A little over a year ago I posted a
critical muse about Christocentricism that, despite the minimal interaction, has proven the most heavily trafficked of all the entries I've ever posted. Apparently, it struck either a chord or a nerve. A year later and on the heels of an outstanding post on this topic by
Rod Decker, while poking about in Luke 24, I stumbled again upon one of the key proof texts of the Christocentrists and decided to give it a closer look. What I found was interesting. Note the following two translations of verse 27:
- esv: Beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, [Jesus] interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.
- niv: Beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, [Jesus] explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.
The esv rendering suggests that there are “things concerning Christ” in every Scripture. This interpretation is grammatically possible. The niv rendering, however, is also grammatically possible (and, incidentally, if one follows a major textual variant in this verse, grammatically necessary—see NA27). I also find the niv reading more theologically satisfying. In short, the niv reading acknowledges that there are many things about Christ in the OT Scriptures, but falls short of insinuating that Christ permeates the whole of the Old Testament.
It certainly will not do to deny that there are prophetic references to Christ in the OT (see, e.g., Luke 24:45; John 5:39; Acts 17:2; 18:28, etc.). But it is equally unwarranted to conclude from Luke 24:27 that
every OT text speaks to/about Christ or even that the
primary focus of the OT is Christ. As important as Christ is to the Christian message, it is too ambitious to say that the Bible is all about Christ. The Bible is instead all about God. To narrow this to a single member of the Godhead not only smacks of a sort of Unitarianism, but also leads inevitably to the transformation of exegesis into so much agenda-driven speculation under the guise of typology or old-fashioned allegory.
MAS
5 comments:
Mark,
Excellent post!
I've been thinking along those same lines for a while. I'm not sure how folks find Christ in every Scripture. But I've actually had people get testy with me when I've remarked that Christ isn't in every Scripture.
Again, good post.
tjp
Very helpful. Thanks.
In general, I agree. But I have a question regarding preaching from the OT. Should sermons on OT texts be preached without reference to Christ's life, teaching, and cross?
I'm inclined to think, rather simply, that Christ will not be the interpretive key to every OT text, but that Christ is the applicational key to every OT text for NT Christians.
Is that an inconsistent with your focus here?
When it comes to homiletics, there is a sense that application for the NT believer often has to be manipulated to be meaningful on this side of the cross. So, for instance, we often find ourselves saying, "Now things were a bit different for the OT saint--he was under the Law, he had to offer sacrifices, etc., etc., and in Christ things are not the same."
But having said this, I don't know that I would say that the person and work of Christ color the application of EVERY OT text. For instance, I recently preached a sermon on Psalm 104--a poetic celebration of the power, providence, and wisdom whereby God the Father (with a passing reference to his Spirit) implemented his creative decree, followed by a call to rejoice in God. I see no difference between the way the OT saint and the NT saint respond to this psalm. There is no hint of Christ's work, and it is totally non-redemptive in nature. If I remember correctly I never mentioned Christ in this sermon. One could reference Christ, of course, because the work of Creation is later revealed to be Trinitarian in nature. But is that necessary? I'm not sure that it is. My goal in preachign Psalm 104 was to magnify the person and work of God the Father.
Now I can't imagine a sermon that isn't about God. But that Christ has to be the applicational key of all OT preaching to me does not follow, at least in an absolute sense.
Your example from Psalm 104 is helpful. Even as I typed "applicational key to every OT text" I thought, hmm...maybe not.
One of the ways I've thought about this has been to take JI Packer's truth about God/man/redemption/response scheme of the gospel and ask if these elements are found in a given OT text.
But as with a variety of New Testament paragraphs that I might preach, there certainly are portions of both the OT that might focus solely on the character of God the Father. I guess I've been inclined to say that there is "gospel" there because there is truth about God. But that's a pretty wide definition of gospel.
Thanks for the helpful thoughts.
Post a Comment