Table Of ContentOUPCORRECTEDPROOF–FINAL,14/6/2016,SPi
REVELATION
OUPCORRECTEDPROOF–FINAL,14/6/2016,SPi
OUPCORRECTEDPROOF–FINAL,14/6/2016,SPi
Revelation
Towards a Christian Interpretation
’
of God s Self-revelation
in Jesus Christ
’
GERALD O COLLINS, SJ
1
OUPCORRECTEDPROOF–FINAL,23/6/2016,SPi
3
GreatClarendonStreet,Oxford,OX26DP,
UnitedKingdom
OxfordUniversityPressisadepartmentoftheUniversityofOxford.
ItfurtherstheUniversity’sobjectiveofexcellenceinresearch,scholarship,
andeducationbypublishingworldwide.Oxfordisaregisteredtrademarkof
OxfordUniversityPressintheUKandincertainothercountries
©GeraldO’Collins,SJ2016
Themoralrightsoftheauthorhavebeenasserted
FirstEditionpublishedin2016
Impression:1
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,storedin
aretrievalsystem,ortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans,withoutthe
priorpermissioninwritingofOxfordUniversityPress,orasexpresslypermitted
bylaw,bylicenceorundertermsagreedwiththeappropriatereprographics
rightsorganization.Enquiriesconcerningreproductionoutsidethescopeofthe
aboveshouldbesenttotheRightsDepartment,OxfordUniversityPress,atthe
addressabove
Youmustnotcirculatethisworkinanyotherform
andyoumustimposethissameconditiononanyacquirer
PublishedintheUnitedStatesofAmericabyOxfordUniversityPress
198MadisonAvenue,NewYork,NY10016,UnitedStatesofAmerica
BritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationData
Dataavailable
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2016935482
ISBN 978–0–19–878420–3
PrintedinGreatBritainby
ClaysLtd,StIvesplc
OUPCORRECTEDPROOF–FINAL,14/6/2016,SPi
Preface
Since faith is the human response to divine revelation, the classical
account of theology as ‘faith seeking understanding’ should be
expanded. Theology is ‘faith in the divine self-revelation in Christ
seekingunderstanding’.Thismakesitclearhowrevelationisacentral
question for Christian theologians. A well considered theology of
God’sself-revelationinChristshouldproveaforceofgravityholding
togethereverythingthatfollowsinsuchparticularsectionsasChrist-
ology,thedoctrineoftheTrinity,andecclesiology.
Withoutanadequateviewofrevelationasanorganizingprinciple,
specific areas of theology will fly off uncontrollably or else collapse
into each other. Witness, for example, the endemic tendency to
identify divine revelation with biblical inspiration and what it pro-
duces, the Sacred Scriptures. We return below to the need to distin-
guish firmly between revelation, on the one hand, and biblical
inspirationandthecanonicalScriptures,ontheother.
Up to the late 1980s, many notable contributions to a Christian
theologyofrevelationhadcomefromsuchscholarsasHansUrsvon
Balthasar, Karl Barth, Rudolf Bultmann, Avery Dulles, Romano
Guardini,RenéLatourelle,H.RichardNiebuhr,WolfhartPannenberg,
Karl Rahner, Paul Ricoeur, and Paul Tillich. Even early in the twen-
tiethcenturyErnstTroeltschcouldspeakofan‘inflation’intheories
of revelation. Since 1988, the year von Balthasar died, the more
interesting reflections on revelation have been largely confined to
such collections of essays as those edited by Paul Avis (1997) and
by Ingolf Dalferth with Michael Rodgers (2014), and to entries in
dictionaries and handbooks, like the Dictionary of Fundamental
Theology (ed. Latourelle and Rino Fisichella, 1994) and the (five-
part)entryonrevelationinvolume25oftheTheologischeRealenzy-
lopädie(1995).
Sometimes the theme of revelation is simply left out in the cold.
TheOxfordHandbookofTheologyandModernEuropeanThoughtof
2013(ed.NicholasAdams,GeorgePattison,andGrahamWard)runs
to over 700 pages, includes chapters on atonement, the Bible, incar-
nation,andtradition,butnochapterondivinerevelation,andmakes
onlyafewpassingreferencestorevelation.TheRoutledgeHandbook
OUPCORRECTEDPROOF–FINAL,14/6/2016,SPi
vi Preface
ofContemporaryPhilosophyofReligionof2015(ed.GrahamOppy),a
work of nearly 500 pages, contains no chapter on revelation and
makes only four, brief references to it. Even more startling is the
silence about revelation in Henry Bettenson’s Documents of the
Christian Church (4th edn, 2011). Surely the doctrine and practice
of the Church should be anchored in God’s self-revelation in Jesus
Christ? But, while quoting ten pages from seven documents of the
Second Vatican Council (1962–65), the new editor of Bettenson’s
work,ChrisMaunder,drawsnothingfromDeiVerbum,theDogmatic
ConstitutiononDivineRevelation.
