OK, so I'm preparing two new classes for seminary this semester: Old Testament Historical Books and Old Testament Theology. I'm still blissfilly doing theology and history (my first two loves), but restricting my focus to the Old Testament. And so while I still find myself still thinking about contemporary theological concerns, I'm running them through the grid of the Old Testament. And I've got this growing sense that something is awry. The buzz today is THE GOSPEL. We have gospel coalitions, we get together for the gospel, the catchwords of the day are "gospel-centered," "Cross-centered," "Christ-centered," and so on. And I get all that: the gospel IS a big deal. No argument here.
But since I've spent almost all my study time in the OT during the last two months, it's almost as though I've left the Gospel Carnival behind. Kind of like going for a drive in the country, but better. It's been very refreshing, but the funny thing is that, despite the fact that I have been spending considerably more time than normal in my Bible for the past two months, I've read virtually nothing about Christ, the Cross, or the Gospel.
Now some of you are probably shaking your heads right now and saying, "This guy doesn't know how to read his Bible--it's ALL about Christ if you know how to successfully navigate between the lines!" And I'm not blind to the redemptive thread that winds through the Bible. But the thing is, when I stop reading between the lines and just start reading the lines, Christ and the Gospel do not emerge as major OT themes. In fact, they're not themes at all.
And so I'm musing here. If robust faith and rigid separatism could flourish in the OT without reference to the themes of Christ and the Gospel, is it really possible to jettison everything else today and base fellowship strictly or even primarily upon fidelity to the Gospel? I wonder...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
About Me
- Mark Snoeberger
- After growing up in the great state of Pennsylvania, I settled down in 1994 with my new bride, Heather, in Allen Park, Michigan, and have been here at Detroit Baptist Seminary ever since (with a bit of time away for doctoral work). Since 2007 I have been privileged to be a part of the systematic theology faculty here. I love teaching, researching and writing, hunting with my two boys, and enjoying any little bit of God's unadulterated creation I can find (which means I occasionally have to get out of Detroit). But all these things matter to me only because theology matters. For it is God himself who gives all men life and breath and everything else (Acts 17:25).
26 comments:
Christ is not a theme of the OT? Either I don't understand what you mean by theme or Christ, or I'm seriously off in my understanding of the ever-unfolding promise(s) regarding the Messiah. What am I missing here?
I did admit a redemptive thread in the OT, and as I mentioned last week, a series of prophecies that develops over time into a Messianic shape, but it's hard for me to call Christ an OT "theme," much less a major theme. Perhaps I'm packing too much into the label "theme," but I tend to reserve the term for motifs that are emhasized relentlessly and with clarity, like divine exclusivity, holiness, creation, covenant faithfulness, and the like.
I'll also add that my peculiar area of interest is the historical books, where this seems especially true. Apart from 2 Samuel 7 and 1 Chronicles 17, the Messianic idea is nearly absent. So maybe I could qualify my comments a bit--the Messianic idea does become more prominent in the latter prophets.
But these concessions aside, I still think my major point, that Christ and the Gospel are not major concerns in OT discussions of separation/fellowship, still holds. Other themes seem to take pride of place.
MAS
Mark,
Tell if you think I'm wrong, but after 23 years of expositional preaching, I see the kingdom theme to be the most prominent, that is, the reign of God in the lives of men. We're hopeless for His reign without His redemption, but His reign the point, nevertheless. Your thoughts.
I'd be interested in hearing about the themes which have pride of place in the OT. Are there any OT themes disconnected from Christ and the Gospel, that do not point to Christ and the Gospel, that do not find fuller or fullness of meaning in Christ and the Gospel? Can you or should you preach any OT text without pointing to Christ and the Gospel? If so, what is the point of preaching without Christ and the Gospel? The Gospel is not just a big deal. It is THE deal. I have no idea what you mean when you say that Christ and the Gospel don’t emerge as themes in the OT. What good is the study of OT history and theology if Christ and the Gospel are absent?
It seems logical to me that the historical books would concentrate more on historical and factual data that support and connect the narrative, poetic, and prophetic books.
I don't think you can get away from the Messianic/redemptive themes found in Genesis and then throughout the rest of the Torah as the sacrificial system is implemented...not to mention the prophecies in the wisdom literature and further in Isaiah, Daniel, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and others. Christ is there without a doubt.
Just to clarify: You said, "when I stop reading between the lines and just start reading the lines, Christ and the Gospel do not emerge as major OT themes. In fact, they're not themes at all."
