Review: Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners by John Bunyan

http://christianaudio.com/grace-abounding-to-the-chief-of-sinners-john-dunyan

I suspect that most modern audiences would find the intense religious self-reflection of Bunyan, which was typical of the Puritans, somewhat neurotic and maybe even misguided. This, however, may reflect shallowness in our examination of life in light of the Word of God as much as it does excess on the part of the Puritans. This book is a window into the Puritan mind as it examines life in light of the Bible. Despite our modern conveniences, nothing fundamental has changed in human nature and so this book remains a treasure trove for any who struggle with reconciling what they know of the Holiness of God with the realities of their own thoughts and actions. Bunyan colorfully illustrates the various phases of the Christian experience through the lens of his own remarkable life.

This audiobook version was excellent. 17^th century English can be a distraction for many listeners but the narration by Simon Vance was wonderful. Vance’s clear command of the rhythm and flow of the language highlights the beauty of Bunyan’s prose and adds warmth and depth to the work. Unlike some other readings from this period I have heard, this one was a pleasant listen.

The fact that Bunyan first published the book in 1666 and it is still being read gives us a hint as to its insightfulness. Bunyan’s spiritual autobiography is among the classics of Christian literature. Standing in the tradition of Augustine’s confessions it is an object lesson using the life of the author to illustrate great and urgent theological truths. We may wince at Bunyan’s occasional allegorization and his frequent proof texting but there is no denying the power of his lesson. He not only describes how the Word of God converted him, shattered the pride of his shallow confession, terrorized him, and finally comforted him, but also ministers to us where these same needs are present in our own hearts. It is an honest and practical, yet theologically deep examination of the work of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer.

The authorities ordered Bunyan to stop preaching and imprisoned him because he refused. In the providence of God, this gave him time to write Grace Abounding and other works (while he was not preaching to the other prisoners) that have blessed generations of readers. Grace Abounding has reached far beyond the audience he had for his sermons. This book will be a great blessing and help to any believer who wishes seriously to examine his or her own faith and life. It will also be a help to any who are struggling with spiritual depression over their own sinfulness. Bunyan addresses all ends of the spectrum and leaves the reader/listener focused on the love of God and His Word. I recommend it and pray it is an encouragement to you.

* I received a free copy of this book from christianaudio.com as part of their Reviewers Program. Reviews are not required to be positive and the opinions I have expressed are my own.

Is God a Bloodthirsty Killer?

As long ago as the year 177, the philosopher Celsus attacked Christianity using the argument that the Old Testament describes a murdering, bloodthirsty God who is very different from the loving, merciful God Christians like to talk about. The argument has remained in the arsenal of critics ever since. Steve Wells, the author of the Skeptics Annotated Bible, has been particularly influential in popularizing this argument on his blog Dwindling in Unbelief and in his book Drunk With Blood: God’s Killings in the Bible. Wells seems to take pleasure in the apparent shock value of comparing the number of people that God has killed or ordered killed vs. the number that Satan has. In his book Drunk With Blood, Wells explains his purpose in making these comparisons. On the first page he writes, “It is my hope that as God’s killings become better known, people will know better than to believe in the Bible.” According to Well’s calculations; God is responsible for 2,476,636 deaths in the Bible while Satan is responsible for 60. Wells argues that if the prophesies of Revelation are included, the Bible presents 24,634,205 scriptural deaths at the hand of God verses 60 at the hand of Satan.

Is Wells correct about these numbers? If so, is it a good argument against believing in the God of the Bible?

Wells uses estimates to develop the numbers, as the Bible often does not record exact figures in these cases. I have not bothered to evaluate the estimates but it is clear even from a cursory reading that the Bible attributes far more loss of human life to the agency or command of God than to anyone else. If this is shocking, it is only because of a deficiency in the popular understanding of God’s character and holiness. In fact, the actual number of deaths attributable to God is far higher than Wells estimates. Death is the result of God’s judgment of sin (Gen. 2:17, Rom. 5:12, Jas. 1:15). Every funeral home, every cemetery, and every mausoleum is a testimony to the sinfulness of humankind and the righteousness of God (Rom. 3:23, 6:23). It is therefore wise to live tempered by the knowledge that we too will die and face judgment (Eccl. 7:2, 11:9). The sovereign God determines when our earthly lives will end (1 Sam. 2:6, Job 14:5). Therefore, in an ultimate sense, God has taken the life of every person who has ever died.

