베르까우어(G. C. Berkouwer)의 계시관에 대해

 베르까우어의 일반계시론과 특별계시론을 요약한 글(PDF, HTML)입니다.

 * 현재 기준으로 자료를 좀 더 추가하여 한국어로 논문을 써도 좋을 것 같습니다. 베르카우어만의 특징과 이러한 계시관을 갖게된 역사적 정황(Sitz im Leben, 20세기)을 논할만한 때입니다.

 *아주 오래 전(1959년), 베르까우어(네덜란드)가  계시론에 관한 많은 부분을 저술한 이후, '영국'에서 연구된 자료네요!

---

 * 저서 출판 시간표

네덜란드어 제목	날짜	쪽	영어 제목	날짜	쪽
Geloof en Rechtvaardiging	1949	220	Faith and Justification	1952	207
Geloof en Heiliging	1949	222	Faith and Sanctification	1952	193
Geloof en Volharding	1949	215	Faith and Perseverance	1958	256
De Voorzienigheid Gods	1950	336	The Providence of God	1952	280
De Algemene Openbaring	1951	280	General Revelation	1955	336
De Persoon van Christus	1952	334	The Person of Christ	1954	368
Het Werk van Christus	1953	387	The Work of Christ	1965	358
De Sacramenten	1954	407	The Sacraments	1969	304
De Verkiezing Gods	1955	414	Divine Election	1960	336
De Mens het Beeld Gods	1957	416	Man: The Image of God	1962	376
De Zonde I	1958	230	Sin	1971	599
De Zonde II	1960	360
De Wederkomst van Christus I	1961	311	The Return of Christ	1972	477
De Wederkomst van Christus II	1963	282
De Heilige Schrift I	1966	234	Holy Scripture	1975	377
De Heilige Schrift II	1967	463
De Kerk I Eenheid en Katholiciteit	1970	260	The Church	1976	438
De Kerk II Apostoliciteit en Heiligheid	1972	273

---

General and Special Divine Revelation - berkouwer.pdf

0.12MB

 

G.C. Berkouwer, “General and Special Divine Revelation,” Carl F.H. Henry, ed., Revelation and  

the Bible. Contemporary Evangelical Thought. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1958 / London: The Tyndale  

Press, 1959. pp.13-24.  

1

General and Special Divine Revelation  

G.C. Berkouwer  

[p.13]  

Anyone who reflects on divine revelation in the world, and permits himself to review the  

history of the Church and theology, quite naturally encounters a frequently expressed  

differentiation between general and special revelation. This differentiation has played an  

important role in eras of all kinds, and has even precipitated much discussion and strife.  

Quite understandably the question has often arisen whether theology, in pressing this  

distinction, has not gone beyond “what was written,” and whether or not this  

differentiation permits a proper view of the wonder of the one divine revelation.  

I. THE PROBLEM  

Can we distinguish between various types of revelation? If so, do we do justice to God’s  

revelation in its greatness and indestructible unity? Is this perhaps a subtle differentiation  

that can be reached only when the revelation of God has become merely an idea, and we  

are no longer under the overwhelming impression that divine revelation is always special,  

surprising, new and wonderful? Have we perhaps thereby arrived at that stage of  

scholastic thought which in every area distinguished between “general” and “special” and  

that now applies this distinction also to the revelation of God?  

To the question of terminology we must add still others. Must we not acknowledge that  

especially in the last centuries the special revelation of God has been attacked from the  

viewpoint of a much wider general revelation?  

Especially when the so-called “history of religions” school in the second  

[p.14]  

half of the nineteenth century called particular attention to the non-Christian religions, a  

plea was made for general revelation; scholars did not wish to cast aside these religions as  

false religions, but rather, wished to view them in connection with a general revelation of  

God. From this vantage point the so-called absolute character of Christianity was called  

more and more into question. The Christian confession of a special revelation in the  

history of Israel, in the person of Jesus Christ, and in the witness to Jesus Christ (the Holy  

Scriptures), was increasingly criticized from the viewpoint of “general” revelation.  

