www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Scripture and Patristic Writings Four Revelations (gospels)

A Meditation upon The Four Gospels
(Edited to correct typos and errors)


To understand what is meant by saying that God gives us four revelations ... we must first understand the context within which we use the word 'revelation'.

REVELATION
A browse through early church fathers and theology will display variations depending upon context for use of the word 'revelation'. We Christians may think of the Old Testament and the New Testaments as two revelations (i.e., the revelation through Moses and the revelation through Jesus Christ). We Christians may think of revelation as only one revelation done in two parts (i.e., the Old Testament and the New Testament). We might also think of revelation as only one revelation which begins in within history recorded in the Old Testament and as completed ("It is finished") in the New Testament.

If we think of revelation as one 'thing', as many pious fathers did, then revelation is considered as an object, a person (Jesus Christ) and at the same time a vehicle (container). It is the person (object) of Jesus Christ revealing (action) himself.

I remember at one internet forum I had stated that the Old Testament revelation was inferior to the New Testament revelation ... and a very detailed reply came back at me claimed that I was wrong because Jesus himself is the revelation - it is Jesus who is revealed in both the Old Testament and the New. The thought was that if an artist painted a perfect picture and you were shown just part of the picture (one corner) does that make the whole picture less perfect? The answer to that question would be .. no .. it does not make the entire picture less perfect. That is true if we think of the picture as an object. And so .. Jesus Christ (the revelation) is no less perfect or in any way inferior in the Old Testament (where he was revealed in parts and in varied ways) than in the New Testament where he was completely revealed through his humanity.

This gives a context of the revelation (Jesus is the revelation) that we receive (reading, hearing, etc..) an almost iconic quality where the icon image is not an ordinary picture due to the fact that it imparts a divine reality in a mysterious way which is equal to our depth of faith.

It seems that Saint Paul makes a similar comparison of Christ being revealed as present in the Eucharist (I Cor 11:20-22) where he writes that anyone not recognizing that the bread and wine is the body and blood of Jesus - is as those Jews who did not recognize Jesus as the messiah and had crucified him, which action brought condemnation on them selves. In this way only those who are fit (those who do recognize) the bread and wine as the body and blood - actually do receive it as body and blood while those who do not recognizes it ... do not receive what they do not recognize. I will return to this thought latter when we visit John's book of Revelation.

When we speak of revelation as one thing ... we by necessity think of it as progressive through history and completed or finished (now fully revealed) upon the cross with the event of the appearance of Jesus Christ. We should remember that 'revelation' has also been used in the sense of two dispensations of two covenants, an 'old' covenant under Moses and a 'new' covenant under Jesus ("No one tears a piece of cloth from a new garment and puts it on an old garment; otherwise he will both tear the new, and the piece from the new will not match the old." Luke 5:36). In this way it is the covenant which is 'revealed' and the new church would cease observing Jewish rituals and initiate their own.

In Roman Catholic documents when it is written small [revelation] its meaning is determined by context and when written with a capital [Revelation] it usually means all forms of revelation rolled into one. Just in the same way we can speak about the nature of a flower, the nature of a tree, etc... or we may include all natures when we capitalize it to Nature.

The meaning of the word 'revelation' and the concept of 'revelation' within Christianity depends upon the context in which it is used.

But perhaps we should think of 'revelation' in a slightly different way. Perhaps it is better to think of a 'revelation' from the perspective of the one receiving it. In our analogy of the perfect painting where we are shone and therefore we experience only a corner of the painting (part) I would suggest that the revelation is essentially and specifically - the cognitive experience that the receiver has.

Let me give an example .. suppose an artist paints the perfect painting and places it in a gallery covered by a curtain ... and it is the artists intention to reveal his painting by announcing it and then unveiling it for everyone to see. Suppose that not one person comes to the gallery on the day of the event, and no one at all is present when the artist pulls the curtain away. Has the artist revealed the painting? He has pulled back the curtain but to whom was it revealed? To no one. No one's eyes saw it because there was no one there.

This analogy suggests that a 'revelation' is specifically a human experience.

