Progressive Revelation ≠ Progressive Inscripturation
What follows are some musings on biblical theology that I've been mulling over since grad school days. On Friday of last week I took the opportunity to run this idea past Dr. John Oswalt who was on GBSC’s campus to teach Old Testament Theology. His concurrence encouraged me to post.
Historically, some Biblical Theologians have confused the
progress of revelation's inscripturation with the progress of revelation itself.
The progress of inscripturated revelation is the history of the writing of
Scripture. The progress of revelation, on the other hand, is the historical order in which God revealed truth. The progress of revelation can
only be determined when Scripture itself explicitly states that a particular
part of revelation was being given for the first time or had not been given
before.
For example, Genesis 26:5 states, “because Abraham obeyed Me and kept My charge,
My commandments, My statutes and My laws.” Since we have no revelation
regarding what commandments, statutes, and laws God gave to Abraham, we have no
way of knowing which of the Mosaic commandments, statutes, and laws had already
been revealed to Abraham. The history of revelation is not equal to the history
of the inscripturation of revelation.
Another example with regard to biblical
history: The first place in Scripture we find reference to Enoch
prophesying is Jude 1:14. In the history of inscripturated revelation, this
doesn’t appear until close to the end of the first century AD. However, in
history itself, it occurred prior to the flood. In the history of the
transmission of revelation it, apparently, was transmitted orally until it was written
down in 1 Enoch c. 200-160 BC.
This
same text (Jude 1:14) provides us an inspired record of the content of
Enoch’s prophecy: “Behold, the Lord comes with ten
thousands of his holy ones, to execute judgment on all and to convict all the
ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an
ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken
against him.”
Progress of revelation: the coming of Yahweh with ten
thousands of holy ones to execute judgment was known in Enoch’s time –
pre-flood.
Progress
of inscripturation: Perhaps the first recording of revelation similar to this
is Daniel 7:10
If a
biblical theologian were to try to trace the doctrine of a judgment by Yahweh
accompanied with his holy ones based on the idea’s appearance in the canon, he
would make this a late theological development. Yet, given the NT’s revelation,
it is a theological idea that has been around at least since the time of Enoch!
Implications
Unless the text explicitly or implicitly indicates that its revelation had
not been known or given before, the biblical theologian cannot know whether
what is recorded in Scripture was known prior to its recording. This, it seems
to me, severely limits developing a history of revelation. At best we can develop
a history of the inscripturation of revelation.
Comments
You got it. We can't know for a fact who knew what unless the Bible tells us (explicitly or implicitly) what they did or didn't know.
"Sabbath in Christ" p. 291: "The stipulations of the Sinaitic Covenant were not given to Abraham." On first glance, that appears to be an accurate statement, but it is rooted in the assumption that whatever Gen. 26:5 is talking about isn't reflected in any aspect of the Sinaitic Covenant. We can't know that; therefore, we shouldn't assume it, much less assert it.
Similarly, Dressler in "From Sabbath to Lord's Day", p. 23: "The biblical view is unequivocal: the Sabbath originated in Israel as God's special institution for His people." Dressler's statement equates first reference in inscripturated revelation with first instance of revelation. Leaving aside the issue of how Gen. 2 relates literally to Exod. 20, and leaving aside the introduction of Sabbath as a non-covenantal or pre-covenantal gift from Yahweh (Exod. 16), it is illegitimate to assume that because we don't have inscripturated reference to a Sabbath day prior to 1446 BC, that the concept had not been revealed or further could not have been given as a statute to the people of God.
I would love to know what you think. If you have writing on this topic or recommendations that would also be appreciated.
Nehemiah 9:14 says that God made known to them (Israel) His holy sabbath ... through his servant Moses, which is exactly what Exod. 16 records. This revelation, however, preceded the Sinaitic Covenant which was inaugurated in Exod. 19.
So, it was pre-covenantal, not non-covenantal. God incorporated the sabbath into the Sinaitic Covenant, and made it a perpetual covenant (Exod. 31:16). Ezekiel 20:12 is a direct reference to Exod. 31, I believe.
What is pre-covenantal may be incorporated into the Mosaic Covenant, without losing its independent status.
Blessings,
Philip