Thus the concept of a “general” religion arose, corresponding to a “general” revelation; on  

this basis the teachings of the Church were subjected to sharp criticism. Christianity, it  

was argued, set far too many boundaries to God’s revelation by calling it “special” and by  

G.C. Berkouwer, “General and Special Divine Revelation,” Carl F.H. Henry, ed., Revelation and  

the Bible. Contemporary Evangelical Thought. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1958 / London: The Tyndale  

Press, 1959. pp.13-24.  

localizing it. Did not all religions contain elements with hidden indications of a revelation  

of God? Was it still possible to accept the specific of God’s revelation in Israel and in  

Jesus Christ?  

In this manner—as an attack on the Church—the plea was made for a general, universal  

revelation of God in the world. Of course, one can say that in speaking of a general  

revelation, the Church and Christian theology mean something quite different from this  

universalism. But the fact remains that historical circumstances have brought about a  

serious and almost hopeless confusion. And so the question has arisen whether or not  

adequate reason now exists to discontinue speaking longer of a “general” revelation so  

that the term’s meaning will not be misunderstood in the Church and theology.  

There is, finally, still a third problem. Is not the danger evident that via the route of  

general revelation we may find ourselves companion to Roman Catholic theology that has  

always ascribed such great value to the natural knowledge of God? This natural  

knowledge of God, so it was taught, came forth not from the special revelation of God in  

Jesus Christ; rather, it preceded this by way of the natural light of reason, through which it  

was possible to know God. This teaching is found not only in Roman Catholic theology as  

such; it was also declared an infallible doctrine of the Church at the Vatican Council of  

1870, when it was announced that God could be known with certainty from that which  

had been created through the natural light of reason. Over against those currents in the  

nineteenth century Roman Catholic Church, which taught that God could be known only  

through and by a special revelation in Christ, the Council maintained the possibility of a  

true even though incomplete knowledge of God apart from the revelation in Christ.  

Inseparably linked to this teaching was the Roman Catholic doctrine of the proofs for the  

existence of God. This was apparent from the interpretation of the words of 1870 by the  

anti-modernistic oath of 1910 to mean that God not only could be known but indeed could  

be proved by the natural light of reason.  

[p.15]  

These three difficulties (the question of terminology, the modern attack on the  

absoluteness of Christianity, and the natural theology of Rome) furnish good reasons for a  

closer consideration. Is the present situation in which the Church and theology find  

themselves perhaps of such a nature that it would be better to ignore the distinction  

between general and special revelation? Or does this distinction preserve a religious and  

theological necessity, so that we cannot and may not abandon it, but must explain and  

darify it amid and despite the confusion of these days?  

II. NECESSARY CLARIFICATIONS  

Because of the twentieth century situation, it is certainly not necessary to abandon the  

doctrine of general revelation; but to clarify and to guard it against misunderstanding is  

urgent.  

G.C. Berkouwer, “General and Special Divine Revelation,” Carl F.H. Henry, ed., Revelation and  

the Bible. Contemporary Evangelical Thought. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1958 / London: The Tyndale  

Press, 1959. pp.13-24.  

First of all, we must insist that “general” revelation does not and cannot mean an attack  

upon the special revelation in Jesus Christ. The modern interpretation of general  

revelation had led to such an attack. But in so doing it came into direct conflict with the  

holy Scriptures which declare the absoluteness of God’s revelation. The debate over the  

absoluteness of Christianity always recalls those words from John’s Gospel that Christ is  

the way, the truth, and the life (14:6) and that no one comes to the Father but through him.  

In the modern view, Christ himself was not the revelation of God; rather, Christ invited  

decision regarding his teaching. But this teaching is inseparably connected with his  

person: “Blessed is he who is not offended in me” (Matt. 11:6).  

Therefore, neither the Church nor theology can ever speak of general revelation if in so  

doing it fails to do justice to the absoluteness of the revelation of God in Jesus Christ, who  

was “God revealed in the flesh” (I Tim. 3:16). Scripture speaks much too plainly to allow  

such error, for it points us to the great mystery revealed at the end of the ages, which had  

previously remained hidden (Rom. 16:25; Heb. 9:26). Whenever the Church and theology  

speak of general revelation, no shadow whatever must be cast over special revelation.  

