What is special revelation? God has used various means to disclose/reveal his truth to us. This article looks at the characteristics of special revelation, and what means God has used to reveal his truth (i.e., dreams, visions, theophanies, prophecy, etc.)

2014. 11 pages. Transcribed by Jeanette de Vente. Transcription started at 2:27 and stopped at 51:23.

God Breathes Out the Scriptures School of Theology Series: Lecture 3

General revelation is sufficient to damn, but it is insufficient to save. Every human being is bombarded by general revelation—the revelation of God’s existence and being. But no one lives up to that which has been revealed to them, so it is sufficient to damn. No one will be able to say on the Day of Judgment, “I never knew.” But creation does not reveal to us that Jesus saves. You cannot look at a rock or a flower or a sunset and say, “Oh yes, Jesus saves.” For that you need special revelation. All of that is to say that the imperative to evangelism and the imperative to mission is paramount. Unless people hear the gospel, they are not in a position to respond to it and therefore not in a position to be saved. I think that what Scripture is telling us is that we have a responsibility, therefore, to take special revelation to the entire world, to every nation. That is the commission that has been laid upon us.

Tonight I want to segue from general revelation to special revelation. Ultimately (it will be next lecture before we get there) we want to talk about the doctrine of Scripture—the inspiration of Scripture, the infallibility of Scripture, the inerrancy of Scripture, the authority of Scripture, the finality of Scripture, and a lot of things in between. But there are a few steps that we have to ascend before we can get to the doctrine of Scripture itself. So tonight we are going to be looking at special revelation.

General and Special Revelation🔗

I want to make a few comments about the relationship between general and special revelation. I have five of them.

General and special revelation do not disclose/reveal a different God. The God who is revealed in general revelation is the only God there is. He is the Trinitarian God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Now, I am not saying that you look at a rock and you think, “Oh yes, God is three persons and one God.” No, of course not. But it is not a different God. There is only one God, and the same God is revealed in general and special revelation.

Secondly, there is nothing in general revelation that is not revealed in special revelation. Everything that you see in general revelation is also given to us in special revelation. But special revelation reveals more. There are things in special revelation that you do not get in general revelation.

Thirdly, special revelation is not more cogent or more convincing or more powerful than general revelation. Special revelation, too, can fall on deaf ears. You can preach the gospel, you can witness, you can read the Bible, and it still can fall upon deaf ears, in the same way that general revelation can fall upon deaf ears. So special revelation is not more powerful than general revelation.

Fourthly, special revelation casts a light on general revelation. One of the most famous metaphors here is a metaphor from John Calvin. John Calvin says that special revelation is like putting on glasses that bring that which is sort of blurry in general revelation into focus. I quoted a hymn of George Robinson:

Heaven above is softer blue,
Earth around is sweeter green!
Something lives in every hue
Christ-less eyes have never seen.
Birds with gladder songs overflow,
Flowers with deeper beauties shine,
Since I know, as now I know,
I am his, and he is mine.George Robinson, Loved with Everlasting Love.

I think Robinson there is saying that with the aid of Scripture, now that you are a believer and you have special revelation, you now look at that which was revealed in general revelation with a great deal more clarity than you did before. You now do not just hear birds and think beauty; you now see birds and think of the sheer wonder of Almighty God, that he would create such an awesome spectacle as a bird.

Then fifthly, general revelation provides a point of contact for special revelation. [Last lecture] I introduced to you to that German word “Anknüpfungspunkt,” which is a great word for “point of contact.” Whenever you speak to an unconverted person—if you speak to somebody who is a pagan and you speak to somebody who has never heard of Jesus in their entire lives—they know more than they are willing to admit. You know something about them that they are not willing to admit about themselves: That they are bombarded with general revelation, to which they are constantly saying, “No.” They are holding it down in unrighteousness.

What’s So “Special” about Special Revelation?🔗

So let us ask the question then: What is so special about special revelation? And I want to answer this along a number of lines of thought here.

Special Content🔗

First of all, it is special in content. That which is revealed in special revelation is special because of its content—things that cannot be known just by looking or seeing or hearing or encountering the universe, the cosmos, the world in which we live. Unless God were to reveal it, it would be unknown to us. That is why special revelation is special: The content. The message that it conveys cannot be gleaned simply with our natural faculties.