Others have asked about Christ already. In regards to the Gospel--are you defining the Gospel only in terms of the historical fact of the Crucifixion (e.g. 1 Cor 15)? If not, what then of the OT's teaching regarding human depravity, mankind's need for redemption, the promised Messiah, electing love, etc? It seems that one must adopt an exceedingly narrow definition of the Gospel (e.g. death, burial, and resurrection events) to arrive at the conclusion that the Gospel is not an OT theme.
Wow. I hit a nerve. Took my wife out for Valentine's Dinner, and came back to some consertnation. So, in order,
Kent, yes, I do see kingdom as a key theme. I'm not sure I reduce this to reign of God in the lives of men, though. Kingdom is a bit more complex than that, IMO. There are universal aspects and mediatorial aspects to the kingdom motif that exceed redemption. These seem to be fairly prominent in the OT.
Stephen, if I were to identify the key themes of the OT that touch the doctrine of separation, two themes come immediately to mind: the exclusivity of God and the holiness of God. Hands down. I don't see anywhere, on the other hand, where the OT saint separated over the content of the Gospel or specifics of Messianic expectation (Christ). That's not to say they wouldn't, but that's not the emphasis.
As to preaching the OT, in the last five messages I preached out of the OT, I mentioned Christ in only one:
I preached through Psalm 104 exhorting people to meditate on and exult in the power, wisdom, and providence with which God created and sustains his universe.
I preached through 1 Kings 18 on the exclusivity of God and his incredible sovereignty in the face of all rivals.
I preached through Habakkuk 1 on the proper approach to prayer in the face of apparent injustice.
I preached through Habakkuk 2 on the incredible hope we have that God will set things straight in his universe. I mentioned the Gospel in this sermon because of the citation of 2:4 in Romans 1:16-17; I mentioned Christ because Hebrews 10:37 adds specificity to the "it" of Habakkuk 2:3 and indicates that the ultimate fulfillment of this prophecy will come in the person of "him."
I preached through Habakkuk 3 on the believer's confidence in the goodness and greatness of God.
I'd never be so arrogant as to say that you have to preach these texts this way, but I did my best to capture the central message of each passage based on a careful exegesis of the actual text of each. Christ and the Gospel just didn't seem to come up in these passages, so I didn't feel right trying to force him between the lines.
I agree that Christ and the Gospel are a big deal. I preach about them regularly. I don't agree that they are "THE" deal. At the risk of sounding a bit impertinent, it seems a bit anthropocentric to suggest that "THE" concern of the Bible is Christ saving people through the Gospel. Granted, without the Gospel, we can't participate in all that God is doing, but if I were to pick "THE" topic of the Bible, it would have to be God.
Finally, Mark, I'm not sure what more to add to what I said earlier, so we might just need to agree to disagree on this one. I'm comfortable saying that there is a redemptive and prophetic thread that surfaces throughout the OT; I'm just not sure I feel comfortable concluding from this that this rises to the level of the issue of the OT--especially as it touches the OT basis for separation, which, again, is my main concern in this post.
MAS
David, a salient observation that I thought might emerge. It's been a concern of mine that the opposite is also true--that there is a tendency today to make Gospel so broad that it's everything. Maybe we need a happy medium. :)
How do you understand Rom 1:2, "the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures" Specifically, what does "gospel" mean?
Bill, the Gospel in a nutshell seems to be the good news of the resolution to man's shattered relationship with God. It's something clearly anticipated in the OT. It emerges as a major theme if not THE theme of the NT.
But here's my hangup: if what I just said means that Christ and the Gospel are "the" theme of the OT, then I could just as easily say that Moses and the Exodus are "the" theme of Genesis 12-50...because we see in Genesis 12-50 a thread of disobedience and ensuing judgment, a downward spiral of disobedience, divine disapproval, and above all a promise of deliverance through a leader of God's choosing.
To me there's a disconnect here. Yes, Moses and Exodus are major themes of the book of Exodus, but it seems anachronistic to me to see this as the theme of Genesis 12-50.
So even though I see in the OT a redemptive thread and the promise of redemption through a Messiah-seed, it seems terribly anachronistic to say that the Christian Gospel is the theme of the Old Testament.
OK, so let me go back on the offensive. The major point of my initial post, despite the discussion, is not whether the Gospel and Christ are themes of the OT. The debate rose out of a comment I made in my initial post, so I alone bear responsibility for it.