Certainly such shadowing has never been the purpose of the Church’s exposition of  

general revelation.  

When the Belgic Confession in Article 2 affirms faith in general revelation, it in no wise  

opposes the absoluteness of God’s revelation in Christ, which this Confession  

emphatically expresses elsewhere. In this harmony of the special and general lies the  

touchstone for any legitimate discussion of general revelation.  

In the second place, it is necessary to clarify the term “general revelation” in order to  

distinguish it from the Roman Catholic idea of natural theology fixed in 1870. It is clear  

that the Christian Church, in speaking of general revelation, never intended to assert that  

true knowledge of God is possible through the natural light of reason.  

[p.16]  

Assuredly, in the time of the Reformation men believed in the general revelation of God,  

but not with the understanding that through this revelation they could arrive at the idea of  

a natural, true knowledge of God. Moreover, the rupture between God’s revelation and the  

human heart was pointed out.  

That Romans 1 is cited in Article 2 of the Belgic Confession is no accident, nor the fact  

that special reference is made to men’s guilt (Rom. 1:20). The purpose of this record was  

to indicate the existence of a revelation of God in all the works of his hands, but that man,  

who comes in daily contact with this revelation, in his unrighteousness wards off this  

truth. This is exactly the import of Romans 1. But this gulf between revelation and true  

knowledge of God does not come to expression at all in the Vatican pronouncement,  

although it too cites Romans 1.  

G.C. Berkouwer, “General and Special Divine Revelation,” Carl F.H. Henry, ed., Revelation and  

the Bible. Contemporary Evangelical Thought. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1958 / London: The Tyndale  

Press, 1959. pp.13-24.  

Right here we reach a central point in the discussion of general revelation. To speak of the  

general revelation of God does not in any respect mean doing less than justice to the  

revelation of God in Jesus Christ. Rather, it emphasizes the guilt and lost condition, the  

darkness and the blindness, of fallen man, who sees the works of God’s hand no more,  

and no longer can discover God therein.  

So also for the Apostle Paul in Romans 1, the idea of the revelation of God “since the  

creation of the world” does not conflict with what he writes of Christ Jesus. Romans 1  

points to the anger of God (v. 18): the light of the gospel shines into the darkness of  

unfaithful human life that holds back the truth in unrighteousness (v. 18), that substitutes  

the image of a perishable man for the majesty of the eternal God (v. 23), and that honors  

and worships the creature above the Creator (v. 25). Because the general revelation of  

God is placed in Romans 1 in this uncontradictable context, it ever remains impossible to  

speak of the general revelation of God without considering also the anger of God (v. 18),  

which condemns man’s suppression of the truth in unrighteousness.  

And herein is established the impossibility of rivalry or competition between the  

confession of the general revelation of God and the special revelation of God in Jesus  

Christ. The confession of God’s revelation in all the works of his hands does not demean  

the revelation in Christ to relative or to lesser importance, but, on the contrary, serves  

rather to point toward that revelation in its saving character amid human estrangement  

from God.  

From all this it also becomes clear that confession of the special revelation of God does  

not make the general revelation superfluous. From Paul’s teaching in Romans 1 on the  

anger of God, and his indication that the heathen will not be held guiltless (v. 20) because  

they suppress the truth in unrighteousness, it is apparent that human life, even in deepest  

depravity, does not stand out of connection with the revelation of God.  

Man is not situated in a silent, purposeless and senseless world in which no voice  

whatever addresses him. Much rather, over against nihilism it must  

[p.17]  

be asserted that human life bears an answering character. Although man is not conscious  

of it, his whole life is a reply, even to the deepest aspects of his religion. This religion is  

not an automatic instinct rising out of the depths of the human heart, but rather, constitutes  

the depraved answer to the revelation of God. In innumerable variations it reveals the  

unrest of the heart, which does not come to rest until it rests in God (St. Augustine).  

