Why does the question around progressive revelation matter?

Every believer has a responsibility to rightly understand and interpret the Bible. The Christian must closely examine the text and do so with the right framework in order to under- stand it properly for the sake of their own walk with the Lord and their ministry to others. This is necessary for all literature. I purchased a volume of Robert Frost’s poems because I heard that he is one of the greatest American poets to ever live, and because I thought a better understanding of poetry would improve my understanding of Scripture. The problem is, I have no framework for understanding poetry, and even the lines of Frost ring on deaf ears because I do not know how to read them rightly. For Scripture, the Christian should embrace the framework of a grammatical-historical hermeneutic which seeks to understand the intent of the original authors, both divine and human, and holds that those two authors had one meaning in mind. The temptation is often, because of later revelation, to go back and say that a prior text has meaning beyond its original context. Many times, this further meaning is said to be the divine meaning (sensus plenior, or “fuller sense”) that is separate from the human author’s meaning. This fails the test of faithful biblical interpretation. “We should not study them (Scriptural doctrines) in light of modern systems of divinity, but should aim rather to place ourselves in the position of the sacred writers, and study to obtain the impression their words would naturally have made upon the minds of the first readers…. Still less should we allow ourselves to be influenced by any presumptions of what the Scriptures ought to teach…. All such presumptions are uncalled for and prejudicial.”[1] In attempting to go back and discern a separate divine meaning, we have entered the world of subjectivity and hermeneutical unfaithfulness. Peter is clear that the human and divine authors of Scripture intended exactly the same meaning in the text. “For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”[2]

The faithful interpreter understands that the Bible was revealed to men over the course of about 1500 years and that later authors had a clearer understanding of God’s unfolding plan than the earlier authors. While this new revelation may apply the meaning in a different fashion than the Old Testament authors foresaw, it does not change the meaning of the original text. This gradual unfolding of information is known as progressive revelation and a right understanding of it is essential to faithful biblical interpretation.

 

How do we define progressive revelation?

Ligonier.org defines progressive revelation this way:

Scripture teaches what is often called ‘progressive revelation.’ Simply put, this means that God revealed Himself to His people over many centuries, periodically giving new information that built on but did not contradict or deny what came before. For example, the Lord spoke to Abraham and gave him the promise of salvation. Later, He spoke to Israel through Moses, the old covenant mediator, adding the law, which did not overturn the promise but rather reinforced Israel’s hope in the promise (Gal 3:15-29). After that, the prophets gave more revelation regarding God, and then the Lord’s final revelation came in the incarnation of the Son and the Apostolic writings that explain His person and work (Heb 1:1-2).[3]

An essential part of this definition is the idea that new information “built on but did not contradict or deny what came before.” Each passage has a meaning that was intended for the original audience. This idea is sometimes called “passage priority.”

Passage priority is the idea that the meaning of a passage is found in that text and not another text elsewhere in the Bible. God did not speak to the authors of the Bible in a way that lacked meaning. While they could not yet see the whole picture of what the Lord was going to do, the information they received was intended as given, and the meaning is not altered by later texts. “Later revelation might comment on a passage, draw principles or significances from it, or connect a promise in the Old with fulfillment in the New, but later revelation does not reinterpret or change the meaning of earlier revelation. Meaning in a text is found in that text, via grammatical-historical interpretation that discovers the original authorial intent. And when all meanings of all Bible passages are understood correctly, we will find they harmonize.”[4] When passage priority is ignored, the original text is found to be lacking meaning or the meaning is changed entirely.

The source of meaning is found in a text properly fit into genre, literary form, and context, looking at the grammar and structure of the passage. A disregard for a right view of progressive revelation removes all authority for a passage from the human author, thus separating the human and divine intentions. The interpreter is not to jump forward in Scripture, circumventing a right view of progressive revelation, and read that meaning back into the earlier passage. “Ignoring the progress of revelation will lead to gross misinterpretation of the biblical data. Thus, the task of the biblical theologian is not to impose his own structure on the biblical narrative but to discover and display the inherent structure of the Bible’s story.”[5]

 

What do we do with the idea that New Testament authors apply passages differently than the Old Testament authors?

In his interview on the Do Theology Podcast regarding progressive revelation, Dr. Darrel Bock helped shed light on how the New Testament looks back to the Old in unexpected ways when just considering the Old Testament passage. Bock explained that later texts on given themes can “refract” back on earlier texts and open up something that may have been initially implicit and make it more explicit. He cautions that the earlier you are in the Bible, the more limited you are in “refractory” information. This idea of “refraction” is complicated because it seems to imply more meaning than what was evident in the original text. He describes it as a light shining into a prism and then more colors come out of the prism than what were originally seen. This is only problematic if we are implying that there is more meaning than what the human author intended. If the contention is that the human author had more in mind when he wrote under the inspiration of the Spirit, then no issue exists.  This approach of an expanded intent of the original author is put forth by Vlach in the case study at the end of this article. If we apply this principle to Holy Spirit-inspired application by the New Testament authors, it makes sense that there is far more application than the Old Testament authors ever realized, and indeed, in Christ, there is great beauty in this broader application of these Old Testament prophecies.

 

How do we know when we have crossed the line in applying Old Testament passages in a New Testament context?