Even though the artist had pulled the curtain back - no revelation of the painting had taken place because a revelation is specifically an experience that is had by a receiver. The artist pulling the curtain back (to no one present) remains only an act of pulling the curtain back ... but does not become an act of revelation because no one was there to view the painting.

This is an important distinction.

JOHN'S REVELATION
And so it is in Saint John's visions .. which open with the words "This is the revelation of Jesus Christ." At one time I took this line to mean 'the revelation DONE by Jesus Christ' until one day it dawned on me that the four visions ... reveal Jesus Christ. It is a revelation OF Jesus Christ - what is being revealed is Jesus Christ.

If we understand and experience the images that John uses are images which point to the event of the crucifixion and resurrection then we have received the revelation. If we misunderstand the images John gives (for example we come to the conclusion that John is writing about future geo-political events still yet to happen) then we have not received the revelation. When the curtain is raised (as Eugenio Corsini has done in his study 'The Perennial Revelation of Jesus Christ') from John's four visions we find that they refer to the history of Israel traced from Adam - through Moses - on up to the crucifixion of Jesus Christ and the start of the new church - and ends there. Beneath all the figures and images of John's visions - is the historical event of Jesus Christ crucified. The coming of Jesus Christ has already happened - he was crucified and resurrected. Jesus shall not step into history again. The next coming of Jesus Christ is beyond the framework of time and beyond human history. For each of us it will be a personal experience at the moment of our death.


THE FOUR REVELATIONS OF GOD
For the Christian there are four historical revelations of God as presented by scriptures.

1) The revelation through Adam (God walks in the garden with Adam)
2) The revelation through Moses (the Law and Temple rituals)
3) The revelation through Jesus Christ himself (the gospels)
4) and lastly a very personal revelation that will come to each individual either in this life (in a limited way) or definitely at the close of our individual life when 'every knee shall bend'.

We can be told about Jesus Christ ... we can read about Jesus Christ ... we can hear about Jesus Christ ... we can have faith in that which is not seen (the continued presence of Jesus Christ) ... but at some point the veil will be lifted and we shall come face to face with Jesus Christ when our physical senses and the thoughts of our mind ... no longer veil him from us.

This though first came to me when I was pondering upon the answers that the disciples gave to Jesus (in the gospels) when Jesus had asked them, "Who do people say that I am?" ... I noticed there is a progression to the answers given. The first answer is a prophet, the second answered the messiah and to that was added a third "the messiah and the living son of God".

Prophet
Messiah
Son of God

In his three years of public life ... Jesus began by presenting himself as the rightful King and Son of David, as a prophet, and then for a time he presented himself as the particular prophet who is the messiah, and finally he presented the messiah as also the son of God.

This type of progressive revelation was often used by Jesus. If you remember .. his first call was a simple ("Come follow me"), and his second call was more difficult ("give away all you have and follow me"), and his third call in the gospels was even beyond giving away all your possessions to now include the possibility of giving up your life ("Take up your cross - and follow me."). Each call was more demanding on us than the last. Each progressive call built further upon the call that preceded it.

Become my disciple.
Become my disciple, and throw yourself on Providence.
Become my disciple, throw yourself on Providence, and accept suffering.

Each stage in our spiritual progress is a further radical change. Each stage builds upon the preceding stage.


TAKE ME HIGHER
But if we look at the four gospels themselves ... we find them not only recapitulate (repeating the same events from different views) but at the same time progressive. Each gospel while repeating mostly the same events - takes us higher.

There is no need for me to prove the recapitulate nature of the four gospels. We are all aware that all four tell us of the birth of Jesus, the events of his life for three years, and finally his death and resurrection. The parallel gospels present mostly the same events so closely that it is presumed that there had been an original gospel (Q source) which each gospel writer had followed. The recapitulate nature of the four gospels is obvious.

What is not as obvious is the progressive nature of the four gospels. When the four gospels are laid one after another ... there IS a progression.