From this we can illuminate the fact that Reformation theology called attention to the  

revelation of God in the works of his hands and at the same time confessed the necessity  

of the knowledge of God in Jesus Christ. The reality of general revelation does not lead to  

the knowledge of God, but is misunderstood and denied. It is true that man—sinful and  

fallen man—is still surrounded by the light, but—to speak in the terms of the Canons of  

G.C. Berkouwer, “General and Special Divine Revelation,” Carl F.H. Henry, ed., Revelation and  

the Bible. Contemporary Evangelical Thought. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1958 / London: The Tyndale  

Press, 1959. pp.13-24.  

Dort—this same man pollutes the light of nature and holds it back in unrighteousness  

(Canons of Dort, III, IV, 4). This relationship of holding back and pushing away the truth  

cannot be denied or abandoned. Bound up in the general revelation of God is a fact that  

makes plain and certain how seriously man is estranged from the life of God (Eph. 4:18) :  

Man is... not to be held guiltless.  

When Article 2 of the Belgic Confession asserts this general revelation of God, this does  

not mean a “natural theology” in the sense of Rome. For in this natural theology  

conclusions are drawn from this revelation to the true knowledge of God, whereas for  

Article 2 of the Belgic Confession that is precisely where the problem lies. Over against  

this “true knowledge,” Reformation thought understandably posited the corruption of the  

estrangement, and naturally took a critical stand toward the proofs of the existence of God  

in Roman Catholic theology. These proofs prompted the impression that isolated human  

reason must lead to the conclusion of the existence of God. But such isolation is  

impractical and impossible because man’s thinking exists and functions only in  

relationship to the whole man. In this totality the matter of human decision falls within the  

realm of the heart and of faith.  

It is impossible to deny that the proofs for God’s existence in general have wielded but  

little influence. For they stand—especially in our times—in the shadow of a great many  

“proofs” against the existence of God. That God can be proved as the first cause or prime  

mover of all things finds less agreement these days among modern men. Even in Roman  

Catholic circles some voices say that the Roman Catholic proofs mean little or nothing for  

those who do not already believe. And in our times, in opposition to the proofs for the  

existence of God, a deep agnosticism elaborates the conviction of the absence of God; no  

longer recognizing the world as purposeful, this agnosticism abandons it to senselessness  

and absurdity and sees the existence of man in the world as a meaningless and purposeless  

jest.  

The Church of Jesus Christ does not idealize the world. It is aware of the curse of the Fall  

(Gen. 3:17) and with Paul it knows the creation as subject to vanity and subjugated to the  

temporal (Rom. 8:20 f.). It hesitates  

[p.18]  

to fraternize with every convenient theodicy that tries to justify God’s direction of the  

world to the judgment bar of human reason.  

But at the same time the Church confesses that God maintains and rules the world. Thus  

we confront the fact that it is precisely the believer who becomes conscious once again of  

the universality of the acts of God in the world. It is striking that Article 2 of the Belgic  

Confession contains no mention of “nature.” Often the general revelation of God is called  

the revelation in nature. But Article 2 speaks of God’s creation, providence and rule “in  

which these are before our eyes as a beautiful book, in which all creatures, small and  

large, are like letters, which allow us to view the invisible things of God.”  

G.C. Berkouwer, “General and Special Divine Revelation,” Carl F.H. Henry, ed., Revelation and  

the Bible. Contemporary Evangelical Thought. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1958 / London: The Tyndale  

Press, 1959. pp.13-24.  

Herein we are not offered an optimistic view of life, in which the curse, suffering and  

terrors of life are denied. Rather, we gain an outlook on the universal dealing of God. In  

the so-called nature Psalms (e.g., Ps. 8, 19, 65, 104) we are not presented with a natural  

theology, but we have here Psalms of Israel, lifted out of the sanctuary. Faith in Israel’s  

God again opens up the windows to the world, and man once more discovers the works of  

God’s hands. For this world, for the sun and the moon and the stars—for all that God has  

made—there arises renewed interest and importance. Certainly it is not accidental that the  

Reformation acted as a stimulus to the development of the study of nature and science.  

How could “the believing” have no interest in nature and in history? Yet at the same time  

we discern that our eyes are opened for this world only through the revelation of God in  

Jesus Christ, or, as Calvin has said in a striking simile, that the special revelation is as a  

glass through which we are once more in a position to read the book of the general  

revelation of God. Through the special revelation we understand again the purpose of the  

creation of God and we discover—in justice and in grace—the works of God’s hands.  