Some theologians fondly imagine that we are now in the age of
post-foundationalism. That involves neglecting the study of revela-
tion.Itisaneminentlyfoundationalissue.Othertheologians,prefer-
ring the somewhat equivalent language of ‘the Word of God’, have
quietly dropped ‘revelation’. Thus in Beloved Community: Critical
Dogmatics after Christendom (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans), a
2015workofnearly1,000pages,PaulHinlickyattendsto‘theWord
ofGod’.Hisindexcontainsnotasinglereferenceto‘revelation’.
Those (relatively few) authors, like William Abraham, David
Brown, Colin Gunton, John Haught, and Richard Swinburne, who,
sincethelate1980s,havesetthemselvestointerpretdivinerevelation
within the story of Judaism and Christianity, despite their helpful
insights and judgements, have sometimes left me dissatisfied, as we
willseelaterinthisbook.MatthewLevering’sEngagingtheDoctrine
ofRevelation(GrandRapids,Mich.:BakerAcademic,2014)hasbeen
a happy exception. But he focuses not so much on the divine self-
revelation in Jesus Christ and its essential characteristics, but on the
Church’sfaithfulmediationoftherevelationand,inthatcontext,on
theinspirationandtruthofScripture.
Letmementionthreequestionsthatthelimitedrecentliteratureon
revelationthrowsopen.
First,shouldwedescribeJesusChristasthefinalaccesstothetruth
about God? Surely, if we follow the lead of John’s Gospel, he is not
merely the final access to the truth, but is the Truth (upper case) of
God in person?Secondly,the self-revelationof Christ inGod comes
in the course of history. Canweagree with thosewhomaintain that
historical research will never lead beyond an account of possibilities
and probabilities? This background view ignores the way historians
reach genuine certainties about ancient matters such as the achieve-
mentsofJuliusCaesarandhisdeathin44BC.Asregardsthehistorical
OUPCORRECTEDPROOF–FINAL,14/6/2016,SPi
Preface vii
origins of Christianity, convergent evidence often supplies not only
highprobabilitiesbutalsogenuinecertainties.ThusIjudgeithistor-
icallycertainthatJesusofNazarethdiedbycrucifixionaroundAD30.
Thirdly,contemporaryauthorssometimestolerateacertainfuzziness
thatwould,moreorless,identifyrevelationwithbiblicalinspiration.
Tobesure,theyarerelated,butidentifyingthem,asweshallsee,isa
falsemovethatcreatesconfusion.
My dissatisfaction with contemporary writing on revelation
extends also to a notable gap. Many scholars who have written on
thetheologyofreligionshavededicatedmuchattentiontothesalva-
tion for those who follow ‘other’ religious faiths or none at all. But
they have engaged themselves far less with the question of divine
revelation reaching these others. Yet can salvation ever be available
foranyoneoranygroupwithoutapriororaconcomitantrevelation?
IfChrististheLifeoftheworld,heisalsotheLightoftheworld.
Allthisdissatisfactionmademeask:howwouldIexpressthedivine
self-revelation in and through Jesus Christ (and also the revelation
available for ‘the others’)? What questions should be posed and
answeredinconstructingacoherenttheologyofrevelation?
To begin with, such a theology needs to clarify what revelation
meanspersonally(orprimarily)andpropositionally(orsecondarily),
thusenablingfaithinChristtobeexpressedinwaysthatcorrespond
to the articles of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed and the
Apostles’ Creed (Chapter1). Secondly, the self-revelation of God is
afreeactoflove,andhence‘supernatural’asanunmeritedgiftfrom
God. Yet, far from taking away the mystery of God, revelation
enhancesit(Chapter2).Thirdly,acceptedrevelationbringssalvation,
andwithoutor‘outside’revelationtherecanbenosalvation(or‘extra
revelationemnullasalus’)(Chapter3).Thenweneedtoexaminethe
‘sacramental’ character of God’s self-revelation as communicated
through deeds and words (Chapter4) and the endlessly various
meansandmediatorsofrevelation(Chapter5).
Chapter6developsthethemeofdivinerevelationhappeningonly
when it is received in human faith. An inner working of the Holy
Spirit and their own graced predisposition enable human beings to
acceptinfaiththedivineself-revelation.Yetthereisnoself-revelation
of God without some concomitant revelation of those receiving it
infaith.
Chapter7 takes up the question: is there evidence that can make
the recognition of divine revelation a reasonable decision? Does
OUPCORRECTEDPROOF–FINAL,14/6/2016,SPi
viii Preface
revelation jeopardize human freedom? Chapter8 will distinguish
foundational revelation (as it happened to the close of the apostolic
age),dependentrevelation(asitcontinuestoday),andfinalrevelation
(asitwillcomeattheendoftime).
