Seeking Truth in a Maelstrom of Uncertainty
One of the challenges facing people today is the sifting through the information presented to us in the media in…
One of the more recent hot topics surrounding exposition and hermeneutics has been the discussion of how New Covenant preachers should approach the Old Testament. One of the broadly embraced approaches has been labeled the Christo-centric hermeneutic. The aim of this approach has been to present every Old Testament text in its relation with the person and work of Christ. The aim of this article is not be to criticize the approach as whole, but rather to evaluate one assumption of the Christo-centric hermeneutic that we should seek to find “Christ in every passage of the Old Testament.”
The statement that “Christ is in every passage of the Old Testament” has some merit. For Christ is clearly the central figure of the Bible. Jesus Christ is the Alpha and the Omega (Rev 1:8). All of creation was created for Christ and through Christ.
For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. (Col 1:16) The Apostle Peter proclaimed to the Gentiles that all the prophets bear witness to Jesus—To him all the prophets bear witness that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.” (Acts 10:43) Jesus himself on the road to Emmaus, went through all of scriptures and explained how they concerned him- And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself. (Lk 24:27) Clearly, Jesus has a dominant place in the Old Testament. The debate before us considers to what degree, or in what sense is Christ in every passage.
There is a sense that Christ is in every passage—Redemptive history does move towards Christ (Acts 13:13–41; Rom 10:4; Gal 4:4). Moreover, many Old Testament texts demonstrate people’s need for Christ. Clearly, the sacrificial system and many of its elements point toward Jesus. (Leviticus 1–4; Hebrews 9:1–13). However, does this mean that the purpose of every text of scripture is to point to Christ? And do texts such as 1 Cor 2:2 and Lk 24:27 demand a Christo-centric hermeneutic and expositional approach? That is, has a Bible-teacher failed if he does not demonstrate how an Old Testament texts points to Christ? If these are the assumptions behind the statement in question, then we should proceed with caution.
This brings us to the cautions that need to be considered in the statement, “Christ is in every passage of the Old Testament.” There is no overt statement made in the Bible that the purpose of every passage is to point to Jesus. This is a conclusion that proponents of the Christo-centric hermeneutic have asserted based upon their understanding of a few key texts. But such a conclusion is not warranted by these texts, at best it is inferred.
In First Corinthians 2:2 Paul asserts, For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. It is suggested that what Paul means is that the only subject Paul preached on was Jesus Christ and him crucified. However, such an understanding does not line up with all the multitude of subjects Paul discussed in his many epistles. Moreover, such an understanding would not be the most natural meaning of the text. This can be understood on recognizing the surrounding context of Paul’s statement.
In the context, Paul has been explaining to the Corinthians that when he came to minister to them, he went out of his way to not impress them with his abilities. He kept his ministry very simple and focused on what Christ had done for them. He wanted them to be impressed by Christ not himself. For them to have chosen to listen to Paul’s teaching about Christ, because of Paul, would have been disastrous (1:17). Their belief would have been vain. That is, they wouldn’t be saved, but they would think they were.
Paul’s point in this statement is that seeing the inclination of the Corinthians to be drawn to worldly wisdom and lofty words, he chose to go out of his way not to utilize these tools in his belt. The reason he gives is in verse 5— so that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God. Instead of drawing attention to himself, Paul focuses all his attention on Jesus’ nature and work. He taught that Jesus was fully man and fully God. And that he left heaven in order to suffer and die on behalf of sinners. What he emphasizes though, is the fact that Jesus, even though he was God, was crucified. People were not impressed by Jesus—rather, they killed him.
Paul’s focus on the crucifixion is not simply because of its redemptive effects. It is because that is who the Corinthians were choosing to follow. He wants them to understand both the effects of Christ’s death and to recognize that that is the example that they are called to follow—and Jesus was crucified! Likewise, Paul doesn’t seek to impress people with himself, but rather he wants them to understand what Christ did for them. Paul is seeking to follow the example of Christ—this is his point.
Paul never intended these statements, or others that are similar (1 Cor 1:23; Col 1:28; 2 Cor 4:5) to be exhaustive of all he did in preaching. Rather, these statements were made to contrast his approach with the approach and emphasis of his opponents. To suggest that Paul was demanding a new hermeneutic is a dangerous stretch.
Arguably the most cited verse by the proponents of the Christo-centric hermeneutic is Luke 24:27. This text states that, beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he (Jesus) interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself. This text is cited as evidence that every scripture in fact does point to Christ. The critical assumption being made is that the phrases “Moses and the prophets” as well as “all Scripture” in that verse demonstrate Christ is found comprehensively throughout the Old Testament. Through and through, it speaks of Him. However, it is not necessary to conclude that Jesus actually cited every single text of scripture during this time. Frankly, this would have been impossible because they didn’t have nearly that much time on their hands to consider every Old Testament text. Instead this verse should be understood that that Jesus comprehensively discussed those particular Old Testament texts which were in fact about Him.
Such an interpretation can be defended simply by considering Christ’s statement in verse 25, when he asserts his disciples’ folly for being slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! This means that Jesus must have expected his disciples to be able to understand what the Old Testament taught about Himself apart from the light of New Testament revelation. That is the Old Testament texts were understandable simply based upon a natural reading of the test. The New Testament was not necessarily for them to recognize those texts service of pointing to Jesus. Therefore, in Jesus discussion with his disciples he was not making a hermeneutical shift, he was simply explaining that natural meaning of those texts.
In fact, as we examine the way Jesus in fact handled the Old Testament, we see that he also interpreted these texts according to a grammatico-historical hermeneutic. He cites the Old Testament when discussing the resurrection (Exod 3:6; cf. Matt 22:32), eschatology (Dan 11:31; cf. Matt 24:15), loving God (Deut 6:5; cf. Luke 10:27), loving one’s neighbor (Lev 19:18; cf. Mark 12:31), marriage (Gen 2:24; cf. Matt 19:5–6), divorce (Deut 24:1–4; Matt 19:7–8), Israel’s judgment (Gen 19:1–24; cf. Matt 10:15), and honoring father and mother (Exod 20:12; cf. Matt 15:4). In none of these cases does he veer from the grammatico-historical hermeneutic or suggest that the primary point of these texts was to point to him.
Because there is no overt statement in scripture demanding a Christo-centric hermeneutic. Each text should be understood and preached according to each text’s natural sense. That is, Bible-teachers should continue to be at peace simply leaning upon the principles established by the grammatico-historical hermeneutic. The Bible itself assumes that every text should be understood according to the author’s original intent. That intent is expressed through the way language is normally understood. The biblical writers demonstrate this in how they pay attention to words (Josh 23:14; Heb 4:1–11), phrases (Jer 26:18; Mark 1:1– 3), and even grammatical features (Gal 3:16).
There is a grave danger anytime we are encouraged to impose a secondary interpretive grid over the natural meaning of a text (what is sometimes described as having a hermeneutic within a hermeneutic. In such an approach, there is significant likelihood that the author’s intended meaning will be lost. If this happens, God’s intention for the text could be lost as well. And so, in seeking to lead others to truth, we might in fact, be leading them away from the truth.
Citations:
Bryan Chapell, Christ-Centered Preaching: Redeeming the Expository Sermon (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1994), 279; Sidney Greidanus, Preaching Christ from the Old Testament: A Contemporary Hermeneutical Model (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1999), 203–5.
Graeme Goldsworthy, Preaching the Whole Bible as Christian Scripture, 46–48, 84–85.