In this connection we must note the fact that in our time sharp criticism has been leveled  

at the doctrine of the general revelation of God. For instance, Karl Barth especially has  

aligned himself emphatically against Article 2 of the Belgic Confession because in this he  

detected a second source of divine revelation alongside that in Christ Jesus. From the  

history of the Church and of theology it can be demonstrated, Barth asserts, that accept-  

ance of a second source of the knowledge of God—for example, Scripture and tradition,  

Scripture and reason, Scripture and emotion—has always led to devaluation of the first  

source. Now indeed, it is undeniable that tradition (Rome) has often jeopardized Scripture,  

that reason and emotion (rationalism and subjectivism) also have jeopardized the  

revelation of God in Jesus Christ.  

But the consideration of general revelation need not involve us in a theory of sources of  

equal value existing adjacent to each other. The relationship between general and special  

revelation is actually of an entirely different  

[p.19]  

nature. It is not to be likened to the view of Rome, which puts Scripture and tradition next  

to each other.  

In this relationship between general and special revelation lies the crux of the problem.  

More and more the fact is clear that the general revelation of God does not stand next to  

the special revelation, but that special revelation opens our eyes to the greatness of God’s  

works and points the way to the Psalmist’s song of praise: “O Lord our Lord, how  

excellent is thy name in all the earth!” (Ps. 8:1).  

The Barthian criticism of the idea of general revelation is an impressive reaction against  

the jeopardizing of special revelation in Jesus Christ by other sources of the knowledge of  

God. That Barth especially sensed this threat is understandable when we recall that, under  

G.C. Berkouwer, “General and Special Divine Revelation,” Carl F.H. Henry, ed., Revelation and  

the Bible. Contemporary Evangelical Thought. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1958 / London: The Tyndale  

Press, 1959. pp.13-24.  

the influence of national socialism, Christianity in Germany seemed to identify the voice  

of God in history with the seizure of power by Hitler in Germany in 1933. This menace  

was very real and exceedingly dangerous; even in the Church many persons were misled  

by this correlation.  

But the Church doctrine of the general revelation of God moves on an entirely different  

level. Its level is not that of Trent, nor of rationalism, nor of national socialism, but that of  

Psalm 8 and Romans 1—the level of the revelation of guilt, and of the discovery of the  

dealings of God through eyes made to see anew through the power of the Holy Spirit.  

Only when it becomes fully clear that the doctrine of the general revelation of God poses  

no threat to the special revelation of God in Jesus Christ does it become possible for this  

doctrine to resound throughout the world of our time. General revelation remains a  

reminder of the guilt of closed eyes. Precisely this doctrine, therefore, uncovers for us the  

absoluteness of the revelation of God in Jesus Christ.  

III. MEANING OF GENERAL REVELATION  

In the foregoing comments we have laid emphasis upon the fact that the general revelation  

of God must not be delineated without attention to the connection of guilt and the anger of  

God (Rom. 1). From this some might infer that general revelation has no significance for  

life beyond establishing the impossibility of man’s guiltlessness. It would then point to the  

guilt of the closed eye, but have no effect in actual life. Therefore, it is necessary here to  

penetrate further into its significance.  

For it is clear that, while the Word of God points with emphasis to the relationship  

between general revelation and guilt, it indicates also that fallen man in his practical life is  

not freed from the revelation of God.  

When the Apostle Paul, after pointing out in Romans i the guilt of estrangement, is then  

fascinated in Romans 2 by the life of the heathen, we touch this fact in a clear and  

unmistakable manner. He has indicated the  

[p.20]  

serious consequences of this estrangement from God in the moral life, and has directed  

attention to the judgment of God revealed therein (Rom. 1:26 f.). But he does not shut his  

eyes to the fact that phenomena other than uncleanness and immorality are oft-times also  

to be noticed in the lives of the fallen and the estranged.  

He calls attention to the heathen who, while they lack the Law (i.e., the Law of Moses),  

nonetheless by nature do the things that are contained in the Law (Rom. 2:14.).  

