Introduction
This analytical-comparative study examines three contemporary theological models of divine revelation proposed by Maurice Wiles, Arthur Peacocke, and Denis Edwards. Each thinker fundamentally critiques the traditional "verbal-propositional" view, where God directly transmits words supernaturally by arguing its incompatibility with science, scientific errors in scripture, and need for contextualization.
 
Maurice Frank Wiles
Wiles destabilizes the foundation of the traditional theory of revelation through four main critiques: the incompatibility of supernatural intervention with the scientific worldview, the conflict between errors in the Bible and God's absolute omniscience, this theory's inability to explain the diversity of sacred texts, and its practical inefficacy. His solution is a shift from the model of "verbal transmission" to that of "human interpretation." According to Wiles, divine revelation is not a specific intervention but the general and continuous presence of God in the world. The authors of sacred texts, like art critics interpreting a work, have reflected and interpreted this general presence based on their own cultural and historical contexts. Therefore, the Bible is not the direct speech of God but a record of human experiences and interpretations of encounters with the divine. This perspective explains textual errors and shifts its authority from literalist objectivity towards its historical role in shaping faith communities committed to ethics and social justice.
 
Arthur Peacocke
Peacocke, a scientist-theologian, challenges tradition notably through the lens of kenosis (divine self-limitation) and scientific coherence. Advocating "theistic naturalism," he rejects body-soul dualism, asserting God acts through natural laws and evolutionary processes. Revelation involves "reading the signs" of God in nature and history, constituting a continuum from general to special revelation. Sacred texts are dynamic records to be reinterpreted in light of new knowledge.
 
Denis Edwards
Edwards approaches the issue from a Trinitarian perspective centered on the concept of "the vulnerability of divine love." He criticizes traditional theology for its individualistic interpretation of the Trinity, neglect of this vulnerability, and creation of an artificial duality between God's general and special actions. From his viewpoint, the essence of revelation is the manifestation of intra-Trinitarian love and an invitation for humans to participate in this loving relationship, not merely the transmission of propositions. This love is voluntarily vulnerable, compelling God to act through secondary causes and natural laws. In this model, the Holy Spirit, as the flow of divine love, operates within natural processes (from cosmic evolution to quantum events), and sacred texts are the product of this Spirit's cooperation with human imagination and experience in historical context. Thus, revelation is an interactive, relational process.
 
Conclusion
These theories share a paradigmatic shift: reconceiving revelation from a specific, miraculous event to a universal, natural process. Commonalities include critiquing verbal-propositional models, emphasizing natural explanations, and acknowledging human agency. Distinctions lie in their frameworks: Wiles uses hermeneutics, Peacocke theistic naturalism, and Edwards relational Trinitarian theology. This shift mitigates science-religion conflict and universalizes spiritual experience but raises ongoing questions about textual authority and special divine action, as noted by critics like George Ellis.