But I wonder if we could shift discussion (if any more is forthcoming), to the central thesis: that Christ and the Gospel are not the functional basis for separation in the OT, and, consequently, that this fact should at least inform the practice of separation in the NT.
I guess I just find it odd to marry a discussion of separation to a discussion of Christ in the Old Testament. If we are to inform our present day application of separation from the OT, that would seem to have some pretty drastic implications.
Mark,
What audacity! What chutzpah! What daring! To claim we ought to read the text and not between it, beneath it, or beyond it. Unbelieveable! Who woulda thunk it!
I once heard a preacher say that no matter where you cut the Bible it bleeds the blood of Calvary. It's absolutely astonishing the interpretive contortions brothers will entertain to make that statement work.
Good post.
T. Pennock
I've been preaching for over 30 years and I find your statement appalling.
"As to preaching the OT, in the last five messages I preached out of the OT, I mentioned Christ in only one."
Do you preach or lecture? If Christ and the Gospel didn't "come up" do not the texts point to Him in some way? Did any of these messages call people to repentance and redemption? Not without Christ and the Gospel! Doesn't sound like "careful exegesis." Sounds more like dry exegesis.
Mark,
You asked: "If robust faith and rigid separatism could flourish in the OT without reference to the themes of Christ and the Gospel, is it really possible to jettison everything else today and base fellowship strictly or even primarily upon fidelity to the Gospel? I wonder..."
I think some clarification of "jettison everything else" is needed to understand where you are headed with your muse.
If you're talking specifically about the separatism of the nation of Israel (or frequent lack of it), how do we bring that to bear on the fellowship of the NT community?
If you're talking generically about the powerful ways that the OT displays God's holiness (like God commanding Abraham to sacrifice his son), then it seems that the NT, indeed the gospel, actually exceeds this as we learn that God's holiness demands the perfect life and sacrificial death of His Beloved Son.
I have a feeling you mean something more specific, aside from the law. But I can't think of what it would be...
NG
NG, That's a fair question and one that bears explanation. My concern is that, historically, standards of ecclesiastical fellowship and separation have regularly been other than and more than the Gospel. In the earliest creeds the major concern was the Godhead. Denominational fellowships were forged on the issue of baptism and Communion. The ETS for years had as it's only two criteria the Trinity and inerrancy. Today there seems to be a significant consensus that it all boils down to Gospel. And I've been musing for some time that this is historically a bit myopic.
So as I read through the OT, I find it intriguing that the overwhelming concerns that led to separation in the OT are idolatry (neglecting divine exclusivity) and impurity (neglecting divine standards of holiness).
That's where my muse comes in. Separation was really, really important in the OT. But it's funny to me that in evangelicalism today, the primary and in some cases the sole standard of fellowship is the Gospel--a concern that was not nearly so central at other point of biblical and ecclesiastical history.
Stephen, I can't lay claim to being an expert preacher, and if longevity in the pulpit is the standard, you win the prize. No doubt I've delivered a sleeper or two, and to my shame have misapplied a few texts. But if I could ask, in all sincerity, about just one of the sermons I mentioned--
If a text explicitly calls on readers to appreciate the intricacy and wisdom with which God created the world, what is wrong with applying it exactly that way--by an earnest, vibrant appeal for God's people to rejoice in His common grace, greatness and goodness as manifested in his creation? What am I missing here? I try hard not to be "dry" but I don't see referencing the Gospel as the only way to add zest to a sermon.
Mark,
My wife brought your post to my attention and I must say that I really appreciate your emphasis here.
Daniel Habegger
I'm thankful for this as well, Mark. A needed course correction.
Mark,
IMO, your last two comments (to NG and Stephen) add sufficient clarity to matter. Without doubt, some of today's faddish emphases on the gospel have the (unintended?) consequence of promoting theological reductionism. Biblical concerns regarding separation have always been broader. That is why I prefer to use the category "truth" as the foundation for discussions of separation, rather than "gospel."
While I frequently articulate a connection between an OT text and a Messianic metanarrative (redemption/Kingdom) when I preach, I am always aware that in so doing, I am adding layers of significance not contained in the text. But if that becomes the primary goal of preaching, then clear exposition of the text becomes subservient to an expression of the preacher's interpretive creativity. I think that explains, in part, the nearly ubiquitous eisegesis found in OT preaching.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Steve Thomas
Mark,
Your response helps a great deal. While I can see significant repetition of some of these OT themes in the gospel, some clearly don't fit within any average definition of gospel (like inerrancy).