Since Wells seems to be correct that God takes human life and even sometimes uses other humans to do so, is it true that God is immoral? Is his argument against Christianity persuasive?

Although it may have emotional appeal, it is not a very strong argument. As Dr. William Lane Craig observed, “it [is] ironic that atheists should often express such indignation at God’s commands, since on naturalism there’s no basis for thinking that objective moral values and duties exist at all and so [there is] no basis for regarding the Canaanite slaughter as wrong. As Doug Wilson has aptly said of the Canaanite slaughter from a naturalistic point of view, “The universe doesn’t care.” So at most, the non-theist can be alleging that biblical theists have a sort of inconsistency in affirming both the goodness of God and the historicity of the conquest of Canaan. It’s an internal problem for biblical theists, which is hardly grounds for moral outrage on the part of non-theists.”

The argument must assume some standard of morality by which to judge God. Atheistic materialism can support no such standard. Ironically, the standard often assumed is the moral standard derived from the Bible. If the argument is intended to charge God with moral inconsistency then it is necessary that each of the events be considered within the broader context of the biblical teaching.

First, the Bible teaches that God is the creator and His character is the source of truth, love, and justice. As a result, it is not possible to appeal to any moral standard outside of God without first denying the biblical understanding of who He is. It is impossible within a Christian worldview to define any moral standard apart from God Himself. God, Himself, is the ultimate basis upon which any judgment of truth or morals can be made. We simply have no standard by which we could judge what He Himself does. Whatsoever He does is assuredly just on the basis that He does it. On this basis, the argument ultimately degenerates into more basic questions of apologetics, namely, is the Bible true and does God exist.

Second, the most violent Old Testament events that these critics call attention to occur within a particular context within the broader story of God’s plan to redeem a people for His own glory. None of those whose life God takes was “innocent” or undeserving. Rather than be shocked by their judgment, we should be amazed at His patience with us. The transgression of men and women brought about curse and only the guilty fall under its power.

Furthermore, God in His gracious love has saved from this curse those who by faith are united to Christ who paid the penalty of death we deserved while we were still His enemies (Gal. 3:13, Rom. 5:8). Keep in mind that God repeatedly warns people that He will judge sin. The coming judgment is usually not immediate, giving people an opportunity to repent. Eventually, the judgment comes, but in each case, God spared a remnant of faithful people. These historical events are a foreshadowing of God’s final judgment and salvation. We do well to recognize that we are currently living in a period of restraint whereby we have an opportunity to join to the faithful remnant. It is because of God’s grace that He records His terrible judgments for our instruction.

God is not bloodthirsty but He is holy. Well's argument is only persuasive if we, who are sinners, are bold enough to put ourselves in a position to judge God rather than accepting His judgment and appealing to His loving mercy with faith and repentance.

Could He Have Called 10,000 Angels? Modality and the Mission of Christ

Ray Overholt had a successful career as a songwriter and performer; he was one of the original singing cowboys of the early television age and was the star of the Ray’s Roundup TV show. In time, Ray realized that the lifestyle of drinking and partying was empty and while still performing on the club circuit he decided to write a song about Christ. He knew that in order to write a song about Jesus he had to learn something about Him and his first serious exposure to the Bible was the reading he did as research for the song. After reading about the arrest and execution of Jesus, still not a believer, he wrote the song He Could Have Called 10,000 Angels. One evening, however, after singing the song at a church and listening to the sermon that followed, Overholt became a believer in Jesus Christ and accepted the message he had been proclaiming through his own song.

The song was inspired by Matthew 26:53-54 where Jesus rebukes Peter for cutting off the ear of one of the arresting officers saying, “Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then should the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?” Overholt later said that he did not realize at the time that 12 legions would actually be around 72,000.