The gospel of Matthew (the first gospel) presents to us a Christ who is ... the King of the Jews. Matthew sets the stage for us right away "This is the genealogy of Jesus the Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham." in as much as the designation "son of David" was a title only given to a legitimate heir to David's throne. Herod had purchased his way to the throne ... Jesus was the legitimate Son of David. The main perspective of Matthew is that Jesus is the legitimate King of the Jews.

The gospel of Mark (the second gospel) presents to us a Christ who is a prophet at least on par with Moses and Elijah. The Jesus of Mark's gospel displays the spiritual authority of Israel's greatest prophets. Jesus is readily recognized by the spirits ("And whenever the unclean spirits saw him they would fall down before him and shout "You are the Son of God") and has authority over the spiritual realms. The main perspective of Mark is that Jesus had the spiritual authority of Moses and Elijah.

The gospel of Luke presents to us a Christ who is the long awaited messiah ... predicted and expected not only by the Jews but by ALL nations. Luke addresses not Jews but gentiles ("Dear Theophilus ") and lays out proof that Jesus is the messiah which ALL nations expected. The gospels of Matthew, Mark, and John all show internal evidence (phrasing and structure) that they were originally written in Aramaic for Jewish readers and later transliterated to Greek ... while the gospel of Luke alone appears to have been originally written in the international language of the gentiles ... Greek. Luke is an investigative reporter and publishes his news to the rest of the world. Luke's gospel is the longest and could easily be read by any Greek picking it up on the street. In fact .. since Luke also wrote and chronicled the book of Acts ... we can assume that the book of Acts is meant to be a supplement to Luke's gospel. Written by the same author and in the same language - they are a package. Luke's perspective is that the messiah which all nations expected had been born out of Judah.

And the perspective of the gospel of John presents to us the Son of God. We will see how ... later.

Matthew: King of the Jews
Mark: prophet of Israel
Luke: messiah
John: Son of God

Each gospel further builds upon the Jesus which is presented in the gospel preceding it ... in the very same way that each further calling of "Follow me ... " built further upon the call that preceded it.

This brings us to the fourth and final gospel. John's gospel. And one must ask (in order to fit into the progression that has been taking place) ... one must ask how is it that John's gospel focuses on the perspective that Jesus is the Son of God? Through the eyes of Matthehw we saw a king. Through the eyes of Mark we saw a prophet. Through the eyes of Luke we saw the messiah of all humanity ... what kind of 'eyes' will we be looking through in John's gospel?

One must ask this because all the gospels do mention that Jesus is the Son of God. John's gospel seem to mention that fact only as much as each preceding gospels had. So .. HOW is it that John's gospel differs in perspective??

The answer to that question came to me years after I had first asked it. Like a strike of lightening it came to me one day that there is a significant difference between the first three gospels and John's gospel. We have all felt that difference and we call John's gospel the mystical gospel ... but I had never been able to really crystallize why we experience John's gospel as so different.

If we glance over John's gospel we should notice that in it ... events which also take place in any of the other gospels ... events which involve Jesus ... certainly DO have a different perspective. This key came to me one day when I was meditating upon the trial before Pilate. John tells us that Pilate took Jesus aside out of the hearing of anyone .. and questioned him entirely alone ... yet John gives us the entire conversation as if John himself had been present for it. Think about that.

John had already been separated from Jesus and would be separated from Jesus up until the moment when John stands with his mother beneath the cross. Therefore it was not humanly possible for John to have been told (by Jesus) what the private conversation had been. But when we read the verbal exchange between Jesus and Pilate - we are not only getting what surely seems like the exact conversation - but we are also told even the THOUGHTS (unspoken) that Pilate had ("And from then on Pilate looked for a way to release Jesus.").

Overwhelmingly the dialog of Jesus in John's gospel is fuller. What can be only one of two sentences of dialog in the other gospels (or even missing from the other gospels) is laid before us in what seems to be verbatim. Also, John gives often give us the private thoughts that Jesus is having... for example ... John tells us that when he was about to be arrested ... Jesus ... having in his mind all that was about to happen to him .. went forth and asked "Whom do you seek?". When was it (after his arrest) that Jesus and John were together and able to talk so casually as to reminisce!? {"You know John .. when I went forth and said 'Whom do you seek?' I was thinking of all the suffering I was about to endure'} .. no ... such a moment did not happen. Mattew and Mark report what they themselves heard and are often short about it leaving out (not remembering?) much of the dialog but rather giving only the most important items and sometimes in thier own words ... while John gives what seems to be the entire dialog in great detail of exchange .. for conversations for which John was not even present. Top that off with John giving even what Jesus is thinking (or what someone else in the conversation is thinking) and we are face with a real anomaly as compared to the matter of fact reporting of the other gospels.