While there may be some disagreement on refraction in meaning versus application, Bock is helpful with a couple of guidelines to know when an application is crossing the line of sound hermeneutical principles. The first caution is that this refraction cannot contradict something in the original utterance. When our covenant brothers say that God’s land promise to Abraham is realized spiritually in Christ, their application of New Testament teaching to the Old Testament has contradicted the original utterance and makes God unfaithful to His promises. It means that the land promised to Abraham’s descendants will not be theirs. This is a dangerous practice and disregards the essential principle of progressive revelation that says it cannot contradict or deny what came before.

The second helpful tip that Bock gives is that we should not apply backwards what the New Testament authors do not themselves apply. The safest way is to look for explicit confirmation in another text that the passages should be connected. He rightly says that we should err on the side of not connecting passages. Even the most faithful scholars are tempted to step into this trap. I had a notable and highly respected (I hold him in high regard as well) professor at The Master’s Seminary who connected the grassy hillside where the audience sat in the Sermon on the Mount to being led to green pastures in Psalm 23. He did this to say that we can know that Jesus is the Good Shepherd of Psalm 23, which He certainly is, but this is applying the text in a manner that is not explicit in the Scriptures. Applying backwards where the Scriptures do not explicitly do so is a dangerous path that circumvents God’s process of progressively revealing truth to His people. “New Testament writers received direct, divine revelation, whereas contemporary interpreters do not. Therefore, we cannot take the liberties with the text that the New Testament writers took with the Old Testament Text.”[6] If we want to ensure that we stay faithful to God’s Word, let us apply the text backwards where we have been authorized by the Holy Spirit but not otherwise.

 

A Case Study

It is helpful to consider a case study where the New Testament author seemingly applied the Old Testament Scriptures in a manner not originally foreseen by the Old Testament author.

Hosea 11:1 states, “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.” This passage is clearly in reference to the nation of Israel, particularly when verse two says, “The more they were called, the more they went away; they kept sacrificing to the Baals and burning offering to idols.” This does not seem to be referencing Christ, but in Matthew 2:15 the Lord tells us, “This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, ‘Out of Egypt I called my son.’” When commenting on these passages regarding both Israel and Christ being called out of Egypt, Dr. Thomas states: “This principle of seeing the NT use of the OT as applications rather than as interpretations is more in accord with grammatical-historical practices. The fact that the added meanings supplied in the NT did not become discernible until provided by inspired NT writings means that the authority for such interpretations derives from the NT citation, not from the OT passages themselves… Of course, God knew from eternity past that fuller meanings would eventually emerge, but so far as human beings were concerned, such meanings were nonexistent until the time that NT apostles  and prophets disclosed them.”[7] While Hosea may not have had the Messiah in mind in his writing, the Lord intended that this would be applied to Christ in Matthew. The meaning here regarding Christ coming from Egypt is then found in Matthew, not Hosea.

Michael Vlach poses a different theory where he states that Hosea could have had in mind the king of Israel as well as the nation being called out from Egypt. “Numbers 23:22 refers to Israel while Numbers 24:8 refers to Israel’s king… As he (Hosea) had access to these texts, perhaps Hosea had this connection in mind when he wrote Hosea 11:1. If he did, then Hosea had more in mind than just the actual exodus of Israel centuries earlier. He may have been thinking of Israel’s coming King in relation to Israel as well.”[8] This approach would seem more akin to Bock’s “refraction” idea that uses the light of the New Testament to see more meaning than originally observed in the Old Testament, though that meaning does not escape human authorial intent. Whichever vantage point one takes, there is no new meaning present other than what the original author intended. Matthew’s approach either informs us of Hosea’s intended meaning (showing that the expanded meaning included the king of Israel and not just the nation itself) or applies the passage in a way that would not have been originally expected.

 

Conclusion

I started this article by saying that this is a complicated area of theology with a lot of disagreement from very faithful men. Many of the men whom I quoted or referenced in this article disagree with each other on the topic. Let us be thankful for their diligence in the Word and their care for the Church in doing the hard study through difficult topics. That being said, we all have to make a decision as to where we land, and the single intent of the human and divine author is a priority in accurate biblical interpretation. The main issue at stake in progressive revelation is the intent of the human author and whether later revelation can change or add to the original meaning. The answer must be, “No.” God has revealed His Word to His people, and His meaning is the same whether Hosea is read in 2025 or in the 700’s BC. God has revealed His Word progressively to His people over a long period of time, and we must seek to interpret the text faithfully. We must also let all that we do be done in love (1 Co 16:14).

 

---

ENDNOTES

[1] Milton Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan), 595.

[2] 2 Pe 1:21, ESV.

[3] “Progressive Revelation,” Ligonier.org, May 24, 2016, https://learn.ligonier.org/devotionals/progressive-revelation.

[4] Michael Vlach, Dispensational Hermeneutics (Theological Studies Press, 2023), 36.

[5] T. Maurice Pugh, “Dispensationalism and Views of Redemptive History.”

[6] Robert L. Thomas, “Exegesis and Expository Preaching.”

[7] Robert L. Thomas, “The Hermeneutics of Progressive Dispensationalism,” The Master’s Seminary Journal (Spring 95).

[8] Michael Vlach, The Old in the New (The Woodlands: Kress Biblical Publications, 2021), 56.

Copyright VOICE Magazine, used by permission.

Issue: March/April 2026.