When we consider that a single angel was powerful enough to destroy an entire city (1 Chron. 21:15) and see what they are capable of in the book of Revelation we realize that anyone who commands a group of either 10,000 or 72,000 possesses unimaginable power. The point is that Rome, even had they assembled all of their legions, could not have taken Jesus by force. He went voluntarily. It is this willingness of Christ to refrain from using His power so that He might redeem men that Overholt captures in his famous song:

He could have called ten thousand angels

To destroy the world and set him free

He could have called ten thousand angels

But he died alone, for you and me

This raises an interesting theological question. Was it actually possible for Jesus to call for these angels and avoid the cross? Had He done so, all of the Old Testament promises and prophesies would have been invalidated and God’s word would have been false. If He could not do this, then it seems His claim is either incorrect or a lie. If that is true, He could not be who He claims to be and the promises of God have been invalidated and God’s word is false.

The word of God, however, stands on both accounts. We need to recognize that the terms “possible” and “impossible” function on multiple levels. As a result, certain things can be both possible and impossible depending on the sense of the terms. The study of statements and propositions about possibility, necessity, contingency, etc., is known as modal logic and is an important supporting discipline for theology and apologetics. One of the most important things to keep in mind when thinking about modal statements is the distinction between the real world and the world of concepts.

Many things in the real world could be different from the way they are. Anytime we are imagining a world where something is different than it actually is, we are no longer talking about the real world but are thinking about a conceptual world. Philosophers often refer to these conceptual worlds as “possible worlds”. There are an almost infinite number of possible worlds but only one, the real world, is actual. When we ask if something is “possible” we must distinguish between it being merely possible if the world were different, or possible in the actual world, given the way things are. The reason is that for something to be actually possible it must be conceptually possible but certain things that are conceptually possible are not actually possible.

There are certain things that are not possible in any world because they involve logical contradictions. For example, all triangles must have three sides. Triangles must have three sides in every possible world. Since a four-sided triangle is conceptually impossible, it is also actually impossible. Just because something is conceptually possible, however, does not mean that it actually exists. For example, it is conceptually possible that Bigfoot exists but as far as we know, he does not actually exist.

Of course, it is possible that Bigfoot could actually exist. He is both conceptually and actually possible. There are certain limitations within the actual world, however, that make it impossible for some things that are conceptually possible to be actually possible. For example, it is conceptually possible that someday a person could be born who had the ability of unaided flight. Human physiology, along with physical laws in operation in the real world, however, makes this an actual impossibility. Unaided human flight is therefore conceptually possible but actually impossible (we might say reality has an opportunity cost).

This brings us back to the statement of Jesus about calling the angels. If we look carefully, Jesus makes it clear that He is distinguishing between the actual world and a conceptual world. Jesus said:

“Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then should the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?”

In the first part of the statement, He is telling Peter that if He wanted to He could ask the Father who would send the angels. It is His choice to make. It is therefore conceptually possible for Jesus to have called upon the Father to send angels. The second part of the statement, however, begins with the word “but” and imposes certain limitations associated with the actual world. His mission was the redemption of humankind at the cross. His greatest desire was to fulfill the scriptures and submit to the will of the Father. Jesus and His sinless nature are a part of the real world. This creates certain limitations on which conceptual world He can possibly actualize.

Jesus is therefore telling the truth that it was possible for Him to call upon the Father but to actualize that choice is impossible, not because of any limitation placed upon Him from outside but because of His own identity and nature. God cannot lie and His word stands forever (Num. 23:19, Heb. 6:18) therefore there was no possibility that Jesus would actually call for those angels even though He had the power to do so.

The short answer then is that yes, it was possible for Jesus to do what He claimed but it was not possible for Him to do so and also accomplish His purposes. His faithfulness to the Father is why He overcomes at Gethsemane and why the Bible calls Him the lamb slain before the foundation of the world. It is the same reason that we can have complete confidence in our Savior to keep God’s promises to us.

"As oft as ye drink it": How Often Should Communion be Celebrated?

