"To be specific, that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Yeshua Hamashiach through the gospel." Eph.3:6
Monday, October 31, 2011
Progressive revelation
Is progressive revelation biblical?
If so, then why it is so destructive?
If new revelation come by way of progression, are then earlier revelation anulled?
That revelation is progressive seems self-evident to me. If there were no progressive process of revelation, then we would have to claim that Adonai dumped all spiritual knowledge into our laps at a singular point in time.
But that isn't what happened. He gave some revelation to Moshe, some to Shmuel, some to David, etc. Finally, as Hebrews 1 says, the final revelation was given 1500 years after Moshe by Yeshua, the climax of divine self-expression.
What I find problematic is that many who adhere to the concept of progressive revelation also have another interpretive principle--"New and improved trumps old and lousy". That is, later revelation is interpreted as though it were given in a vacuum, and then that interpretation is used as a lens through which we view all prior revelation.
This is erroneous. The Torah itself explains why. Devarim/Deuteronomy chapters 13 and 18 give instructions regarding any revelation that may come in the future (from Moshe's standpoint in time). Everything a prophet says must be accurate. But more than that, everything a prophet says must affirm Torah observance, as defined in the Torah.
In practical terms, what this means is that the Torah is the baseline for all revelation. Everything that comes afterwards must be interpreted in such a way that it affirms the commandments in the Torah. Anyone coming after Moshe claiming that the commandments of the Torah are no longer to be observed is to be condemned as a false prophet.
I submit that the problem in Biblical interpretation is not the concept of progressive revelation. The problem is not even the use of Pardes as a tool for teasing out all possible interpretations of a text. The problem is this mentality that later texts are allowed to overrule what was said earlier. This has created a schizophrenic view of Scripture that practically forces its adherents into a mentality of "dueling verses", setting one part of the Bible against another, because there is no consistent framework that allows the whole of Scripture to be true at the same time.
That revelation is progressive seems self-evident to me. If there were no progressive process of revelation, then we would have to claim that Adonai dumped all spiritual knowledge into our laps at a singular point in time.
ReplyDeleteBut that isn't what happened. He gave some revelation to Moshe, some to Shmuel, some to David, etc. Finally, as Hebrews 1 says, the final revelation was given 1500 years after Moshe by Yeshua, the climax of divine self-expression.
What I find problematic is that many who adhere to the concept of progressive revelation also have another interpretive principle--"New and improved trumps old and lousy". That is, later revelation is interpreted as though it were given in a vacuum, and then that interpretation is used as a lens through which we view all prior revelation.
This is erroneous. The Torah itself explains why. Devarim/Deuteronomy chapters 13 and 18 give instructions regarding any revelation that may come in the future (from Moshe's standpoint in time). Everything a prophet says must be accurate. But more than that, everything a prophet says must affirm Torah observance, as defined in the Torah.
In practical terms, what this means is that the Torah is the baseline for all revelation. Everything that comes afterwards must be interpreted in such a way that it affirms the commandments in the Torah. Anyone coming after Moshe claiming that the commandments of the Torah are no longer to be observed is to be condemned as a false prophet.
I submit that the problem in Biblical interpretation is not the concept of progressive revelation. The problem is not even the use of Pardes as a tool for teasing out all possible interpretations of a text. The problem is this mentality that later texts are allowed to overrule what was said earlier. This has created a schizophrenic view of Scripture that practically forces its adherents into a mentality of "dueling verses", setting one part of the Bible against another, because there is no consistent framework that allows the whole of Scripture to be true at the same time.
Thanks, Mishkan for an astute reply.
ReplyDelete