The Snowball Effect of God’s Word
The Hermeneutics of Progressive Revelation
Later Scripture clarifies, nuances, limits, expands, and even nullifies earlier Scripture.
We don’t like saying it like this because it can seem to imply that earlier Scripture was imperfect and needed updating or changing. However, this is a wrong implication.
And, it is quite easy to prove the above point.
Take for example Jesus’s claim in Matthew 15 when he declares all food clean. Clearly in Leviticus 15 and Deuteronomy 22 not all food was clean, but by the time of the New Testament all food is now clean. In this instance, later Scripture has nullified earlier Scripture. (And there is a theological reason for this, namely the replacement of the Old Covenant by the New Covenant, but that is not the purpose of this post!)
Or take for example the case of the individual collecting sticks on the Sabbath. The Israelites had already received the 10 commandments and the Book of the Covenant which fleshed out practical examples of the 10 commandments in their life (Exodus 20–23), but they needed later revelation to clarify how to handle such a situation (Num 15:32–36). They knew that they should keep the Sabbath, but they did not know what to do with someone who collected sticks on and thus broke the Sabbath. As Numbers 15:34 says: “They put him in custody, because it had not been made clear what should be done to him.” God’s Word at that point was not clear. And so, the Lord had to give new revelation with how to treat such an individual as Numbers 15:35 says “And the LORD said to Moses…” In this instance later Scripture clarifies and expands upon earlier Scripture.
Or, it seems pretty safe to say, that if we only had Genesis 1–3, we would know many things about God but not everything. Subsequent Scripture is necessary for us to have a full picture of who God is.
And so, an awareness of this phenomenon, that God has given Scriptural revelation progressively throughout the ages has significance for how we read the Bible.
Hermeneutical Snowball and Progressive Revelation
The phrase “hermeneutical spiral” is used in two ways. In one usage, it indicates that, as we relate the parts (say the meaning of a verse or a book of the Bible) to the whole (to the rest of the Bible), we are narrowing in on, just as a spiral gets closer to the center, the overarching meaning of Scripture. Or to say it another way, as we do exegesis (interpreting a text) and we integrate the meaning of that text into all the other meanings we’ve exegeted from Scripture to form a whole picture—called doctrine—we are narrowing in on the meaning of the Bible, we are spiraling closer to the center.
Another usage of the “hermeneutical spiral” relates to progressive revelation.
The concept of progressive revelation is that God has revealed himself and his plan of redemption throughout the Bible, but he has done so progressively, that is, through time, at different times (Heb 1:1–2). Obviously, Genesis occurred before Kings, and Kings occurred before Matthew.1[1] And so, later revelation clarifies, nuances, limits, expands, etc. earlier revelation because God has revealed things progressively. God progressive revelation is not mere addition, as if one doctrine was revealed in Genesis and then a second doctrine was revealed in Kings etc. Rather, each period of revelation often includes texts which contribute to multiple doctrines and so doctrine itself is progressively revealed. We know more about a doctrine when more revelation is given. And so, as we integrate later revelation with earlier revelation, we are able to arrive closer to the center (the point of the spiral) of the meaning of the Bible or to the meaning of a specific doctrine.
An example of this is Isaiah 53. We cannot fully understand precisely who the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 52:13–53:12 is just from the book of Isaiah alone. Or to put it another way, we can know who the Suffering Servant is from the book of Isaiah alone inasmuch as Isaiah intended to tell us in the eight and seventh century BC. But it is not until we get the New Testament—which clearly identifies Jesus as the suffering servant of Isaiah (Matt 8:17, Acts 8:32–35, 1 Pet 2:22–24)—do we fully understand of whom Isaiah wrote. Later Scripture in this instance has clarified earlier Scripture. Reading later Scripture with earlier Scripture gives the fuller picture.
One author has called this progressive revelation, rather than the hermeneutical spiral, the hermeneutical snowball.2 Just as a snowball rolls down a hill and accumulates more snow and more depth, so also, God’s revelation accumulates more revelation as it rolls throughout salvation history. This further depth enables one to understand more fully earlier parts.
