We run our website the way we wished the whole internet worked: we provide high quality original content with no ads. We are funded solely by your direct support. Please consider supporting this project.
What is Progressive Revelation?
Some early church theologians argued that God had to relate to his people as spiritual infants, and over time, God’s people developed a capacity to receive clearer revelations of him. Gregory of Nazianzus, who wrote in the fourth century, claimed that God needed to allow aspects of fallen culture to get mixed in with his self-revelation; otherwise they would not have been capable of receiving it. God was acting like a wise physician who needs to blend flavorful juice with his nasty-tasting medicine.
As his people acclimated to the revelation they received, however, God was able to peel away layers of their fallen, culturally-conditioned beliefs and thereby reveal additional layers of truth about himself. This is progressive revelation.
One example of it is found in Gregory’s observation that God first “cut off the idol” from his people, but he “left the sacrifices.” Though we later learn that God doesn’t actually approve of animal sacrifices, God saw that his people at this time were too spiritually immature to abandon this barbaric practice. So, for a period of time, God graciously stooped to take on the appearance of a deity who enjoys, and even demands, the ritualistic killing of animals.
When the Israelites had grown more mature, Gregory argues, God “destroyed sacrifices,” but he “did not forbid circumcision,” though this too was also eventually removed. By taking incremental steps such as these, God grew his people to the point where at least some of them were ready to be freed completely from their past paganism. Gregory sums up the process by saying God “beguiled his people into the Gospel by gradual changes.”
This process culminated with God’s fullest and clearest revelation in Christ.
The proposal I make in Crucifixion of the Warrior God and Cross Vision is saying nothing more than this. I hold that God has always revealed his true character while stooping to accommodate the fallen and culturally conditioned state of his people as much as necessary. In his love, God was willing to allow his people to think of him along the lines of an ANE warrior deity, to the degree this was necessary, in order to progressively influence them to the point where they would be capable of receiving the truth that he is actually radically unlike these violent ANE deities. In this sense, I could agree with Gregory and say that, by making “gradual changes,” God “beguiled” his people “into the Gospel,” wherein it was revealed that God would rather be killed by enemies than to kill enemies.
—Bible, Revelation, Church Fathers
Adapted from Cross Vision, pages 72-74
Category: General
Tags: Cross Vision, Crucifixion of the Warrior God, Revelation
Related Reading
To What Extent is the Old Testament a Sufficient Revelation of God? (podcast)
Greg considers the relationship between the testaments. Episode 548 http://traffic.libsyn.com/askgregboyd/Episode_0548.mp3
Podcast: Has Greg ‘Gone Liberal’ in His Cruciform Hermeneutic?
Greg consoles a disappointed fan and discusses Cruciform Hermeneutics. http://traffic.libsyn.com/askgregboyd/Episode_0365.mp3
Why Are Jesus’s Parables So Violent? (podcast)
Greg pops the hood to offer a helpful tutorial on how parables operate. Episode 609 http://traffic.libsyn.com/askgregboyd/Episode_0609.mp3
Podcast: Can the God of Cruciform Theology Be Considered Ethical?
Divine duplicity? Or Holy Handiwork? Greg considers the imperfections of the Old Testament and considers God’s role therein. http://traffic.libsyn.com/askgregboyd/Episode_0287.mp3
Knowing and Experiencing God
The way we view God is in part conditioned by the state of our minds and hearts. Origen put it this way: “[T]he Holy Spirit addresses our nature in a manner appropriate to its imperfection, only as far as it is capable of listening.”[1] In fact, Origen went so far as to argue that the…
Jesus and the “Eye for an Eye” Command: A Response to Paul Copan (#10)
As I noted in my 9th response to Paul Copan’s critique of Crucifixion of the Warrior God (CWG), Copan argues that Jesus merely repudiated wrong applications of OT laws in his sermon on the mount, not any OT law itself. He thus thinks I’m mistaken when I argue that Jesus placed his own authority above…