Scriptural Evidence for Progressive Revelation
Observing and imitating the interpretive practice of the biblical authors
I’ve written about how later Scripture nuances, clarifies, limits, expands, and can even nullify earlier Scripture and how this reality is one of the features of what we call progressive revelation. Recognizing progressive revelation is vital for correctly interpreting the Scriptures.
I simply wanted to add four more Scriptural proofs of interpretation within Scripture that model progressive revelation, one of which I came across while reading my Bible this week.
Numbers 3
The first is in the Old Testament, within the Pentateuch itself. This is similar to the example I gave of Numbers 15:32–36 in my first post, in that later Scripture was needed to clarify earlier Scripture within the Pentateuch. In this example, however, God simply reveals a change.
Exodus 13:11–15 teaches the Israelites, on the day of the Exodus, that the firstborn belong to the LORD. This is explained in that, the LORD killed the firstborn of the Egyptians but redeemed the firstborn of all the Israelites who were covered by the blood of the passover lamb. And so, every firstborn in Israel going forward would be the LORD’s and have to be redeemed (Ex 13:13). This was to be a teaching moment, to teach subsequent generations about how the LORD redeemed Israel from Egypt.
However, by the book of Numbers, Israel is being arranged for life in the promised land. And in chapter three, the LORD simply declares that he is taking the Levites “instead” of the firstborn who open the womb. [Since there was a swap, Levites for the firstborn, the Levites and the firstborn were counted and there were 273 more firstborn sons than Levites. These individuals were then redeemed. Num 3:46–51]. God, within the Pentateuch, changed the affairs of the people of Israel. Again, later Scripture (Numbers comes after Exodus) develops earlier Scripture resulting in a different law moving forward.
Romans 4
When arguing for justification by faith and not by works, Paul uses the example of Abraham. Abraham, we are told, was justified for his faith in Genesis 15:6. Paul makes the argument that Abraham was justified before he was circumcised (Rom 4:10), which did not happen until Genesis 17. He then claims that this occurred for the “purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well” (Rom 4:11).
Here, Paul models, that it has theological significance for the doctrine of justification by faith than Genesis 15 comes before Genesis 17. It cannot be much clearer that we must be sensitive to progressive revelation, to knowing what texts comes before and after each other when discussing a particular doctrine.
Galatians 3
Very similarly to Romans 4, Paul makes an argument in Galatians 3:15–29 from observing that God’s promise to Abraham in Genesis 12 —that all nations would be blessed in him (Gal 3:8)—was given 430 years before God gave his law in Exodus 20–24. His argument is, this law cannot nullify God’s promise because the promise came first (Gal 3:17). Furthermore, he argues that the fulfillment of the promise cannot be brought about through law obedience, for then the promise is no longer according to a promise (Gal 3:18).
He spends the rest of this section in Galatians explaining why then did God give the law, explaining which is not the purpose of this post. But notice again Paul’s sensitivity to the timing (the “before” and “after”) in God’s actions (giving a promise and giving the law) and how the timing of events—the progressive nature of God’s events—is significant in Paul’s interpretation.
Hebrews 3–4
In Hebrews 3–4, the author is making an argument about entering God’s rest. To bolster his argument, the author quotes Psalm 95. In the history of the Bible, God’s “rest” first applied to the people getting “rest” by living in the promised land. However, the author of Hebrews makes the point that Psalm 95 says “Today if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts” (Heb 4:7, Ps 95:7) and argues “For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken of another day later on.” (Heb 4:8). In other words, if Joshua had given the Israelites rest in the promised land at the time of the book of Joshua, why would the author of Psalm 95 (who the author of Hebrews identifies as David) later write that they can still enter God’s rest “Today.” The author of Hebrews then concludes that there is still a rest for God’s people—even the audience of Hebrews—to enter “today” (Heb 4:1).
The point to highlight is that the author of Hebrew’s models how to interpret Scripture, specifically Psalm 95. And in interpreting Psalm 95 it is important to note that it is written after the book of Joshua and that has implications for interpreting the “rest” available to enter.
Points to Remember
A few things to remember when interpreting Scripture being sensitive to progressive revelation:
It is not always clear when a book of the Bible was written—for example, while many of the prophets state the king under which the prophet ministered, many prophets do not (e.g. Obadiah, Micah, Joel). In these instances we must both (a) acknowledge that God inspired the prophet to not include the king during which he ministered and so we must hold the dates of these books with an open hand while (b) there are usually literary, contextual, and canonical evidences allowing us to date such books pretty accurately, or at least to know which books they come before and after.
The order of the biblical books is not the order they were written in. For example, Jonah appears 5th in the minor prophets, after Hosea and Amos. However, it appears that Jonah ministered before Hosea and Amos (2 Kings 14:25—the book of Jonah does not give us a date, so this would be canonical evidence for the date of Jonah).
All Scripture is inspired and profitable (2 Tim 3:16) and so, even though earlier parts of Scripture may have been nuanced, clarified, or nullified—their canonical status is not nullified. Just because Jesus declared all food clean does not mean we remove the chapters on food laws from our Bibles. Such passages are inspired and profitable—but the way in which they are profitable is determined by later Scripture according to progressive revelation.