Here’s the basic definition of “Biblical Theology” that I am leaning on for this series of posts: Biblical theology is the fruit of studying the Bible in such a way as to recognize the individuality of each biblical author, the progress of revelation over time and the unity of the canon resulting from the inspired nature of Scripture. The question is whether our preaching neglects one side of this triangle? Yesterday I considered the issue of authorial individuality (both in style/vocabulary and in content/theology). Now let’s look at the second “side of the triangle:”
The Progress of Revelation – Over time, the revelation from God progressed. If our Bible’s stopped at Genesis 3, we’d know very little. If our Bibles stopped at Malachi, we’d be at a loss. Our Bibles do not stop at Deuteronomy, or Malachi, or 2Timothy, or Jude (contrary to the opinion of some – I recently read a well-known scholar arguing that Revelation doesn’t add anything to the Bible in terms of theology, it just adds imagination! We could play “spot the theological agenda” with that quote, but that’s going off point for this post!) God gave us 66 books and each is adding to the revelation. Thus it is important to recognize where your preaching passage sits in that progress. We neglect this aspect of understanding the Scriptures when we fail to recognize the meaning of a passage in its context, at that time in the progress of revelation. We can neglect this aspect when we always read everything through the “lens” of later revelation, without first honoring the fact that it is inspired Scripture even before that “lens” was added.
Guidelines – always seek to recognize the meaning of a passage as intended by the author at that point in the progress, before also recognizing how revelation progressed in the centuries that followed. Perhaps consider whether more time needs to be spent on helping listeners see what the original recipients would have received from the passage, before jumping to a contemporary application, or even a New Testament filtered interpretation. Always ask yourself, am I giving the impression that this text was not inspired or was not “useful” (2Tim.3:16) until a later book was written?
Other suggestions? We’ll deal with the matter of the unity of the canon tomorrow to finish this mini-series.
Biblical Preaching 
“We neglect this aspect of understanding the Scriptures when we fail to recognize the meaning of a passage in its context, at that time in the progress of revelation. ” I do like that statement.
Preaching in the moment of the text. I like that. Maybe I will use that. Never said that before.
Nor do I put into the text what is not there. If I don’t see Christ and redemption in the text I don’t put that in either.
I like this. I just might put this in website. Thanks. You are never too old to learn what you are doing.
Peter,
Great statement/question, “am I giving the impression that this text was not inspired or was not “useful” (2Tim.3:16) until a later book was written?”
God’s Word has always been useful to all generations and did not need further explanation for the generation in which it was first proclaimed. Our contemporary application of it, while being informed by further revelation (i.e. NT texts) should start with the original hearers/readers.