Sample Chapters

The Bible Is Not a Salad Bar

Contemporary preaching that seeks to honor the authority and inspiration of God’s word frequently exhibits a tension between exegetical precision and canonical coherence. Many pastors demonstrate careful attention to the meaning of individual passages yet struggle to situate those passages within the broader narrative of Scripture. As a result, sermons may be textually responsible while lacking a clear sense of how the passage contributes to the Bible’s unified theological message.

This difficulty is not primarily the result of negligence or lack of effort. Rather, it reflects a deeper issue related to how Scripture is conceptualized and interpreted. In practice, the Bible is often approached as a collection of discrete units rather than as a canonically ordered and ordained whole. Individual texts are examined in isolation, with limited attention to their role within the unfolding narrative of redemption.

The consequence is a form of functional fragmentation. Although the unity of Scripture is affirmed at the level of doctrine, it is not consistently reflected in the practice of preaching. Over time, this disconnect shapes both the preacher’s interpretive habits and the congregation’s understanding of the Bible.

This chapter argues that such fragmentation can be described, by way of analogy, as a “salad bar” approach to Scripture. While the metaphor is intentionally illustrative, it captures a real tendency within contemporary preaching: the selection and exposition of individual passages without adequate integration into the canon as a whole. The purpose of this chapter is to diagnose this pattern and to demonstrate the need for a more explicitly canonical approach to interpretation and proclamation.

The Problem of Interpretive Inheritance

Part of the difficulty in recovering the Bible’s unified story lies in the way Scripture is often read through inherited theological frameworks, such as from Irenaeus, Anselm, Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, and Luther. As D. A. Carson has observed, “it is very hard work to be informed by them without being controlled by them.”[1]

Carson’s point is not a dismissal of theological tradition but a caution regarding its unintended effects. The interpretive frameworks handed down through church history, particularly in systematic theology, can shape how Scripture is read in ways that obscure its narrative development. When this occurs, readers may approach the Bible not on its own terms, but through conceptual categories that are imposed upon the text.

This dynamic becomes especially significant when considering the narrative arc of Genesis 1–11. These chapters do not merely introduce isolated doctrines; they establish the foundational storyline of Scripture. Yet when read primarily through systematic categories, their narrative function can be diminished or overlooked altogether.

The result is analogous to attempting to assemble a jigsaw puzzle. One may follow how others placed the pieces in another arrangement apart from the puzzle maker’s original intention. The pieces are present, some connections can be made, but the original configuration is obscured.

The Canonical Significance of Genesis 1–11

Genesis 1–11 establishes the narrative and theological foundation upon which the rest of Scripture is built. Prior to the call of Abraham, the text presents a series of interconnected rebellions involving both humanity and supernatural beings. These include:

1. The rebellion in the garden of Eden (Gen 3)
2. The rebellion associated with the “sons of God” prior to the flood (Gen 6:1–4)
3. The rebellion at the tower of Babel (Gen 11; Deut 32:8-9)

These events are not isolated episodes but coordinated developments within a single narrative trajectory. Together, they articulate the progressive expansion of sin, corruption, and rebellion in the created order. This trajectory is further clarified by the relationship between Genesis 10–11 and Deuteronomy 32:8–9. As has been noted among astute scholars, the table of nations in Genesis 10 and the scattering at Babel in Genesis 11 correspond to the division of humanity “according to the number of the sons of God” described in Deuteronomy 32:8.[2]

Text-critical evidence supports this reading. A fragment from the Dead Sea Scrolls, which dates approximately one thousand years earlier than the Masoretic Text, renders the passage in terms of the “sons of God.”[3] Likewise, the Septuagint reflects this earlier tradition, translating בני האלהים (“sons of God”) of Gn 6:2, 4 as οἱ ἄγγελοι τοῦ θεοῦ (hoi angeloi tou theou), or “angels of God.” This rendering indicates the LXX translators understood the sons of God to be spiritual beings.

By contrast, the Masoretic tradition reads the division of humanity was according to the number of the “sons of Israel.” However, this rendering proves untenable, even apart from the text-critical issue, since Israel did not yet exist at the time of Babel. The implications of this textual issue are not merely technical. When the earlier reading is obscured, the coherence of the canonical narrative is diminished. For instance, upon such a reading, the relationship between Genesis 1–11 and the subsequent development of the nations becomes less clear, and the role of supernatural rebellion in the biblical storyline is correspondingly minimized. This crucial textual issue is seen in the various English Bible translations. The ESV, NET, RSV, NLT, NRSV, and TEV English Bible translation state that God divided the nations according to number of the sons of God, gods, heavenly beings, or the heavenly court. The NASB, KJV, NKJV, NIV, HCS, and the NCV English Bible translations render the division according to the number of the sons, children, or people of Israel.

