Introduction

Why might this question be important? At this juncture, when we are poised to begin anew the measured, enthusiastic, and determined dissemination of the truths contained in the papers, we will be confronted by others with a question similar to what Jesus asked: "Who do men say I am?" What do we say when people ask us what the papers are? The answer we give will be crucial to their first impression of us and of the papers, and as we all know, first impressions are crucial. ) The main goal of this essay is to shed some light on our understanding of revelation; it hopes to distinguish between divine truth(s) and divine revelation as the revelators use those terms.

If we are to keep in mind a goal that the revelators suggest, namely that our religious effort of dissemination "will be directed less toward the strengthening of interreligious barriers and more toward the augmentation of the religious brotherhood of spiritual worship among the many followers of the differing intellectual theologies which so characterize Urantia" (92:5:6), then we need to examine how we present the revelation. That presentation in turn depends in part on our understanding of what the revelation is. Of primary concern is to present the truths contained therein in such a manner that will not set our religion above others. There is no more sure way of guaranteeing a negative reaction among those we are trying to converse with than to present ourselves as having special access to divine truth because of the unique status of the book we hold in our hands.

"The many religions of Urantia are all good to the extent that they bring man to God and bring the realization of the Father to man. It is a fallacy for any group of religionists to conceive of their creed as THE TRUTH; such attitudes bespeak more of theological arrogance than of certainty of faith. There is not a Urantia religion that could not profitably study and assimilate the best of the truths contained in every other faith, for all contain truth. Religionists would do better to borrow the best in their neighbors' living spiritual faith rather than to denounce the worst in their lingering superstitions and outworn rituals." (92:7:3) The main goal of this essay is to shed some light on our understanding of revelation; it hopes to distinguish between divine truth(s) and divine revelation as the revelators use those terms. If we take the Urantia Papers to be divine revelation, we distort their nature, placing them in a realm reserved by the revelators for the direct and personal revelation of the Father. This genuine divine revelation is equally the property and gift of all mortals on Urantia. We, as Urantian religionists, have the fifth epochal revelation to offer our fellows; this is an epochal revelation containing many uniquely expressed divine truths. Highlighting the revelators' distinction between 'divine revelation' and 'epochal revelation containing divine truths' is the purpose of this communication. Unless we keep this important distinction in mind, we will never be able to accomplish "the augmentation of the religious brotherhood of spiritual worship among the many followers of the differing intellectual theologies" of Urantia, and our actions will "bespeak more of theological arrogance than of certainty of faith."

I. The phrase "divine revelation" in the Urantia Papers

This phrase appears a total of six times in the papers (6:0:3; 91:7:3; 92:2:1; 103:6:5; 120:1:7; 196:3:11), a suprisingly low number, given that is what these papers supposedly are. None of these references are to the papers themselves. In fact, none of these references are to any material embodiment of truth, revelatory or not. The reference in paper 6 is to the person of the Eternal Son; in paper 91 the reference is to internal spiritual communication; in paper 92 the reference is ambiguous, but is probably related to inner illumination, as contrasted to "experiential reason"; in paper 103, the reference again is to "illumination" as contrasted to "human philosophy"; in paper 120 the reference is to Michael's ministry on Urantia, and paper 196 is perhaps what comes closest to a definition of “divine revelation”. It states:

"Through oversophistication or as a result of the irreligious conduct of professed religionists, a man, or even a generation of men, may elect to suspend their efforts to discover the God who indwells them; they may fail to progress in and attain the divine revelation."

In none of these cases is divine revelation connected to any exterior, material manifestation of truth. The term is used either in connection with a Deity personality or in connection with an inner realization of "the God that dwells within".

II. The section "The Gift of Revelation" (92:4)

This is the most extended discussion of revelation per se in the papers, as far as I know. The word 'divine' appears only once:

"But if revelation is to exalt and upstep the religions of evolution, then must such divine visitations portray teachings which are not too far removed from the thought and reactions of the age in which they are presented." (para 1)

next column>

At first glance, it seems pretty clear that the revelators are here equating the terms "revelation" and "divine visitation". A first question to ask would be, why don't the revelators just say, "divine revelation"? I believe the answer (as usual) lies immediately below in the second paragraph down:

"Revelatory religion is propounded by the real spiritual world; it is the response of the superintellectual cosmos to the mortal hunger to believe in, and depend upon, the universal Deities."

In other words, the term 'divine visitation' means a presentation from divine or celestial realms - "the real spiritual world...the superintellectual cosmos". So, the above equation between 'revelation' and 'divine visitation' stands for a cosmological place of origin, i.e., "divine realms". The unique status of the term "divine revelation" remains, as discussed above.

Another means for discerning the revelators' understanding of revelation appears in the same section under the heading: "5. The Urantia Papers:"

"But no revelation short of the attainment of the Universal Father can ever be complete. All other celestial ministrations are no more than partial, transient, and practically adapted to local conditions in time and space. While such admissions as this may possibly detract from the immediate force and authority of all revelations, the time has arrived on Urantia when it is advisable to make such frank statements, even at the risk of weakening the future influence and authority of this, the most recent of the revelations of truth to the moral races of Urantia."

The revelators are here clarifying the difference between 'divine revelation,' "the attainment of the Universal Father," as exhibited by the life of Michael on Urantia, and "partial, transient, and practically adapted" revelations which can and do contain divine truth(s), but are of a different quality. It is clear that since this disclaimer appears in a subheading dedicated purely to the Urantia Papers, that these papers are in that latter category of "celestial ministrations".

It is a difficult but crucial distinction. The papers do have divine origin, and in that sense are a "divine visitation". But they are NOT a complete, that is, divine revelation of the Father, as is the Eternal Son, as is the life of Jesus. Nor are the papers divine in the sense of the divine revelation that illuminates from within, the Thought Adjuster. That is why the revelators never refer to the papers as 'divine revelation'. 

III. Conclusion

It is interesting to note the many disclaimers throughout the papers referring to the paucity of the English language for conveying the divine truths to be portrayed. One example is in the "Acknowledgement" at the end of the Foreword:

"We may resort to pure revelation only when the concept of presentation has had no adequate previous expression by the human mind."

Once again, the term 'divine revelation' is not used; if any situation would seem to call for it, it might be one like this. "Pure" revelation connotes that the source of "the concept of presentation" is exclusively extraterrestial. 'Divine revelation' is clearly reserved for a different, specific, and special reference.

Again, in the very next sentence, "Successive planetary revelations of divine truth", speaks of planetary revelations "of", that is, containing, "divine truth." The revelation is "planetary" (the place of presentation), and it contains divine truths. In other places in the text (as discussed above) the revelation is "divine" (of celestial origin), and it contains divine truths.

In summary, the revelators describe the material contained in The URANTIA Book in several different ways, but never as a divine revelation. The term "divine revelation" is used consistently to describe the person or action of Deity or the direct and internal experience of such. But this does not mean that the celestial ministration of epochal revelation does not contain both pure revelation and divine truth.

I believe that this discussion may have great significance for our self-understanding as Urantian religionists and disseminators of the fifth epochal revelation. It also bears directly on our relationship with the papers themselves, and on issues that stem from that understanding. (Those issues could well form the substance of another essay.) Yes, the papers are the fifth epochal revelation. However, we need to understand exactly what that means in the context of the revelators' full presentation of the subject of revelation.