Authorial Intent in Christ Centered Preaching, Part 2

In the previous post, I tried to show that although Christ centered preachers are often criticized for disregarding authorial intent in order to “make” every text about Jesus, a christocentric emphasis is not so much the result of exegetical method as of hermeneutical convictions. If Jesus is the culmination of all that the Old Testament writers said then applying their words to Christ and His work is recognizing rather than disregarding their original intent.

Nevertheless, the Bible is not a wax nose to be twisted into any shape that one desires, even if that shape is the shape of the cross. In this post, I would like to argue for a balanced approach to preaching Christ from all of the Bible while not ignoring the authorial intent of Old Testament writers. After all, if the Old Testament writers intend to present Christ then a faithful exegesis will be Christ centered and yet never disconnected from the purpose, structure, and context of their words.

If we take a balanced approach and explain the plain meaning of the text before making application of Christ, we will avoid many of the deficiencies of the positions at the extremes of either position. For example, some critics of Christ centered preaching accuse it of being light on practical application for a life of holiness while supporters criticize exemplary preaching of the Old Testament as bare moralism. The approach I am advocating allows for exemplary preaching within the context of redemptive-historical application. Some advocates of Christ centered preaching insist that every Christian sermon must explicitly present Christ while critics assert that the purpose of every sermon is to explain the meaning of the passage and that not every passage explicitly focusses on Jesus. The approach I support allows for the preacher to present Christ while explaining the plain meaning of Old Testament passages. I believe that these applications develop naturally from the text because Jesus and His work are the culmination of all Old Testament teaching.

There is not room here for a detailed analysis of the topic but a few basic concepts help provide boundaries for balancing authorial intent and Christ centeredness. First, as Walter Kaiser Jr. argues, we must read the Bible from front to back rather than back to front. Many advocates of Christ centered preaching insist that the fullness of New Testament revelation should inform our understanding of Old Testament passages. Some Christ centered advocates such as Ed Clowney and Graeme Goldsworthy argue that the full meaning of particular Old Testament texts may transcend the language and context of the original passage. Certainly, we should not read the Old Testament as if we do not have the New but as Kaiser points out, to disconnect the meaning of a passage from the actual words, context, and structure of the human author is to undermine the Bible as a standard of truth.

If, however, this is the case then how is it that I can claim that every passage is about Jesus Christ if many Old Testament texts are not explicitly messianic? The reason is that every passage to one degree or another connects to a series of trajectories that culminate in Christ and His work (past and/or future). Every text is related to God in some way, whether it is His kingdom, His promises, His people, etc. These grand themes such as God dwelling with His people, the coming King, the blessing to the nations, God creating for Himself a holy people, run throughout the Bible from start to finish. The connection between God and the full revelation of Himself to human beings in Christ is the basis for a natural application of Old Testament passages to Christ. If we are preaching with the whole Bible in mind and yet are reading it from front to back we can clearly explain the natural meaning of the Old Testament passage based upon the context and purpose of the human author and then make legitimate application to Christ and His work. Since Jesus Christ is the perfect revelation of God, we are to understand God the Father through Him (Jn. 14:9, 2 Cor. 4:4, Heb. 1:3). We therefore are able to make the proper and intended application of the Old Testament without reading meaning back from the New Testament. The New Testament revelation is the culmination rather than the foundation of the Old.

If the preacher faithfully preaches the meaning of the Old Testament passage, there will be a natural pathway to Christ or His work. The text does not have to be explicitly messianic in order for the application of the text to be legitimately Christological. The reason is that even the non-messianic texts work together to build toward a fulfillment in Jesus and His work. Here are just a few of many examples that would encompass a wide range of Old Testament texts.

• The Kingdom / Christ is the promised king
• The Law (holiness of the people of God) / New Covenant in Christ’s blood & His perfect righteousness
• The Wisdom of God / Christ the divine Logos & wisdom of God, also Christ who applied the Law perfectly and is the wise teacher who is greater than Solomon
• Defeat of the enemies of God / the Cross & the 2^nd coming
• God dwelling with His people / the incarnation & new Jerusalem

We can preach wisdom and exemplary points and still connect the texts to their culmination in Christ through either promise-fulfillment or a redemptive-historical approach. Many strong authorial intent advocates are critical of the methods of the redemptive-historical school but if you agree that the intent of the Old Testament prophets was to point to Christ, (1 Pet. 1:10-12) it is possible to incorporate much that is valuable in their methods without abandoning a commitment to a plain hermeneutic.

For example, Ed Clowney is well known for his triangle diagram that shows the relationship between a particular Old Testament event and its typological reference to Christ. Clowney argued that many Old Testament events have symbolic references to broader themes that then develop throughout the history of redemption until they finalize in Christ. His method was to preach those typological references to Christ always emphasizing an organic relationship between the promises and their fulfillment.

