from becoming altogether intolerable and ungovernable, and makes it possible for humankind, though fallen, to live together in generally orderly and cooperative manner, to show mutual forbearance, and to cultivate together the scientific, cultural, and economic pursuits of civilization.”[8]

Common grace, therefore, transcends general revelation, and, in terms of content, accounts for what most term as general revelation. Thomas is correct in pointing out that “common grace and providence do overlap with general revelation to some extent, but the latter in particular also operates beyond the boundaries of general revelation.”[9] Thus, as one evaluates the place of general revelation in hermeneutics, these definitions are helpful as both aspects are prone to good use and misuse.

 

Areas of Misuse of General Revelation and/or Common Grace in Hermeneutics

The misuse of general revelation and common grace in missions tends to be in the form of an exaggerated positive evaluation of non-Christian religions.[10] Although many examples can be brought up, that of the well-known missiologist, Don Richardson, will suffice. In his work titled Eternity in Their Hearts, Richardson argues that, from the beginning, God, through general revelation, has prepared His people to easily accept the gospel when presented by it. In other words, “general revelation has paved the way for the acceptance of special revelation.”[11] To make his case, Richardson, arbitrarily, concocts Melchizedek-Abraham typology. “The thesis of this book,” he writes, “is that Melchizedek stood in the Valley of Shaveh as a figurehead or type of God’s general revelation to mankind, and that Abraham correspondingly represented God’s covenant-based, canon-record- ed special revelation to mankind.”[12] As the reader can see, this arbitrary thesis, which redefines both general and special revelation, raises several questions that point to a missiological misuse of general revelation.

Fellow missiologist Tite Tiénou poignantly raises objections: “Richardson’s novel approach fails to satisfy several important questions, among others, three theological issues and one missiological issue. First, if general revelation is greater than special revelation, why would the latter be necessary? Second, is Melchizedek really a type of general revelation [since both Abraham and Melchizedek received direct revelation from God]? Third, is special revelation limited to canon? Fourth, does not Richardson’s view lead to universalism despite his protests to the contrary?”[13] These are key questions. Although we cannot exhaust our responses here, Tiénou’s conclusion sums up everything that is problematic with the current misuses of general revelation in missions. “Richardson’s Eternity in Their Hearts,” he writes, “is an example of the theological anemia currently plaguing evangelical missiology. In his attempt to generate excitement about the church’s missionary outreach, he (and other missiologists) neglects to grapple with significant theological issues.”[14] We should all heed the warning here.

One more example of this misuse needs to be briefly highlighted in the area of Christianity and science. As John Hannah explains, although interactions between  Christianity and science have been ongoing since the beginning, these took a  significantly sharp turn in the mid-1850s  when major steps were taken to reconcile the Bible’s view of a new earth with  findings in astronomy and geology that “suggested a much older earth.”[15] These reconciliations took the form of these three theories: The Gap theory in Genesis 1, the Day-Age-Day Theory (indefinite periods between the 24-hour creative periods), and the Day-Age theory of indefinite periods.[16] As Hannah explains, “[T]he acceptance of the New Geology among the clergy of New England, which necessitated a reinterpretation of the Genesis account, appears to have been consummated with  no opposition.”[17] This position has continued in many evangelical circles. The reason this is the case is the assumption that science, as an aspect of general revelation and common grace, is neutral. However, as Thomas explains, the need for scientific developments is an indication that scientific conclusions are not necessarily absolute.[18]

Hannah’s conclusion is instructive. “The error of that century of clergyman,” he writes, “was not that science and Scripture are contradictory, but that the 19th-century form of scientific theory (i.e., developmentalism) was as infallible as Scripture.”[19] Current evangelicals would do better to heed this caution. Indeed, the same criticism can legitimately be leveled against Erickson’s evaluation of the idea of a single meaning of the biblical text, based on new theories of psychology. Arguing that the idea of a single meaning advanced  by Hirsh and Kaiser is based on a “pre-twentieth century understanding of  psychology,”[20] Erickson bluntly criticizes it for advancing “as if Freud had  never written.”[21] This is because it rejects “Depth psychology” (the idea that one can communicate something without knowing it, or even without knowing that he is communicating![22] Although much can be said in response, Thomas is correct in pointing out that Erickson’s insistence on fully incorporating the  findings of modern psychology in biblical hermeneutics “produces profound differences in biblical hermeneutics and amounts to significant deviations from a grammatical-historical approach to the Bible.”[23] Thus, we must all beware of this proposed uncritical integration.

 

Good Uses of General Revelation and/or Common Grace in Hermeneutics

Finally, although there are many areas where general revelation and common grace are helpful in hermeneutics, I will just highlight one: linguistics. At the risk of oversimplification, unlike classical philology which is “concerned with isolating particular units within the language, often confined to units no larger than the word (occasionally the sentence), and tracing the history of their development,”[24] linguistics (or discourse analysis), using modern advances in the study of languages, has broadened the corpora of the biblical text that it studied. As Stanley Porter explains, these recent developments in modern linguistics  should force biblical exegetes to “recognize that language is simply not used in  this way, and that study of it, no matter  how much attention it pays to individual parts of the language (and there  is no denying that they are important), must always pay attention to the larger contextual, semantic, and linguistic frameworks in which language is used.”[25] With some caveats, therefore, these linguistic advances are proving to be helpful in biblical hermeneutics. Thus, although the origin of languages in the Bible was a result of God’s punishment upon the builders of the Tower of Babel (Ge 11:1–9), they are still an aspect of God’s grace as they continue to enable people to communicate with one another and hear God’s communication to them. Making good use of them in biblical hermeneutics, there- fore, is an example of a good use of general revelation and common grace.

 

Conclusion

After defining both general revelation and common grace, this article has identified a few areas of misuse and good uses in biblical hermeneutics. The misuses are mainly evident in some aspects of evangelical missions, where the roles and contents of general revelation and common grace are exaggerated, and in areas where an attempted integration of science and the Bible assumes that the latter is objectively neutral. Finally, with some caveats, the recent advances in biblical linguistics are cited as an area of good use of common grace.

 

---

ENDNOTES

[1] Bruce Demarest and Gordon Lewis, Integrative Theology: Knowing Ultimate Reality, the Living God, 3 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1987), 1:61.

[2] Ibid., 14.

[3] Robert L. Thomas, “General Revelation and Biblical Hermeneutics.” The Master’s Seminary Journal 9, no. 1 (1998), 7.

[4] Ibid., 8.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid., 11-12.

[7] Ibid., 12.

[8] P. E. Hughes, “Grace” In Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, edited by Walter A. Elwell, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2001), 520.

[9] Thomas, 13.

[10] D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1996), 25.

[11] Tite Tiénou, “Eternity in Their Hearts?” In Through No Fault of Their Own?: The Fate of Those Who Have Never Heard, William V. Crockett and James G. Sigountos, eds. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1991), 210.

[12] Don Richardson, Eternity in Their Hearts, (Ventura, CA: Regal, 1984), 31.

[13] Tiénou, 211.

[14] Ibid., 215.

[15] John D. Hannah, “Bibliotheca Sacra and Darwinism: An Analysis of the Nineteenth-Century Conflict between Science and Theology.” Grace Theological Journal 4, no. 1 (1983), 42.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Ibid., 43.

[18] Thomas, 16.

[19] Hannah, 58.

[20] Millard J. Erickson, Evangelical Interpretation: Perspectives on Hermeneutical Issues, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1993), 21.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Ibid.

[23] Thomas, 27.

[24] Porter, 85.

[25] Ibid., 89.