\begin{chapter}{General and Special Revelation}
There is a distinction to be made between revelation and biblical inspiration, as there is a distinction between written texts and interpersonal events. However, we can read about revelation in Scripture, so O'Collins proceeds with an overview of revelation in the Bible.

Kant already adressed the sources of human admiration, as `the starry skies above me and the moral law within me'. In the Old Testament, we see mostly signs of the first kind of revelation, for example in the book of Wisdom. However, in the Jewish culture there is an even stronger sense of `historical revelation', the idea that God was more present in the past (during the Exodus) than now. Many natural feasts were adapted and fit into the Jewish culture with historical themes.

Paul argues, giving the example of righteuous gentiles, that God shows something to everyone of us in a natural way (i.e. not through teaching). This is what we may call \emph{general revelation}. This revelation would then entail faith, although Paul doesn't use that word explicitly.

Faith is defended by the past and tells us something about the future: it doesn't help us to prove things unseen, but rather is their proof. Faith provides us with answers to three, universal, types of questions:

\begin{description}
    \item[Metaphysical] Is there anything beyond the visible?
    \item[Semi-scientific] What are our or our universe's roots?
    \item[Ethical] Does it matter how we behave?
\end{description}

In the Christian faith, God is an answer to the first question, Genesis an answer to the second, and Scripture an answer to the third. But the Christian faith also teaches us that `drawing near to God' leads to `rewards given to those who seek God': faith leads to prayer, which is an unnecessary jump from an answer to questions to worship.

Furhermore, the Christian faith presupposes another form of revelation than the one described above, which we may call \emph{special revelation}: it is an active interaction of God with the world.

In earlier times (19\textsuperscript{th} century) revelation was considered to be a revealing of propositional truths by God. This view changed to a view more in line with Scripture, in which God reveals Himself as the Truth to individuals. However, it is stressed that it is always the same God revealing Himself to different persons. In this view, it is also possible to experience revelation as an individual while expressing known revelatory expressions, like the Creed or wellknown prayers. In short: there was a transition from revelation as \emph{knowledge about} God to \emph{knowledge of} God.

The Bible doesn't tell us much about revelation (words concerning God's saving power seem to enjoy priority over revelatory expressions almost everywhere), except for John's Gospel, which takes on a clearly revelatory vocabulary of `signs' and various `I am's. In later writings, it can often be hard to find a distinguishment between salvation and revelation. We may then see the Israelite history of salvation and revelation as God's \emph{self-communication}. Since salvation and revelation imply human experience, we can speak of \emph{experiencing the divine self-communication}.

Revelation in the Bible and Israelite history is experienced in a variety of ways: suffering, dreams, human troubles, to name a few. An extraordinary means, found in both OT and NT, is the casting of lots -- interesting, because revelation is `summoned'. And although revelation is linked to salvation, and against common ideas, also negative experiences can yield revelation, as we see for example in 2~Sam.~11-12, but also in Jesus' death on the cross.

Both word and event are means of revelation (although not made explicit, in a Kantian sense). Theologians tend to put emphasis on God's word, so let's here explore what qualifies as a divine \emph{act}:

\begin{itemize}
    \item There is some specific divine activity, other than the creation and sustainment of the world.
    \item It should differ from worldly causality.
    \item It should bring about religious and moral claims.
    \item There should be an aspect of freedom, and ambiguity.
\end{itemize}

There does not seem to be absolute equality in the human experience of God, this explains the records of prophets. The accounts of revelation to prophets in the Old Testament ressemble the notions belonging to the homo experiens as seen in Chapter 3:

\begin{itemize}
    \item It occurs at specific moments in an immediate way, not to someone trained or from a family of prophets.
    \item It has a meaning for the prophet's life.
    \item It involves the whole person and the full range of the prophet's powers.
    \item It is concrete: it happens at particular times, in particular places, and to particular persons.
    \item It is discerned, interpreted and \emph{communicated}, as in, \emph{speak about}. Note that no prophet wrote his own words down.
\end{itemize}

There are obvious reasons to doubt the authenticity of the prophetic accounts in the Old Testament. O'Collins mentions seven reasons to be positive but cautious about them:

\begin{itemize}
    \item The message, not the experience, is primary.
    \item The final form of the text was written much later than the events occured.
    \item The prophets claim that their words are `of the Lord', but reflect little on the meaning of their experiences.
    \item Classic phrases like `Thus says the Lord' may have been quite standard to mean \emph{some} authority, and does not necessarily refer to God in a modern sense.
    \item The fact that prophets draw on older prophets could hint on a tradition being continued rather than new revelation having occured. On the other hand, we cannot use complete authenticity as a requirement to say a prophet's experience is authentic.
    \item There is a blurring of the frontier between what is \emph{seen} and what is \emph{heard}.
    \item Accounts are reflected on from a perspective shaped by the call of the prophet.
\end{itemize}

In the Old Testament, false prophets are mentioned but it isn't always explained why they are false. Where the text goes in the detail, there appear to be three reasons:

\begin{description}
    \item[Past tradition:] true prophets are loyal to inherited faith and the Torah.
    \item[Present behaviour:] similar to the former point, true prophets will live a moral life. This is not only because of the Torah, however, but also because some behaviour (e.g. drunkenness) would blur the prophet's vision.
    \item[Future fulfilment:] true and false prophets will be revealed in retrospect, because only the true prophet's prophecies will be fulfilled.
\end{description}

It is impossible to reject the prophetic experience and keep one's Christian faith whole. That and the power and beauty of prophetic texts, can prompt us to accept, in general, that the Holy Spirit spoke through the prophets.

Finally, the prophetic experience has brought Jewry from a religion of `One of many gods' to a truly monotheistic religion, denying the existence of other gods. Even though God is further than in other contemporal religions, which place gods in nature, He is not a remote god, because He reveals Himself.

\end{chapter}