Apparently life even in estrangement from God has not passed totally into nihilism and  

anarchy and lawlessness: “which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their  

conscience also bearing witness” (Rom. 2:15).  

G.C. Berkouwer, “General and Special Divine Revelation,” Carl F.H. Henry, ed., Revelation and  

the Bible. Contemporary Evangelical Thought. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1958 / London: The Tyndale  

Press, 1959. pp.13-24.  

Paul indeed does not say that the Law is put in their hearts as we read of this Law in the  

prophecies of the new covenant (Jer. 31:33; Heb. 10:16). But he does discover a  

conformity with what God has commanded in his Law, and he sees its reality in their  

consciousness of norms, namely, in their conscience (Rom. 2:15). In connection with his  

warning (of judgment against proud Jewish self-exaltation above the Gentiles), Paul does  

not delve deeper into this noteworthy appearance of conformity with the Law, but  

nevertheless by pointing to it, he emphasizes that even in estrangement some connection  

remains between man and God.  

Men have sought to explain conscience in all kinds of ways—sociologically, or  

psychoanalytically, or also as the voice of God in man. Paul does not propound any theory  

of conscience. But he calls attention to it as he sees that even in the heathen world people  

in one manner or another are preserved or held back from the full consequences of  

estrangement from God.  

In Acts 17 also we find a similar estimate of heathendom. Upon the Areopagus Paul calls  

for repentance (Acts 17:30), but he points out at the same time that, even in his apostasy,  

man is not loose from God and that this connection is evident in his life. It is one of the  

heathen poets who, himself has said: “For we also are his offspring” (Acts 17:28). Surely  

this is something other than a confession of creation after God’s image, and likely the  

heathen poet had intended “his offspring” in a pantheistic way. But Paul seized upon this  

word to remind them of the dealings of God, that it had been established that men should  

seek God, if haply they should find him, though he was not far from every one of us (Acts  

17:27). Man—also heathen man—is in all circumstances and thoughts of his life not freed  

from God. He is involved with God, and this fact is apparent also in his religion and his  

morality. He cannot be freed from the revelation of God, even less from the command of  

God—from the (for him) not entirely hidden goodness of God’s command and  

ordinances.  

Certainly everywhere and often we see manifold evidences of departure from God’s Law  

(Rom. 1), but defection from God does not always mean radical nihilism. Life on this  

earth does not yet disclose the full consequences of sin. Calvin speaks of “common grace”  

and, in this connection, he dis-  

[p.21]  

cusses virtues to be seen also in the lives of unbelievers. He did not wish to ascribe these  

phenomena to a left—over goodness in nature—as if the apostasy from God were not so  

serious—but rather he discerned here the power of God in revelation and in grace  

preserving life from total self-destruction.  

While this “morality” does not justify man, it must not on that account be denied. There is  

a working of conscience that has significance in the tensions of human life. This  

conscience, however, is not an unchanging contest, an unthreatened morality. A man can  

G.C. Berkouwer, “General and Special Divine Revelation,” Carl F.H. Henry, ed., Revelation and  

the Bible. Contemporary Evangelical Thought. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1958 / London: The Tyndale  

Press, 1959. pp.13-24.  

become what we may call a “conscienceless” being, consciously trampling God’s Law  

under foot. And in the latter days, we are told, there will be people without natural  

affection, turning away from the good, with more love for self-satisfaction than for God  

(II Tim. 3:1 f.). One cannot build upon this type of conformity with the Law!  

But this does not diminish the fact that life is not yet wholly fragmented in chaos. A  

relationship to God remains even in man’s estrangement from him, a work of the Law that  

is written in the hearts of men. There is still contact with the works of God’s hand even  

though men do not look to the Fatherhand of God. That does not mean that human  

corruption is not serious, but it does mean that man never is fully severed from connection  

with God and that—even though he does not recognize the Lawgiver—in many respects  

he still comes under the influence of the Law and the ordinances of God.  

In sin itself lies a driving power that estranges man from God and from his neighbor. But  

in the preservation of human life there is still community, marriage, love, justice, mercy.  