Special Agents🔗

There are also special agents involved in special revelation. Here I am thinking in particular of folk like the Patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob), and folk like prophets in the Old Testament, and folk-like apostles in the New Testament. Special revelation comes through these special agents. God rises up special agents through whom he gives special revelation. They were “organs” through which God spoke special words, so that we can say as Paul does in 1 Corinthians 2:16, “We have the mind of Christ.”

Special Recipients🔗

It is special because of the recipients. Not just the content, not just the messengers, but the recipients are special. Because only those who are within reach of special revelation get special revelation, and not everybody is within reach of special revelation. There are people groups in the world who do not have a Bible in any form. There are people groups who speak a certain language in whose language there is no Bible—there is no Old Testament, there is no New Testament, there is no Gospel of John. There is no special revelation.

The foreign nations, surrounding nations, in Moses’ day did not have the Torah. They did not have the first five books of the Old Testament. It was confined to a small piece of landmass. Occasionally you hear of a Gentile here and there who has come, by the providence of God, into contact with special revelation and they have become interested, they become God-followers, and some of them have even been regenerated and converted. But special revelation only comes to those who are within hearing of the message of special revelation. That is why Romans 10:14 is so important:

How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?Romans 10:14, ESV

That is Paul’s imperative to us who have special revelation: To go to those who do not have special revelation. And actually, these days they may be living next door. They may have been raised in a non-Christian home and actually they do not know anything about Jesus, or what they know about Jesus is not true and is just mythology. So you have to go with the words of special revelation to them.

Special Delivery🔗

Fourthly, special revelation is special because of the means of delivery. We are going to expand this thought a little.

Word and deed. First of all, special revelation comes in the form of deeds/acts and words. Not simply words, but deeds and words. God comes and he does something—He does something special and he does something extraordinary—and that act itself is an act of revelation. The creation, the Exodus; the exile, the virgin birth in Bethlehem, Calvary and Pentecost—all of these are acts and things that God did. He stepped into time and space and did something extraordinary that was out of accord with how the cosmos and the world naturally functions. These acts themselves tell us something about God. The incarnation is an act that says something about the humility of the second person of the Trinity—he was “in the form of God,” but “thought it not robbery to be equal with God,” and he emptied himself, he took the form of a servant and was “found in fashion as a man” (Philippians 2).

Now, those acts—those perforations of God into time and space—need words of explanation. Some of you may have objections bout seeing pictorial representations of Jesus, and I respect your point of view, but just go with me for a minute; this is just an illustration. If you watched, for example, the movie The Passion of Christ and you have seen the depiction of crucifixion without a word of interpretation (which the movie of course does not have), all that you see is something that is horrible. It is in one sense disgusting. It tells you about violence. It tells you about the hatred of a certain part of society. But it does not say, just by looking at it, “Substitutionary atonement.” It does not say, by looking at it, “Propitiation.” It does not say, “God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself” (2 Corinthians 5:19). It does not say, “God made him to be sin who knew no sin, that we might be reckoned the righteousness of God in him” (1 Corinthians 5:21). That is a word of interpretation.

There is the event of Calvary. To the Jews it was an offence. To the Greeks it was just nonsense; it was just another victim of Roman crucifixion, another person getting the just deserts for his crime. But Paul takes that redemptive act and interprets it with redemptive words and gives that act a meaning. So there are acts and words. There are deeds and there are words.

Theophanies. Let us track this down through the pages of Scripture. We are talking about special revelation and that special revelation is delivered to us in special ways. If you go right back to the beginning (if you go back to the book of Genesis, for example, the early books of the Bible), you have these extraordinary incidents where you have what Moses will call a “mal’ak Yhwh”—an angel of the Lord, a messenger of the Lord. Sometimes he is referred to as an angel/messenger of God and then in the same passage that angel will be referred to as the Lord himself. There are Old Testament appearances in human form—in what seems like flesh and blood, with eyes and a nose and a mouth—and they speak. These are called theophanies. It is an epiphany, an appearance, of Theos. It is an appearance of God.