Churches vary widely as to how often they celebrate the Lords Supper. Often, there are differences even within the same denominations and affiliations. There are churches that have a communion service at every meeting, some just once per year, and just about everything in between. I was asked what frequency I thought was best and why? My answer was that weekly celebration of the Lord’s Supper is preferred. In this post, I hope to give some insight into why I think that.

Before I do that, I want to point out that there is so much variation regarding how often churches celebrate the Lord’s Supper because the Bible does not give an explicit command about how often we are to do it. As a result, each church must decide based upon the examples and instructions found in the Bible, their understanding of the purpose of the celebration, and the needs of their congregations. As a result, we need to be careful about becoming too dogmatic. In fact, I hold a minority view among the elders of my own church where we celebrate monthly.

Although we do not have an explicit command in the Bible, we should nevertheless attempt to base our view on what scripture does reveal. Probably the most important verse on the matter is Acts 20:7 which says, “On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the next day, and he prolonged his speech until midnight.” The reason they were gathered together was to “break bread”. If gathering on the first day of the week to break bread is a reference to a celebration of the Lord’s Table then this is a clear indication that at least one of the congregations in the early church met weekly to celebrate communion. We know that the early church used the phrase “break bread” to refer to devotional meals. For example, in Acts 2:42 we learn the apostles devoted themselves to teaching, the fellowship, breaking bread, and prayers. All four things were associated with the worship of the church. The problem is that the Bible also uses the phrase “break bread” for the sharing of regular meals.

Even so, I do not think Luke is talking about common meals in Acts 20:7. First, Luke tells us it is the first day of the week. The only specific day of the week mentioned in relation to Christians gathering for worship in the New Testament is the first day of the week. In the context of this verse, we learn that Paul was with them for 7 days and surely he spoke to them throughout that time but only the first day of the week receives special mention. The day described obviously involved a meeting for fellowship and worship. Since they gathered to break bread, we assume that occurred. We also see them receiving the ministry of the Word from Paul. The apostle makes it clear in his letter that when the church gathers it is not for a common meal but rather for a fraternal meal (1 Cor. 11:33-34). It seems unlikely then that the church would gather on the first day simply to eat.

While I find the evidence from Acts 20:7 compelling, it is not definitive. Acts is a narrative. As such, it describes what happened but we cannot assume that this is what always happened or was always supposed to happen. Still, I think it is significant that the one New Testament reference we might have regarding the frequency of communion indicates that at least some apostolic congregations celebrated weekly.

Another passage that is important to the discussion is 1 Corinthians 11:25-26 where Paul says “Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” and “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup…”  Many use these verses to support the idea that the frequency of the celebration is up to the discretion of the church. Indeed, this entire section (1 Corinthians 11:17-34) is Paul teaching on the Lord’s Supper and nowhere does he give a command that it should be done on a particular day. The phrases “as often as you drink it” and “as often as you eat this” seem to leave it open for the church to decide.

The context of the passage, however, places the emphasis on the fact that they should not use the fellowship meal as an occasion to make fleshly distinctions within the church. The point is that every time they must celebrate the meal in light of their relationship to one another in Christ. The point is how, not how often they had the meal. Although it is not specific, the context indicates that the celebration was frequent. In verses 17 and 18 we see that Paul uses the phrase “when you come together” in reference to their gathering as a church to worship. This same phrase appears in verse 20 when he says, “when you come together it is not the Lord’s Supper that you eat”. It is reasonable to assume that the communion meal was therefore something they did whenever they met together as the church to worship.  The phrase appears again in verse 33 where Paul instructs them, “when you come together to eat, wait for one another” These commands make more sense if the coming together is related to gathering for worship and is frequent. At the very least, the Corinthian passage shows that we should not neglect the celebration of the Lord’s Table and should make it a frequent part of our worship.

Another reason I think “frequent” should be “weekly” is liturgical rather than exegetical. The communion is to be an anamnesis. The word comes from the Greek word Jesus used when He instituted the Lord’s Supper. He said, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in [anamnesis] of me.” The word means to remember or memorialize and it seems Jesus intends a specific type of remembrance. The situation surrounding His institution of the communion provides a clue that Jesus is commanding more than the simple recollection of a past event.