The Limits of Systematic Theology

This narrative obscuring is compounded by the tendencies of systematic theology. Systematic works often organize biblical material according to logical and topical categories, rather than according to the historical and narrative development of Scripture. As a result, certain elements, particularly those related to the historical-religious context of Genesis 6:1–4 and the significance of Deuteronomy 32:8–9, are frequently underemphasized or omitted altogether.[4]

This is not a criticism of systematic theology as such, but a recognition of its limitations. When theological reflection is detached from the narrative structure of Scripture, key features of the biblical storyline may be overlooked. Carson’s warning is therefore especially relevant: it is possible to be informed by theological tradition while also being constrained by it. When this occurs, the narrative logic of Scripture can be subordinated to conceptual frameworks that do not arise from the text itself.

The Gospel within the Canonical Narrative

The loss of this narrative framework has significant implications for how the gospel is understood and proclaimed. Mark 1:1 introduces the New Testament with the declaration: “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.” The term εὐαγγέλιον (euangelion), commonly translated “gospel” or “good news,” was used in Greco-Roman contexts to describe the announcement of victory following a decisive battle, often accompanied by public celebration.[5]

This background highlights an important dimension of the biblical gospel: it is not merely the announcement of personal salvation, but the proclamation of victory after battle or conflict.

Yet in many contemporary presentations of the gospel, the identity of the defeated enemy is left largely undefined. The emphasis falls on human need and divine provision, but the broader conflict, which is introduced in Genesis 1–11 and developed throughout the canon, is often absent.

When the foundational rebellions of Genesis 1–11 are taken into account, however, the nature of this conflict becomes clearer. The gospel is revealed not only as the solution to human sin, but as the decisive victory of God over a complex network of rebellion involving both humanity and the supernatural realm. In this light, the work of Christ emerges as the culmination of a narrative that has been unfolding since the opening chapters of Scripture.

Toward Canonical Intelligence

Contemporary preaching must recover the coherence of the canon itself. This requires more than careful exegesis of individual texts; it requires the ability to situate those texts within the broader narrative of Scripture. This capacity may be described as canonical intelligence. Canonical intelligence may be defined as the ability to discern how individual passages participate in the unfolding drama of redemption and to communicate that relationship in proclamation. Canonical intelligence enables the preacher to move from passage to canonical narrative to the person and work of Jesus, the Son of God. Without such a framework, preaching may remain accurate in detail but unclear regarding the grand narrative. With it, sermons gain a coherence that reflects the unity of Scripture itself.

Conclusion

The Bible is not a collection of independent units, but a canonically ordered whole. When it is approached as a series of disconnected passages, preaching becomes fragmented, and the coherence of Scripture is obscured. This chapter has argued that such fragmentation is reinforced by inherited interpretive frameworks, insufficient attention to the narrative structure of Genesis 1–11, and the limitations of systematic approaches detached from the canon’s storyline.

The chapters that follow will develop a constructive alternative by examining the canonical significance of Genesis 1–11 and demonstrating how its narrative framework provides a foundation for preaching Jesus Christ, the Son of God, from the whole of Scripture.

[1] D. A. Carson, “Systematic Theology and Biblical Theology,” in New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, ed. T. Desmond Alexander and Brian S. Rosner, electronic ed. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2000), 101.

[2] See Tremper Longman III and John H. Walton, The Lost World of the Flood: Mythology, Theology, and the Deluge Debate(Westmont, IL: InterVarsity, 2018), 138-39. Goldingay provides further insight: “It provides a form of explanation for the otherwise inexplicable fact that the nations do worship these deities” in John Goldingay, Old Testament Theology: Israel’s Faith, vol. 2 (Westmont, IL: IVP Academic, 2006), 46. See also Patrick D. Miller, Israelite Religion and Biblical Theology (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 600.

[3] Florentino Garcı́a Martı́nez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, “4Q37 Deuteronomy J,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (New York: Brill, 1997–1998).

[4] The following systematic theologies fail to consider the Mesopotamian context of Genesis 6:1–4 and do not treat the division of humanity “according to the number of the sons of God: John Gill, John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible, Kindle loc. 50162; Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. 2 (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, 1997); John Miley, Systematic Theology, vol. 1 (New York: Hunt & Eaton, 1892), John Miley, Systematic Theology, vol. 2 (New York: Hunt & Eaton, 1893); L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1938); James Montgomery Boice, Foundations of the Christian Faith: A Comprehensive and Readable Theology (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1986); Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999); R. T. Kendall, Understanding Theology, vols. 1-3 (Ross-shire, Great Britain: Christian Focus, 1996, 2000, 2001); Norman L. Geisler, Systematic Theology, Volume One: Introduction, Bible (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 2002), Volume Two: God, Creation (2003), Volume Three: Sin, Salvation (2004), Volume Four: Church, Last Things (2005); Wayne A. Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004). Many of the theologians noted above stand in significant continuity with the work of Carl F. H. Henry, whose six-volume God, Revelation, and Authority helped shape modern evangelical theology. Yet even Henry does not account for the pivotal role of the “sons of God” episode or the events at Babel within the overarching storyline of Scripture. See Carl F. H. Henry, God, Revelation, and Authority (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1999).

[5] K. Schenck, “Gospel: Good News,” Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, Second Edition (Downers Grove, IL; Nottingham, England: IVP Academic; IVP, 2013), 342–343.