I know that it is tempting to say this is Jesus in the book of Genesis. That is probably seven steps too far. They are certainly pointers to what God ultimately will do in Jesus, but I am reluctant in every single instance of a theophany to say, “That is Jesus.” They are pre-incarnate enfleshments of God in the early stages of redemptive history. And they come speaking the words of God. They give special revelation.

Visions. 1 Samuel 9:9 is a well-known text. It is a very important text. It is a kind of sidebar comment on the part of the author of 1 Samuel, saying that a “prophet” used to be called a “seer” (Hebrew: “nabi”), because he saw things. He is giving a kind of historical [comment]. He is speaking to his own generation and he is saying, “These prophets that I am talking about now—they used to be called seers.” And they were called seers because they saw things. They had visions.

[Think of] Isaiah 6: The extraordinary vision of the holiness of God that Isaiah saw in the temple. “I saw the LORD…high and lifted up” (Isaiah 6:1). You have visions in the book of Daniel, you have visions in the book of Zechariah, and so on, all the way down into the New Testament. In the apocalypse in the book of Revelation, John sees things. It is the predominant verb in the book of Revelation: “I saw…I saw…I saw.”

Dreams. Dreams. [These are] especially in the early narratives. Joseph, for example, has a lot of dreams. Joseph’s dreams were vehicles of special revelation. Daniel was an interpreter of dreams. So there are these dreams.

(Transcription of audio file from 19:51 to 19:55 and 20:00 to 20:22 omitted.)

Prophecy. Then prophesy. Prophets in the Old Testament [were] spokespersons for God. Prophets did more preaching than seeing into the future. They were more forthtellers than foretellers. There was a little bit of what prophets did in seeing into the future and so on, but most of what they did was actually preaching. They were forthtellers; they were proclaimers; they were spokesmen. They began their sentences with words like, “Thus says the Lord.” In other words: “What I am about to say is what God has been saying to me. I am delivering to you the very word of God.” Moses was a prophet (he is the first prophet mentioned in the Bible, in Deuteronomy 18), but he was not a foreteller. He did not tell us about the future so much as [he was] one who preached. He was a proclaimer of the word of God.

Incarnation. [Think about] the incarnation as an event of special revelation. A unique event. A once and for all event. Bethlehem is a supreme revelatory moment. It tells us enormously important things about God. It tells us things about God the Father; it tells us things about God the Son; it tells us things about God the Holy Spirit. He was conceived by the Spirit in the womb of the virgin Mary. God so loved the world that he sent His only begotten Son. So the incarnation tells us something about the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. It is a revelatory event. It is a revelatory moment.

So much so that Paul can say later to the Corinthians that he let light shine out of darkness. “God…has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (2 Corinthians 4:6). When you look into the face of Jesus Christ, you see the glory of God. What is God like? It is a question that a child might ask: What is God like? He is like Jesus. He is like Jesus. There is no un-Christ-likeness in God. All the qualities that you see in Jesus are qualities that you can ascribe to Almighty God.

Apostolic tradition. And then an aspect that is sometimes passed over: Apostolic tradition. Most times we have the Lord’s Supper we read from 1 Corinthians 11:

For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, |This is my body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”1 Corinthians 11:23-24, ESV

Notice the verbs: “I received…I also delivered.” There are actually very specific words in Greek. They are words that are associated with the passing on of tradition without adding or taking away. Paul, remember, was not in the upper room. Paul had never seen Jesus except after the resurrection, so Paul was not there. Saul of Tarsus was not there in the upper room. So this truth that he is passing on, he has received it from the Lord. The Lord gave him this information and he is passing it on. He is not adding to it, and he is not taking away from it. There is this body of truth, this corpus of truth, that he is handing on. Paul is the vehicle of special revelation. It is a little insight into how there is a tradition among the apostles of handing on special revelation.

(Transcription of audio file from 25:08 to 25:30 omitted.)

On page 5 [of the handout] I have a quote from Lessing. How do we know anything from the past? How can we be absolutely sure about the past? You are constantly seeing rewritings of history. People rewrite history. They make history to be what they want it to be. There omit facts, they embellish facts, they exaggerate facts, they make up facts, they disregard facts, and all of a sudden you have an account of the past that does not bear any semblance to the past. How can we be sure of the data that we purport to be part of the essential data of Christianity? How can we be sure that the things Jesus said and did are absolutely accurate as the Bible actually teaches them? Well, part of that is the body of tradition. Paul is saying, “There is a body of truth, and I am passing it on to you.” It gets passed on. Eventually it gets inscripturated into the Bible. The Bible comes all the way down to us. There is a link between the words and acts of Jesus, the words and acts of the apostles, and the Bible that we read today.