Many criticize the direct move from Old Testament symbol to New Testament referent because it opens the door to potentially disregard the Old Testament passage in its own context and the symbolic connections can only be certain if they are explained in the New Testament. I agree with Clowney that there are many more typological connections between the Old and New Testaments than are directly explained by the New Testament writers and I think it is legitimate to preach them. Clowney’s method is very helpful (as are his oft-ignored guidelines on identifying legitimate O.T. symbols). However, in order to maintain control of the exegesis it is more helpful for the preacher to walk the congregation through the process of moving from passage to symbol to fulfillment than moving direct from symbol to fulfillment (move along the 90-degree turn rather than along the hypotenuse). That way, the typological insights are clearly presented as arising from the relationship between the Old and New Testament passages in their natural contexts with the Old culminating in the New.

Other advocates of Christ centered preaching have suggested additional approaches that can be used while remaining true to authorial intent. For example, Bryan Chappell suggests that we pay particular attention to what he calls the fallen condition focus. This means that every Old Testament text in some sense reveals something about a particular sinful condition. By examining that condition, we can demonstrate that our contemporary congregations struggle against the same fallen condition. We can examine God’s response to that condition in the Old Testament and place that response in the broader story of God’s ultimate solution to the problem in Christ. Sidney Greidanus also argues for the need to build from the Old Testament text and suggests seven legitimate ways to move from the Old Testament message to Christ. These include:

1)      Redemptive-Historical Progression

2)      Promise-Fulfillment

3)      Typology

4)      Analogy

5)      Longitudinal Themes

6)      New Testament References

7)      Contrast

It is true that sometimes preachers use Christ centered approaches in ways that fail to honor authorial intent, but the blame lies with those preachers and not the general conviction to preach Christ from all of scripture. It is possible to take a balanced approach that allows us to draw out the Christological focus already present in the Old Testament (as well as the other lessons) without superimposing the New Testament over the Old. Rather than following any particular preaching fads, we are called to present the Word of God in a way that honestly emphasizes both the unity of the scripture as well as the unique contribution of each part.

“… our concern is not to preach Christ to the exclusion of the “whole counsel of God” but rather to view the whole counsel of God, with all its teachings, laws, prophecies, and visions, in the light of Jesus Christ.  At the same time, it should be evident that we must not read the incarnate Christ back into the Old Testament text, which would be eisegesis, but that we should look for legitimate ways of preaching Christ from the Old Testament in the context of the New.”

-Dr. SidneyGreidanus, Preaching Christ from the Old Testament pg. 227-228

Authorial Intent in Christ Centered Preaching

“Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.” (Jn. 17:7)

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life.” (Jn. 14:6)

One common criticism of Christ centered preaching is that it fails to pay enough attention to the authorial intent of Old Testament passages. What many critics of Christ centered preaching fail to appreciate; however, is that the exegetical conclusions of Christ centered preachers are based upon a hermeneutical principal that is deeper than simply inserting Jesus into their sermons. The argument of Christ centered preachers is that the Old Testament authors’ original intent was for their writings to be understood and applied christologically. They argue that we do not need to read Christ back into the Old Testament because He is already there. The debate should not be about the contrast between an emphasis on authorial intent and Christ centeredness, but rather on the degree to which the authors intended their writing to be about Jesus Christ.

 Before we begin, I would like to make a couple important points. First, authorial intent and context are essential to a proper understanding of the Bible. Allegorical or mystical interpretation is improper and undermines the authority of scripture. It is simply not appropriate to ignore the words, structure, and context of the Old Testament passage in order to have Jesus pop out of every story. Second, there are many examples of irresponsible exegesis in Christ centered tradition just as there are in other traditions. I am not defending irresponsible applications of a Christ centered reading of the Old Testament.

The Bible itself teaches that the Old Testament is to be understood christologically. As a result, interpreting an Old Testament passage without regard to its function in the broader redemptive narrative that culminates in Christ and His kingdom is to ignore the larger context of those passages and the intent of the human authors. Jesus taught that the writers of the Old Testament were speaking about Him. He criticizes the Jewish leaders for their misunderstanding of the scriptures in that they did not recognize that they spoke about Him (Jn. 5:39). He tells them that Moses is the one who accuses them before the Father because had they believed Moses, they would believe in Him because Moses wrote of Him (Jn. 5:46). The implication is that the authorial intent of Moses was to speak of Christ and that those who read his words without a christological focus misunderstand him.

Jesus does not only make this claim about Moses, He says similar things about all of the Old Testament writers. He said that Abraham saw his day and rejoiced (Jn. 8:56).  After His resurrection when He appeared to the disciples on the road to Emmaus he calls them fools because they did not recognize the Old Testament teaching regarding the messiah (Lk. 24:25-26). Luke then records that He then gave them a Christ centered interpretation of the entire Old Testament (Lk. 24:27). We should not assume that he simply pointed out a few messianic passages because we are told in verse 32 that He “opened” the scriptures to them and again in verse 45 that “opened their minds to understand the scriptures” (Lk. 24:32,45).  Jesus is teaching them that He is the fulfillment of the Old Testament.