A Reciprocal Relationship
This is not to say that the New Testament is superior to the Old Testament. As Paul says, “all” Scripture is profitable—and when he said this only the Old Testament was complete! The center of the enlarged snowball is still important in holding it altogether. We understand the sacrifices of Jesus better because of the explanation of sacrifices in Leviticus, we understand the kingdom of Jesus better because of the promised land and the kingdom of David and Solomon, we understand the redemption of Jesus better because of the Exodus. The relationship between the old and the new, between earlier and later Scripture is reciprocal. The New needs the Old and the Old needs the New, something prior needs to exist to build upon, clarify, nuance, develop, etc.
The New Testament is shorter and often assumes knowledge of the Old Testament. Knowing the earlier parts of the Bible, which the later parts assume, is necessary to get the full and deep understanding of the later parts of Scripture.
The implications of progressive revelation are at least two fold:
1. God Relates Differently to his Covenant people as the Covenant changes
Just as God’s covenant changes, so how we relate to God changes. I believe Old Testament saints were saved, justified, the same way New Testament saints are, by the all sufficient work of Christ. And yet, for an Israelite living around 900BC, they had to offer sacrifices at the temple according to the Mosaic Covenant, and wear certain types of garments, and eat certain types of food. I did not say God changed, or we are saved differently, but it is clear that how we relate to God—that is, the covenantal arrangement under which we live—changes throughout Scripture. While God rested on the seventh day, it is not clear that Seth or Noah rested on the seventh day. It was not until the Mosaic law was given was the prescription for resting on the seventh day given. We also know that pre-flood, humans were not permitted to eat meat, but after the flood they were. God did not change his mind, salvation did not change, but the administration of relating to God did change.
2. Doctrine/Theology is not the same as Exegesis
Christian doctrine is worked out from all of Scripture. However, doctrine ought to be sensitive to progressively revelation. I’m not saying that truth changes, but I am saying that truth has been progressively revealed.
And so, we should not read back into earlier Scripture what we know from later Scripture. For example, it is clear that the New Testament more explicitly teaches that God is one God in three persons, a trinity. I’m not saying that God wasn’t a trinity and then became a trinity, or that the Old Testament contradicts this teaching3 that is absurd. What I am saying is that the meaning of the plural “let us make man in our image” in Genesis 1 is unlikely to be the trinity. Did the triune God partake in creation? Yes. Is this the teaching of Genesis 1? I do not believe so, because if all we had was Genesis 1 we would not come to this conclusion. We only come to this conclusion because of later Scripture. The difference here is between doctrine and exegesis (interpreting a text). It is doctrinally true that the triune God was involved in creation, however this conclusion is not arrived at from exegesis of Genesis 1.
Because later Scripture clarifies, expands, etc. earlier Scripture, I am not saying therefore only read Revelation, or only read the New Testament. You need to know it all. And in this day and age, there is more need to read the Old Testament as the foundation and assumption of the New, the center of the snowball, to fully understand the New Testament. And yet, as you read you need to know where you are in the story. Just because Leviticus says not to eat shellfish it does not mean that you should obey that law. Later Scripture has nullified this law. And yet, knowing Jesus declared all foods clean makes no sense without knowing that previously some foods were unclean.
And don’t confuse doctrine and exegesis. Doctrine is a synthesis of all the teaching of Scripture that is sensitive to progressive revelation. But exegesis determines the meaning of a specific text. Read Scripture and seek to exegete the text, not to read into a text the doctrine that you already believe from the total teaching of Scripture.4[And then integrate the results of your exegesis into your doctrine.
We do not know the precise date for the completion of every biblical book, but the main point remains that later Scripture clarifies, etc. earlier Scripture.
David Starling, Hermeneutics as Apprenticeship (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2016).
N.T. Wright makes this point that the Hebrew Shema of Deuteronomy 6 did not rule out that the one God could exist in three persons. The New Testament and the People of God, 259.
This apparent division between exegesis/biblical studies and theology has long been noted. However, if we understand our doctrinal beliefs as our interpretive grid, it is technically impossible to read purely objectively. Jamieson and Wittman’s book Biblical Reasoning: Christological and Trinitarian Rules for Exegesis, though very technical, attempts to reconcile the reciprocal relationship between exegesis and theology.