Thanks for the helpful discussion.
NG
Mark, just an FYI. I think your blog has been hacked. You might want to change your password.
Okay, joking aside...
I'm hoping I'm just misreading you, but I don't see how I can be. You've made some really strong statements here, especially in your initial post. Well, that and the 5 messages comment. I hate disagreeing with you; it seems like an awfully ill-advised thing to do in light of our comparative intelligence and education. Nevertheless, I'm not seeing it. Not at all.
I understand the danger of seeing every piece of wood in the OT as a picture of the cross. I assume you're opposing that, and perhaps the rejection of separatist principles for supposed gospel reasons, and perhaps tendencies of CT you see as dangerous. But try as I might, I still can't justify the thrust of your argument.
OT and intertestamental Jews awaited the Messiah as a result of the Hebrew Scriptures' continual emphasis on a coming Redeemer (1 Pet 1:11; Luke 2:25-26). How much more should we who read the OT with the inspired commentary of the NT see Christ---and at the very least the preparation/need of Christ---in the sacrifices, or covenants, or Kingdom promises, or cycles of failure/judgment/restoration, etc. Especially in light of multiple explicit statements from the NT (Luke 24; John 5:46; consistent explanations of OT passages in apostolic preaching and the epistles, etc.). Passages which I feel like a simpleton to even point out. I can't imagine not seeing Christ all over the OT, as THE dominant theme, much less being "refreshed" by the perceived Gospel-less-ness.
Say it ain't so, friend!
Chris,
I just published a new post that I think partially addresses this question (though not in all of its specifics). If I can gravitate over to that thread, it's more directly related.
Thanks.
I'm a bit late to this discussion, but two points concerned me in your post.
First, if you are "not blind to the redemptive thread that winds through the Bible," how can you read the OT for two months and see "virtually nothing about Christ, the Cross, or the Gospel"? You have a point that direct messianic references are relatively rare, but this doesn’t mean that one has to read between the lines to see them. Most of the OT calls attention to Christ through His conspicuous absence. Like Rubin’s vase, the OT does not show us the face of Christ on every page, but it does work as a whole to give us an outline of who the messiah must be. Matthew’s fulfillment formula quotations illustrate how Christ is pictured throughout the OT. This doesn’t require excessive typology, just a consideration of what Christ fulfills. Thus realizing Christ’s absence in the OT shouldn’t give us the joy of a country drive but rather the yearning that accompanies a long journey.
Second, OT separation does have a strong emphasis on holiness with regards to disciplining errant Israelites (e.g. Exo 12:15-16). However, it does seem that the Israel’s separation from other religions focused on the major issue that Yahweh is God alone. I wonder if this has a dispensational parallel to the modern focus on the gospel as a defining issue of separation. I agree that separation needs to be more than this, but maybe they have a point.
Joseph
Joseph, I'm not sure what more I can add here. The concern that led me to say Christ is not "the theme" of the OT is the same sentiment that leads to my statement that the Exodus is not "the theme" of Genesis 37-50 or that the United Monarchy is "the theme" of Judges. Yes, in each case there is a void created that is filled by something that is absent, but that to me does not add up to a "theme." If I were to tap the governing theme in each case it would be the blessing of covenant obedience and the curse of covenant disobedience.
The refreshment I had in reading the OT is not glee derived from the relative absence of Christ or the Gospel, but the joy of rediscovering important OT themes that receive less emphasis in the NT...themes so important, in fact, that the OT people of God separated over them.
mark centers
hey Mark
going back all the way to your original post. I have a similar love (theology and history). for the past four years I have been pouring through the Old Testament for the express purpose of understanding the world of OT theology and NT Development from OT theology. the course of my studies have been broad. from Historical Hermeneutics to Talmudic/rabbinic interpretation (primarily for current orthodox Jewish evangelism).
all that to say that I also have wrestled with OT and NT relations. while I don't agree with the current "read Christ in every passage" take on the OT, I do see a pure messianic hope weaved throughout the entire canon of the OT. one extra-biblical source that has helped me in this endeavor is Michael Rydelnik's "the Messianic hope". I recommend this book to anyone who reads their bible. the discussion is logical and well organized.
Mark Centers
( I attended Northland international university in 2006-2007 and i am currently finishing up some undergrad work at BJU. in the future my wife and I hope to church plant and minister to the Jewish people)
Post a Comment