Because of the existence of sin, because of apostasy, these are wonderful phenomena in  

the fallen world. Here God still holds fast the world and human life, even in the Fall. He  

does not abandon it, because he has loved the world—in Christ (John 3:16). Over against  

sin, he still holds life in being, and makes room for the preaching of the gospel. He still  

allows fallen man his place in the world, and he does not disallow himself a witness,  

through the goodness of rain and harvest time. He blesses with an overflow of food and  

happiness (Acts 14:17) and he lets his sun rise over the evil and the good, and allows the  

rain to refresh the just and the unjust (Matt. 5:45). And all of this does not stand alongside  

the plan of salvation in Jesus Christ, but is built thereon. His general revelation is not  

concurrent with the special revelation in Christ. This general disclosure puts the world in  

the middle of the glorious works of God’s hand; it does not detach and disengage the  

world. For God still binds man to his neighbor and preserves human life even in its most  

extreme individualism.  

True, sometimes we see the power of sin carried to the very borders of nihilism. Talk  

about demonization of life is widespread especially in our time, when one man turns  

another over to destruction and death without mercy (do we need more evidence than  

concentration camps and anti-Semitism?). But there still arises a protest, and then comes a  

reaction.  

[p.22]  

Following nihilism comes the resurgence of humanism. Certainly life is not safe in this  

haven of humanism, but nonetheless life is still preserved.  

Because of man’s involvement with the goodness of God’s command, it is clear that the  

Church may not abandon its doctrine of general revelation. It may not proclaim this  

revelation as a second source of knowledge next to the revelation of God in Jesus Christ,  

but it may and must use it as a reminder of the God who does not abandon the world and  

who sets man in the midst of greatness and majesty. The message of the general revelation  

G.C. Berkouwer, “General and Special Divine Revelation,” Carl F.H. Henry, ed., Revelation and  

the Bible. Contemporary Evangelical Thought. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1958 / London: The Tyndale  

Press, 1959. pp.13-24.  

of God rings out the accusation (not the excuse) of man, yet simultaneously the gospel  

sounds out to the world (the Areopagus, Acts 17:30), so that life once more may be turned  

toward the living God who has displayed his love for the world. This God and his  

message stand forth against all devaluation of the world that he has created.  

All nihilism is evidence of the pride of man who forsakes God and surrenders himself to  

criticism of the works of God’s hands. In this tendency we stand before what in many  

respects is the most dismal image of our times. Man sees his own life in the world as  

senseless and absurd. But the Church that preaches the gospel refuses to accept this  

senselessness and absurdity. It cries out against the spirit of the times with the message of  

repentance.  

Upon the path of conversion the light shines again and the promise of restoration comes to  

view. For this entire creation sighs in birth pangs until it shall be free of the bondage of  

corruption (Rom. 8:21). Then shall come the new heaven and the new earth (II Pet. 3:13).  

These form the contents of God’s promise. Upon this new earth justice shall dwell. Then  

the glory of God shall be manifested, when God himself is the Light (Rev. 22:5) and the  

Lamb is the Lamp (Rev. 21:23).  

Then the distinction between general and special revelation shall be removed: when God  

dwells “with men” (Rev. 21:3), when night is banished (Rev. 22:5), when God himself  

shall wipe all tears from our eyes.  

For us humans this future is beyond imagination. But it remains the object of the promise.  

It consists not only in the salvation of the soul, but in the renewing of all of life. Before  

this future there still hangs the curtain of God’s last revelation: “It is not yet revealed what  

we shall be” (I John 3:2). But “we shall see him as he is” (I John 3:2) when the veils of  

secrecy shall be taken away, and the windows are open to all the works of God’s hands.  

Then the full meaning of Psalm 8 will be revealed in the resurrection from the dead and in  

the new presence of the King of the ages: “O Lord our Lord, how excellent is thy name in  

all the earth!”  

IV. HUMAN LIFE AND THE GENERAL REVELATION OF GOD  

We have seen that the distinction between general and special revelation does not concern  

a subtle or scholastic difference. Neither is a rivalry intended between general revelation  

and the revelation of God in Jesus Christ,  

[p.23]  

like that of modern theology, which attacks and perverts the absoluteness of the revelation  

in Christ. The meaning of the distinction is otherwise.  