There is only one answer to this anomaly in John's gospel - and that answer is that the event is not being given to us from John's own perspective - but we are getting the perspective of Jesus himself. It is Jesus .. relating the event to us ... through John! It is not John who is calls himself 'the one whom Jesus loved' ... it is Jesus who tell us that John is 'the one whom I loved'.

If we now search through John's gospel we find that this is consistent. John gives us not only the words spoke... but unlike any other gospel .. John relates to us the unspoken thoughts of Jesus and the private thoughts of those whom Jesus is dealing with ... knowledge which was only known by Jesus himself. Some of these events which only Jesus could have known and, due to his arrest and separation from john, John could not have been told about by Jesus.

The gospel of John is how events happened through the eyes (and mind) of Jesus himself. Who could do such a thing through John? This is more than a King could do, more than a prophet could do, even more than the messiah could do, this is evidence of a union with John that only a God could do. This is evidence of knowing the very heart (intimate thoughts) of men. This ability was reserved for God alone.

Four revelations .... four gospels ... each is recapitulate (repeating events) ... but at the same time progressive (from King ... to ... Son of God).

Certainly this is a type of proof that a 'revelation' should most properly be defined as a cognitive experience had by the receiver. Matthew own experience of Jesus was different (but not opposed) to the others. Mark's experience of Jesus was different from Mark's but also not opposed to it, etc.. Each gospel (in the arrangement) further builds upon the preceding gospel.

FOUR REVEALATIONS OF GOD TO THE INDIVIDUAL
Within the life of any individual there are four revelations of God. The first revelation is tightly bound up with the very foundation of our human nature. Theology calls this 'essential union' an with it God places in us (at our foundation) a type of intuitive knowledge of himself along with a desire for God. Each person born - seeks happiness and fulfillment .. a fulfillment which is only had in God. We all begin life by seeking what is good.

The second revelation of God is through created nature. We are awed at the stars, the beauty and incredible organization of plants and animals, the sunrise and the moon, a spider's web, each insect adapted for its environment, food, and survival, etc... we come to know something more of God (more than just basic intuition) through the things of nature which are created.

The third revelation of God is spiritual. We have a spiritual awakening. Be it Orthodox, Catholic, Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Protestant, (keep in mind that different cultures by their make up either allow a greater of lesser - of no exposure - to certain religions) ... there is a spiritual awakening in the person. God (under whatever name is readily available) becomes something that now further experienced ... in the mind.

From a vague intuition rising from within our own nature, to an experience of God through created natures around us, and then onto an experience of God though our mind .. each stage builds further upon the preceding stage.

The final and the fourth revelation of God to the individual - is at death.

No matter under what images we had worshiped God while alive - all images and concepts of the psychological mind will be wiped away at death. The psychological mind is a aggregate of our whole nature. It arises from the combination of physical body and non-physical mind of thoughts. When we say 'me!' we refer to something which arises from - and is dependent upon - the unity of both body and mind. Just as clay is an aggregate of both earth and water - when one ingredient is taken away - the aggregate which depended upon the presence of both - is also taken away.

This 'me' which will end is the ego. Its desires and constant drive to provide for its own wellbeing and survival - will end. Its habits - will cease. The subconscious depths which have both aided us and hindered us by tainting reality - will be felt no more.

Whatever we really are (that mysterious essence which is neither the thoughts of our psychological mind nor the emotions of our biological nature) that mysterious essence which I may only call conscious awareness - will be totally aware of God as God is in himself. There will be nothing to distract us. Nothing standing between. We shall know God directly.

These are my thoughts.

Peace to you and to your church.
-ray