(Transcription of audio file from 26:44 to 26:59 omitted.)

Lessing talked about the “ugly ditch” of history. It is a very famous remark from Lessing. You cannot really know the past; all you can know is the present. It is the now that is important, because you cannot really know the past. Now, if that is true, you might as well give up Christianity today, because Christianity is based on actual things that happened in the past. If you cannot be sure about the incarnation, if you cannot be sure about Calvary, if you cannot be sure about the resurrection, you might as well give up Christianity. So Lessing was pulling the rug from beneath Christianity entirely.

Scripture. And then Scripture. We are still talking about the forms of special revelation and how it comes to us. We will talk more about Scripture as a vehicle for special revelation. Not only is the Bible a record of special revelation, it is itself special revelation. The actual production of the Bible is a God event. It is special. It is God saying something about himself. He is a God who speaks. And he is a God who wants us to know and remember and recall and cherish and study what he has spoken. That is the kind of God he is. That is an aspect of special revelation.

(Transcription of audio file from 28:29 to 28:49 omitted.)

Special Characteristics🔗

God has spoken in times past by the prophets, but has now spoken to us by his Son (Hebrews 1:1). God spoke in times past by dreams, by visions, by prophets, by apostles, by redemptive events (like the Exodus, the exile, the incarnation, Calvary, Pentecost and so on). But now we have the Scriptures. The ultimate source of special revelation for us today is the Bible. But part of the argument from the past [against] the canon of Scripture that incorporates special revelation and is itself special revelation are philosophies that deny the possibility of God being able, or desirous even, to do that.

Personal and propositional. I have put down here at the top of page 6 [of the handout]: Personal and propositional. Let us talk about that for a minute. Special revelation is more than just an encounter that gives you a nice feeling about God. Special revelation is about God actually speaking. He speaks words—verbs, nouns, adjectives, adverbs, clauses, subordinate clauses, doctrines, truths, true truths.

[We are in] the shadow of Kant and the Enlightenment. I think that Kant did believe in God, it was just irrelevant to him, because “the noumena cannot perforate into the phenomena.” That was the great sentence of the Enlightenment. That was Immanuel Kant. The twentieth century has been trying and failing to recover from the Enlightenment ever since.

Charles H. Dodd, a very famous radical liberal Welsh, denied the concept of the wrath of God entirely. He was almost single-handedly responsible for the emergence of the Revised Standard Version. The Revised Standard Version was a version that tries to obliterate from the record of the New Testament any notion of a propitiatory atonement—an atonement that appeases the wrath of God. Among other things, Dodd did not believe that God directly spoke to man. So when you have in the Bible accounts, for example, of Jeremiah actually hearing the voice of God and saying, “Here am I, send me,” he hears a voice, but for C.H. Dodd that is just a hallucination. It is a religious hallucination, and it is an interesting account of Jeremiah’s religious experience, but it is not God directly speaking to Jeremiah.

Let me say a quick word about William Temple, the Archbishop of Canterbury during WWII (early 1940s). [He said that] God showed himself in historical acts and enlightened men discerned the special significance of these events and recorded them in Scripture. So that what you have in the Bible are the records of individuals with insight and some discernment, but it is their record of how they viewed certain historical events that took place in the past. So the Bible is a history book that contains the religious experiences of certain individuals.

(Transcription of audio file from 33:44 to 34:00 omitted.)

Karl Barth (1886-1968) did not believe in revelation from God that was directly propositional. Now, he was trying to respond to the Enlightenment and he was trying to respond to Immanuel Kant, and he did believe in a concept which he called the “word of God,” but that word of God was not to be associated with the Bible, and certainly not with the words of the Bible as verbs and nouns and adjectives. The word of God for Karl Barth somehow or other floats above the Bible. The Bible was important to Karl Barth because it had a lot of tradition and God had used the Bible in the past to speak to people. But it was not the words themselves, it was the encounter that you have with the Bible and with this religious tradition that somehow in some way you have an encounter/experience of God—in some way, in some form, in some fashion. For Barth it was not directly propositional. So Karl Barth is not the answer; Karl Barth is the problem of the twentieth century church. That is my position. That is what I believe. I believe absolutely, 100% and with some conviction that Karl Barth is not the answer, but he is still the problem for the church.