This teaching is central to the ministry of the apostles. Indeed, it would not be an overstatement to say that to a large degree the New Testament is a commentary on the Old Testament. Peter explains to the crowd at Pentecost that David spoke about the resurrection of Christ (Acts 2:25,31). Like Jesus, he does not limit this claim to one prophet but also claims that all the prophets spoke of Jesus (Acts 3:18). Later, when he writes 1 Peter he makes a claim that has astounding hermeneutical consequences regarding authorial intent. He says,

“Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully, 11 inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories. 12 It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you, in the things that have now been announced to you through those who preached the good news to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, things into which angels long to look.” (1 Peter 1:10-12)

Peter is writing to those who have believed the Gospel and says the prophets wrote about the salvation that was to come to them, that the prophets inquired about this, that the prophesy came through the Spirit of Christ working in them, and that they predicted the sufferings and glory of Jesus. He also says explicitly that it was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but “you” (believers in Christ)! This is astounding because it reveals that not only is Jesus the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophesies but that the prophets knew that. Of course, they did not have a complete picture and they inquired about the timing etc., but they intended their words to refer to something beyond their immediate circumstances.

In a similarly amazing statement, the author to the Hebrews tells us that the great heroes of faith in the Old Testament did not receive what was promised. In fact, apart from those who have trusted in the Gospel of Christ they would not be made perfect (Heb. 11:39-40). The coming of the kingdom of God in the person and work of Jesus Christ is the culmination of all the promises and faith of the Old Testament.

Paul likewise assumes that the Old Testament writers intended to speak about Christ. His references to this are so numerous and so intertwined with his writing that it would be nearly impossible to list them. It is clear that he understands his ministry as building upon what the Old Testament taught (Acts 24:14, 26:22-23). Paul describes his ministry and that of the other apostles as preaching Christ crucified, or preaching the riches of Christ (1 Cor. 1:23, Eph. 3:8). It is interesting to see how he actually did this.

One of the best examples is Paul’s sermon in Acts 13:13-43. He was in Pisidian Antioch and after the reading of the Law and Prophets; he was invited by the leaders to address the congregation. He begins with the Old Testament and works through the narrative of redemptive history right into the New Testament. While connecting all of this material he presents Christ as the central theme. I just quickly looked over that sermon and I counted between 18 and 20 distinct references to the Old Testament. This sermon is saturated with the Old Testament and is designed to present Jesus Christ and the Gospel explicitly. There is no allegory; Christ is presented as the intended focus of those texts. This is apparently not a unique sermon for Paul because he delivers it extemporaneously and we are told that it is Paul’s normal approach to go to the Jews first and reason with them from the scriptures (Acts 17:2). Remember, that “the scriptures” means the Old Testament.

All of the apostles used preaching opportunities to present the Gospel of Jesus Christ and they usually do this by showing that Christ is the fulfillment of the Old Testament promises. It is the assumption of the New Testament writers that Jesus is very much present in the Old Testament and is in view when the prophets are writing. The authors are so confident of this that on occasion they attribute the very words of the prophets to Jesus Himself. Just one example is found in Hebrews where the author quotes Psalm 22 as being the words of Jesus (Heb. 2:10-12, Ps. 22:22).

Hundreds of other examples could be given but I hope this is sufficient to show that a commitment to preaching Christ from the Old Testament is not simply the result of disregarding authorial intent. Rather, redemptive historical preaching assumes as a hermeneutical principal that the Old Testament authors intended their words to be applied to Christ. The question is therefore not if it is OK to ignore authorial intent in order to present the gospel (it is not), but how we can understand and apply the Old Testament to Christ and the church properly. I plan to examine this exegetical question in the next post.  

Read Part 2

G.K. Beale's approach to Matthew's use of Hosea 11

One of the most fascinating issues in biblical studies is the way the New Testament writers use the material from the Old Testament as it relates to the person and work of Jesus Christ. Many modern students who are committed to the grammatical-historical method of interpretation have been troubled by the way that the New Testament writers reference and apply these Old Testament texts. Perhaps the most troubling example is the way that the apostle Matthew applies Hosea 11:1 to Jesus in his gospel.

I came across this lecture on the DBTS blog by G.K. Beale on Matthew's use of Hosea. Beale argues that Matthew's usage and meaning is a proper and sophisticated application of Hosea's writing in its full context. He argues that Matthew is not ignoring the grammatical-historical context of Hosea, but is sensitive to that context, while also linking it with broader historical redemptive themes related to the Exodus and their final culmination in Christ.

The lecture is just over an hour long but anyone interested in the "problem" of how the New Testament writers use the Old Testament will find it is time well invested. I believe that Beale's position that many of the perceived difficulties can be resolved if careful attention is paid the context of the Old Testament material that is quoted is fundamentally right. His presentation is interesting and compelling even if it does not address every complexity. I recommend it to anyone who may have an interest in the topic.