Jesus is drawing upon the context of the Passover celebration. Most of us are familiar enough with the Passover Seder to know that at a particular point the youngest person asks the father the famous question “why is this night different from all other nights”. The father then shares the mighty works God has performed to save His people. This recounting of salvation history is the “remembrance” or “memorial” but it is not simply a list of historical events. The Seder itself is a celebration of those events and faithful celebrants are identifying with them not as mere historical facts but as participants through their identity in the group. God’s actions were therefore acts of salvation for them as well as their ancestors. The Lord’s Supper is the culmination of the Passover meal because His sacrifice is the greatest of all redemptive acts. When he calls us to “do this in remembrance” of Him, he is asking us to celebrate Him as the mighty work of God in redeeming His people and keeping His promises. Through our identification with Him and His people, we are not only recalling what He did as a historical fact but are also testifying to our participation in it. God, through the sacrifice of Christ has saved us.

I believe a similar memorial & celebration should accompany the preaching of the Word, which is the proclamation of God’s mighty acts to redeem His people and keep His promises. Understood this way, the communion is not a somber meal but is truly both a celebration and a memorial. Combining the preaching of the Word with a time of personal identification of believers with the sacred history provides a liturgical coherence to the worship service. The elements of preaching, prayer, praise, and the Table compliment one another to provide an unmistakable Christ-centered focus to the service.

Some argue that celebrating too frequently can cause a loss of reverence for the ordinance and it may degenerate into empty ritual. Empty ritualism, however, is a matter of the heart rather than the schedule. Most who make this argument would never suggest that we should not have weekly prayer, praise, or sermons for the same reason. I believe the pattern we see in the Bible is that a celebration of the Lord’s Supper was part of the regular worship services in the apostolic church. Although not explicitly commanded, this practice provides a depth and unity to the weekly worship service reminding us that Christ stands at the center of the promises and it is through our union with Christ that we become partakers in them. 

Crosses Along the Highway

I am one of those strange people who enjoy hours of uninterrupted driving (as long as traffic is moving) because it usually gives me a long stretch of time where I can think. Obviously, while driving I have to stay focused on the road and what is going on around me. The result is a unique interplay between a series of immediate observations, related to the world that is quickly moving past me outside the vehicle, and whatever idea I am trying to focus on. It makes for some interesting connections! Last week, I spent a lot of time driving and I was particularly encouraged by the repeated site of three crosses along the road at irregular intervals. I have seen these kinds of crosses before but I became particularly aware of them on this trip because of the frequency with which I encountered them. I was encouraged because it was a repeated incentive for me to connect whatever I was thinking about at the moment to the most important truth I know, namely that Jesus Christ died for my sins.

Each cluster was comprised of a larger gold cross, flanked by two slightly smaller blue crosses, always placed so that they are easily seen from the road. A little bit of internet research revealed, the crosses were the work of Pastor Bernard Coffindaffer of Craigsville West Virginia. Bernard Coffindaffer was a WWII veteran of the U.S. Marines who served in the Pacific at Iwo Jima and Nagasaki. After the military, he earned a business degree and went on to become a successful businessman.

When he was 42 years old, Coffindaffer converted to Christianity and eventually became a Methodist minister. While still running his business he served several small churches in West Virginia. After encountering health issues pastor Coffindaffer decided to sell his company and focus his remaining energy on ministry work. A couple of years later he had a vision that convinced him that God wanted him to plant crosses. He had earned a good deal of money from his business and in 1984 he used his own funds to start the Crosses Across America project.

He set up an office in his home, hired a secretary, and employed seven work crews to travel across the country erecting the crosses on land donated for the displays. From 1984 until his death in 1993, pastor Coffindaffer spent over $3,000,000 of his own money and erected 1,864 clusters of crosses in 29 states, the District of Columbia, and the countries of Zambia and the Philippines. Dedication services were held at each site that included scripture reading and prayers. Pastor Coffindaffer explained the meaning behind the crosses saying, “They're up for only one sole reason, and that's this- to remind people that Jesus was crucified on a cross at Calvary for our sins, and that He Is soon coming again.” If there is a single message we all need to be reminded of constantly, it is that one.