Because unless you have a means for God to speak directly and that that direct speech gets recorded in Scripture, what is the point of the Church? What is the point of faith? What is the point of this meeting? I would be honoured if I thought that you were here just to hear my opinions! [Or maybe] my religious experience is so profound that I can fill this room full of people. No! You are here because you believe God has spoken and he has spoken in Scripture true truth. Scripture is not just the record of the experience of enlightened individuals in the past. It is God speaking! So when you read the Bible, you are hearing the voice of God. The words themselves are the voice of God.

Now all of these people—C. H. Dodd, William Temple, John Baillie, Karl Barth, Rudolf Bultmann—denied that. They denied it in different ways and to different extremes, but all of them in the end denied the possibility of propositional revelation—special revelation in the form of words and ideas and concepts and doctrines. All of these men bring with them a priori assumptions, such as: God does not reveal propositions/words (Temple, Baillie); God does not disrupt the physical order (Bultmann, who says that everything that looks like a miracle in Scripture is impossible, because creation and science is not like that); the Bible is important and to be esteemed, but fallible because in the end it is a human document (Barth). If the Bible is basically a human document, we need to go home folks, because there are better things to do. There are more exciting things to do, if the Bible is merely a human document.

Such views make Bible-study and preaching an exercise in ignorance, because at the end of the day we simply do not know. What we have of the opinions of men. Maybe they are interesting opinions, and maybe they are the opinions of men with great personalities, and maybe they are the opinions of men with a great deal of humour, but at the end of the day that is all it is. And it cannot have the categorical imperative of saying to us. “This is what God is saying to you.” It also redefines faith. Because what is faith in the New Testament? Faith means subjecting the mind and conscience to the Word of God. That is what faith is. It is subjecting and being submissive to what God says—submissive in our minds (our thinking) and submissive in our consciences (in how we evaluate what is right and wrong and what is of moral value). And only God has the right to tell us that. So it makes preaching an act of ignorance. It redefines faith. And it removes teaching from the life of the church. People with a low view of special revelation and the Bible go hand in hand with those who have a low view of the need for teaching, especially doctrine.

(Transcription of audio file from 39:55 to 40:07 omitted.)

Progressive. Special revelation is also progressive, or cumulative. What I mean by that is that God does not give it all at once. He gives it little by little. When you read the Bible for the first time, it sort of puzzles you. You encounter things like how in the Old Testament there seems to be a tolerance (not an approval, but a tolerance) of polygamy. You read the Old Testament and say, “How could these people have more than one wife?” There is a growing intolerance of it as the Bible progresses.

Or think of the clarity of certain doctrines, like the resurrection. Where do you find the resurrection in the Old Testament? With difficulty! If all you had is the first five books of the Bible, you probably would not find it. The Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection, and one of the reasons they did not believe in the resurrection is because all they had were the first five books of the Old Testament. They did not have the prophets; all they had was the Law, the first five books. The Pharisees believed in the resurrection because they had all of the Old Testament, but the Sadducees did not.

(Transcription of audio file from 41:45 to 42:04 omitted.)

Or think of the doctrine of the Trinity. It is tempting to read Genesis 1:26 “Let us make man in our image…” and see the word “us” and think, “Well, there it is, the Trinity in Genesis 1 on the very first page of the Bible.” Except: That never occurred to any godly Jew in the Old Testament! Moses did not draw that conclusion. Daniel did not draw that conclusion. Ezekiel never drew that conclusion. They saw the plurality as a plurality of majesty and not a plurality of number. So the doctrine of the Trinity is like a seed in the Old Testament, and it is hard to find. Yes, with hindsight you can see certain things that are certainly compliant with the doctrine of the Trinity. But it [bursts forth] when you read the Gospel of John and the prologue of John, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” You know, that is absolutely astounding for a Jew—to write “God with God.” God alongside of God, and yet there is only one God. It is absolutely astounding, because one thing the Jews believed was the unity of God, because they said it three times a day—the Shema Yisrael, Deuteronomy 6:4, “Behold, the LORD your God is one.” So there is a progression in the Bible. There is progression in special revelation. It is not given all at once. It is given in little doses, and it grows.