A ninth chapter will discuss the relationship between revelation
and tradition. A reality that remains wider than the Bible, tradition
alsoprecededthewritingoftheinspiredtexts.Chapter10willexplore
therelationshipbetweenrevelationandtheinspirationoftheSacred
Scriptures,leavingforChapter11thequestionoftheir‘canonization’
andtruth.
Atwelfthchapterturnstothosewhofollow‘other’livingfaithsor
none at all. It argues that the divine revelation which prompts real
faith must in some way be also available to them. This revelation
dependsuniversallyontherisenChristandhisHolySpirit.Thebook
closes with an epilogue that draws together the conclusions of the
wholestudyofrevelation.
TheoutlineindicateshowthisbookexaminesthemesforaChristian
theology of revelation, rather than the history of reflection on revela-
tion.Thehistoryofthedoctrineofrevelationhasalreadybeencapably
expoundedbyothers:aboveall,byHansWaldenfels,DieOffenbarung:
von der Reformation bis zur Gegenwart, Handbuch der Dogmen-
geschichte 1/1b (Freiburg: Herder, 1977), and by Eilert Herms, in
Theologische Realenzylopädie, xxv (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1995),
146–210. I will not ignore what my predecessors and contemporaries
havewritten,attimesenteringintogratefuland criticaldialogue with
them.Butthisbooksetsitselftoarticulateatheologyofrevelation,not
to tell the story of how theologians have interpreted the divine self-
revelation.Itiswrittenoutoftheconvictionthatanadequateaccount
of the divine self-revelation in Christ is the basic glue which holds
togetherallthatfollowsinspecificareasoftheology.Itaimstopresent
aself-consistenttheologicalvisionofthisrevelation.
My PhD thesis presented at the University of Cambridge (1968)
examined ‘The Theology of Revelation in Some Recent Discussion’.
Although remaining as such unpublished, the dissertation yielded
several articles in academic journals. My first book in theology,
Theology and Revelation (Cork: Mercier, 1968), took up squarely
the divine self-revelation in Christ. That theme was subsequently
treated at length in Foundations of Theology (Chicago: Loyola Uni-
versity Press, 1971), Fundamental Theology (Ramsey, NJ: Paulist
Press,1981),RetrievingFundamentalTheology(Mahwah,NJ:Paulist
OUPCORRECTEDPROOF–FINAL,14/6/2016,SPi
Preface ix
Press,1993),andRethinkingFundamentalTheology(Oxford:Oxford
UniversityPress,2011).IhavealsodiscussedGod’sself-revelationin
numerous places—in journal articles, chapters in books, and entries
in encyclopaedias. I now want to revise some positions, pull matters
together, and enlarge into a coherent whole various conclusions
Ihavereachedaboutrevelation.
New material will appear (e.g. evidential considerations in favour
ofrevelationandadiscussionoftheparadoxofGodbeingsimultan-
eously revealed and hidden). Some helpful philosophical language
will be borrowed from Gilbert Ryle and Jean-Luc Marion, and
Iengagewithnew‘debatingpartners’(e.g.WilliamAbraham,Lieven
Boeve,MatthewLevering,andRichardSwinburne).Moresupportfor
positionsonrevelationwillbedrawnfromrecentbiblicalscholarship.
Some previous positions will be modified or dropped: for example,
toomuchinsistenceonthedistinctionbetween‘general’(bettercalled
‘universal’)and‘special’revelation.
Idedicate this work tothose who,in particular ways,have helped
to shape my thought on revelation: Karl Barth, David Braithwaite,
David Brown, Rudolf Bultmann, Caroline Walker Bynum, Sarah
Coakley, Stephen Davis, Avery Dulles, Jacques Dupuis, Gerhard
Ebeling, Rino Fisichella, Hans-Georg Gadamer, Eberhardt Jüngel,
DanielKendall,RobinKoning,RenéLatourelle,PhilipMoller,Jürgen
Moltmann, Christiaan Mostert, H. Richard Niebuhr, Wolfhart
Pannenberg, Pheme Perkins, Karl Rahner, Alfred Singer, Janet Mar-
tinSoskice,MargueriteShuster,EleonoreStump,DenisWhite,Jared
Wicks, N. T. Wright, and Norman Young. When quoting the Bible,
I normallyfollow the NRSV; the translations from the Latintexts of
the Second Vatican Council (1962–5) are my own. As a Christian
IusetheterminologyoftheOldTestamentandNewTestament.Here
‘old’ isunderstood as good and doesnot imply‘supersessionism’,or
theviewthattheNThasrenderedobsoleteandsosupersededtheOT.
AustralianCatholicUniversity
andUniversityofDivinity,
GeraldO’Collins,SJ,AC.
Melbourne
NewYear’sDay2016