It is all too evident, however, that in exhibiting this distinction, we must express ourselves  

in faulty language. The words “general” and “special” are borrowed from earthly human  

G.C. Berkouwer, “General and Special Divine Revelation,” Carl F.H. Henry, ed., Revelation and  

the Bible. Contemporary Evangelical Thought. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1958 / London: The Tyndale  

Press, 1959. pp.13-24.  

relationships and do not appear in Scripture. Still, it is good to call attention to the fact  

that many attempts to arrive at a new terminology have fallen short of expressing the  

underlying reality. In most cases either the general or the special revelation was not done  

full justice. And in view of this, we must emphasize that the decision involves rot merely  

a matter of terminology, but rather, of the basic issues designated by the terms employed.  

The distinction between general and special revelation does not posit a rupture in the unity  

of God’s revelation, but points out rather the revealing acts of God in history in the way of  

creation, fall and redemption.  

In the revelation of God in Christ Jesus—saving and propitiating—the Light rises once  

more over the world. Jesus Christ is Saviour of men, but be is also Light of the world  

(John 8:12) and he has come as a Light in the world (John 12:46). The world has come  

into existence through Christ (John 1:10) and without the Word, without him, was nothing  

made that was made ( John 1:3) . But the world knew him not ( John 1:10), even though  

the Light shone in the darkness. Because of this Light, however, the world and human life  

are still possible.  

Despite nihilistic tendencies, modern man still evidences continuously a violent interest in  

the world. In many respects this interest is not an interest in the Creator of heaven and  

earth. The cosmos is isolated and abstracted from the Creator. But neither in scholarship  

nor art has man ever yet done away with what faith sees as the work of God’s hands. And  

if the revelation of God in Jesus Christ opens the eyes, then the abstraction is broken, and  

fife in the world becomes the service of God and of one’s neighbor. Then the weaning of  

life and the world is revealed once more, and supplies the believer with the power of the  

promise that one day shall be fulfilled.  

Then at last the shortcomings of human language are to fall away in worship and a song of  

praise. And then we shall understand also how firmly the distinction between general and  

special revelation is connected with goat and estrangement.  

Consequently, in all our considerations of this distinction we must be careful that the guilt  

is not denied. The special revelation of God in Jesus Christ is the divine answer to this  

guilt as the surprise of God’s love, as the new spring of God’s mercy. Therefore the way  

to the works of God’s hands leads always by the way of the Cross. Here the windows are  

opened and the Light shines forth. Here sympathy is awakened for the world and here the  

world is seen in God’s light. Here all egocentric piety is broken and man once again finds  

his proper place as the image of God.  

And because the way to the works of God’s hands leads by the Cross, we  

[p.24]  

are taught lifelong by the Word of the Cross. This very special instruction teaches us our  

place in the world: in order to serve every day, we are to give all our thoughts over as  

G.C. Berkouwer, “General and Special Divine Revelation,” Carl F.H. Henry, ed., Revelation and  

the Bible. Contemporary Evangelical Thought. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1958 / London: The Tyndale  

Press, 1959. pp.13-24.  

captive to the obedience of Christ (II Cor. 10:5). And in that full life in the world we are  

warned to pay attention to the light of the Word: “We have also a more sure word of  

prophecy, whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark  

place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts” (II Pet. 1:19).  

[p.403]  

BIBLIOGRAPHY  

J. H. Bavinck, Religieus besef en Christelijk geloof (Religious Consciousness and Christian Faith).  

1949.  

G. C. Berkouwer, General Revelation. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1955.  

――――, De mens het beeld Gods (Man the Image of God). (To be published in translation by  

Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.) 1957.  

H. Kraemer, Religion and the Christian Faith. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1956.  

William Masselink, General Revelation and Common Grace. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans  

Publishing Co., 1953.  

© 1958, 1986 Carl F.H. Henry. Reproduced by kind permission of Dr Carol Henry Bates.  

Prepared for the Web in April 2009 by Robert I. Bradshaw.  

http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/