(Transcription of audio file from 43:52 to 44:11 omitted.)

And then certain things get left behind as it grows. I want us now to think about some very difficult issues. There is progression even in the pages of the New Testament itself. Think of Acts 2 and Pentecost. “All who believed were together and had all things in common” (Acts 2:44). This was not communism (it was not enforced); this was a voluntary sharing on the part of the early believers in Jerusalem. Well, it is nice, but it did not seem to work. And as you turn the pages of Acts, it sort of disappears. There is an initial enthusiasm that sort of disappears. There is a progression of thought even within the New Testament.

Take something like house churches. House churches have come back into vogue again, but actually it is like going back to being an infant or a teenager, because house churches are what you see in the Acts of the Apostles. But when you come to later writings of Paul (the Pastoral Epistles—1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus), you have things like deacons and elders and structure and very specific things said about worship. So you see the progression of a church that begins in an upper room and then expands to houses, but by the time Paul is writing his final epistles several decades later, the church has grown, the church has matured, and the church has taken on structure.

Or take spiritual gifts, like tongues and prophesy. When Paul is writing his final epistle, 2 Timothy, it is his swan song. He is martyred immediately after writing 2 Timothy. He is writing what I think he understands is his last epistle. He is giving instruction to young Timothy to pick up the mantle and to go with it, because Paul is not going to be around anymore. And he talking about what Timothy should do, and signs of maturity in the church, and the sorts of things he ought to be looking for in the church. But there is no mention of tongues and there is no mention of prophesy, as though for Paul at the end of his life these spiritual gifts have already been superseded. [As if] they actually belonged to the infancy of the church. As he says to the Corinthians in 2 Corinthians 12:12, they were “signs of the apostles,” and therefore ceased with the apostles.

There is a (rather intricate) case to be made whether sign-gifts like tongues and prophesy were peculiar to the early part of the early Church and were signs of the apostles and ceased with the apostles, or whether they continued. Actually, they did not continue (that is historical fact), but some say they re-emerged somewhere in the late nineteenth or early twentieth century. Some say they re-emerged first of all in San Francisco at the turn of the century. So it raises all kinds of questions like, “Why were they not present for 1900 years?” Or it raises questions like, “If tongues in the New Testament seem to be foreign languages (i.e., Croatian or Welsh or Hindi), which is what I think they were (certainly on Pentecost), what are these phenomena that purport to be angelic languages or prayer language or something of that kind, but really have no connection with anything that you see in the New Testament?”

I have given you [in the handout] something by way of arguments for and arguments against. I am a secessionist. I believe these gifts ceased along with the apostles, and whatever phenomena are present today bear no relationship to the phenomena that you actually see in the New Testament. The argument for and against secession belongs to this part of the study that we are looking at because tongues and prophesy were also part of God’s special revelation. They were part of God’s special revelation before the canon of Scripture was given. I have given you at the very end [of the handout] an appendix by Dr Ferguson from his book The Holy Spirit. I have just given you a little quotation from his book explaining what he regards contemporary phenomena to be. He too is a secessionist; he also believes these gifts of tongues and prophesies ceased along with the apostles.

Conclusion🔗

Let me draw it to a conclusion. We have been talking about special revelation in some of its infant forms (in terms of dreams, in terms of prophets in the Old Testament, in terms of certain sign-gifts in the New Testament), all of which leads up to the culmination of special revelation in Scripture itself. So the next topic that we need to discuss is: What is this phenomenon that we call the Bible? Two million words, three languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek), 40 different authors, over a period of 1500 years, containing poetry and history and apocalyptic writings and narrative and parables and letters and construction manuals and architects drawings and all kinds of things! What is this phenomenon called the Bible? Which is [what we will study] next lecture.

Add new comment

(If you're a human, don't change the following field)
Your first name.
(If you're a human, don't change the following field)
Your first name.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.