I do not know much about pastor Coffindaffer or his theology but I appreciate the simple yet profound reminder that the crosses he planted have offered me in my travels.

King David's Righteousness

One of the fundamental assumptions of conservative Christians is that the Bible is the Word of God. As such, it must be without error and contradiction. This does not mean, however, that it is easy to understand how every passage fits together. Many things in the Bible are difficult to understand because they create tension in our fallen minds. I have found, however, that studying and meditating upon these difficulties often results in a deeper appreciation for the unity of the Bible and the depth and power of its teaching. I recently came across an example of this when thinking about God’s assessment of King David.

David is such a major example of faith in the Bible that he serves as a type of Jesus Christ. God often mentions David favorably. He is called a man after God’s own heart (1 Sam. 13:14, Acts 13:22), he is commended for keeping the commandments and walking in the way of God (1 Kings 3:14), and the general pattern of his life was to worship and glorify God. In 1 Kings chapter 14, however, God says that king Jeroboam was not like David who “… kept my commandments and followed me with all his heart, doing only that which was right in my eyes…” (1 Kings 14:8).

If asked to list the heroes of the faith I am sure most of us would list David but how can God say that he did only what was right? After all, David violated the law on multiple occasions. He was an adulterer (2 Sam. 11:4), a murderer (2 Sam. 11:15), was prideful (1 Chron. 21:1, 7, 8), and a negligent father (1 Kings 1:6). His sins caused tremendous pain and anguish for himself, his family, and the nation. We know that God was aware of David’s sin and He cannot lie (1 Jn. 3:20, Heb. 6:18). We also know that God could not simply overlook the sins of David because of who David was (Acts 10:34, 1 Jn. 1:6). How then could God refer to David as someone who did only what was right?

The answer is great news for David and for you and me. Indeed, it is The Good News. God does not declare David righteous based on his keeping of the law. He does so based upon David’s connection to Jesus Christ through faith. Paul helps us to understand this in his letter to the Romans where he explains, 

“…the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it—22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
27 Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law." (Romans 3:21-28)

David lived before Jesus was crucified but Paul explains that God had passed over former sins. He made His grace available to those who believed prior to the cross even though the sacrifice had yet to be made. It is because of people like David, just as much as you and I, that the cross was necessary. The cross is a vindication of God’s righteousness in light of His acceptance of sinners like David on whom God showed favor. The cross, as just punishment sin, means that God’s declaration about David is true because through faith God justifies the ungodly (Rom. 4:5). David, through faith, was a partaker in the promise to stand holy and blameless before God in Christ (Eph. 1:4). Christ was his righteousness.

Although Christ was not yet crucified when David was alive, the sacrifice was a certainty. So certain that it is often described as made before the foundation of the world. The very identity of God Himself was the basis of its inevitability. He is all knowing, all-powerful, all merciful, and his grace endures forever. Because of this, His promises are absolute certainties. David believed in the promises and trusted God. God’s declaration that David is righteous therefore stands on the same foundation as His declaration of the righteousness of sinners who believe today. 

We are also sinners who deserve punishment and yet are declared justified by God if we are united to Christ through faith. David knew he was a sinner saved by grace through faith. David understood that the righteousness credited to him was an act of grace through faith and was unearned. This is why Paul says “David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works: “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.” (Rom. 4:6-8)

God is just in not counting these sins because Christ has paid the penalty for them on behalf of those who believe (2 Cor. 5:21, 1 Pet. 2:24, 3:18). What a blessing it is to have such hope through the work of our wonderful savior. Jesus Christ saved David. We see the evidence of David’s faith in that although he sinned, he was repentant (Ps. 51:1-2). He was a child of grace whose desire was to glorify God and to worship Him alone. He was not a perfect man but was perfected through his union to Christ in faith (Heb. 10:14). I pray that the same is true for you.

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