# What Kind of Preaching? Apostolic? Luther? Calvin? E. Clowney? T. Keller? W Perkins?



## SolaGratia (May 5, 2010)

What Kind of Preaching? 

I am posting this link to get some thoughts from my PB brothers here.

I'm sure Rev. Lane wouldn't mind.

Lane and Tim Keller made a comment (see link)

and I comment with this: 

With all due respect,

According to Louis Berkhof, Calvin:

“believed in the typical significance of much that is found in the OT, but did not share the opinion of Luther that Christ SHOULD BE FOUND EVERYWHERE IN SCRIPTURE. Moreover, he reduced the number of Psalms that could be recognized as Messianic. He insisted on it that the prophets should be interpreted in the light of historical circumstances.”

Berkhof goes on to say that Calvin:

“regarded it as “the first business of an interpretation to let his author say what he does say, instead of attributing to him what WE THINK HE OUGHT TO SAY.” (“Principles of Biblical Interpretation” p. 27).

Again what you think?


----------



## chbrooking (May 5, 2010)

I think Luke 24 establishes the hermeneutic that Christ is the center of the Bible, and that the whole of the Bible is about Christ -- death/resurrection/church. Therefore all preaching must be christological. That does not mean allegorical. It means redemptive-historically faithful.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## au5t1n (May 5, 2010)

While Calvin's concern is valid (the plain meaning must not be neglected), the problem is that the Apostles did not follow Calvin's own rule--they saw Christ in places that do not appear messianic at first glance. Mind you, they were inspired by the Holy Spirit and thus able to point these places out.

"And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself." Lk. 24:27

"And he said unto them, These [are] the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and [in] the prophets, and [in] the psalms, concerning me.
Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures," Lk. 24:44-45


----------



## Jack K (May 5, 2010)

chbrooking said:


> I think Luke 24 establishes the hermeneutic that Christ is the center of the Bible, and that the whole of the Bible is about Christ -- death/resurrection/church. Therefore all preaching must be christological. That does not mean allegorical. It means redemptive-historically faithful.


Right. I would say there's a wrong way to do Christ-centered preaching. That would be to force some allegorical or typological sort of Christ-centered meaning into every passage. _Some_ passages have such meanings, but many don't. And Calvin was right to say we ought not cast aside the plain meaning of the text in order to turn a passage into something Messainic in that typological or direct prophesy sense.

But there are right ways to do Christ-centered preaching that respect the integrity of the text's plain meaning, yet still view all the Scriptures through Christ-aware eyes as Jesus himself taught the disciples to do. In Christ, great biblical themes find their ultimate expression, promises find their greatest fulfillment, tensions are resolved and great problems are solved. In this sense, Christ-centered preaching is about remembering that part of preaching a passage _in context_ is including the context of the whole Bible, which centers on Christ.

If I understand Keller correctly, he has advocated this second sort of Christ-centered preaching and so I would suspect something like this is at least partly what he meant by his comment. Rev. Lane can speak for himself in this forum.

When we fail to preach the gospel of Christ we fail to preach that which gives life. Why would we ever want to leave Christ out? And we don't have to. Christ's person and work is so astounding that every part of the Bible inevitably leads us to him, even if it doesn't speak of him in a direct or typological way.

Calvin is right to warn us against making a passage say what we want. Luther is right to keep our eyes on Christ. We really can do both.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## CharlieJ (May 5, 2010)

I really don't understand how the reference to Luke 24:27 can be taken as proof that every sub-sub-section of Scripture directly relates to Christ. Grammatically, it just doesn't fly.

ESV Luke 24:27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.

CSB Luke 24:27 Then beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, He interpreted for them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.

The object of "interpreted" is "the things concerning himself." The phrase "in all the Scriptures" modifies "things," specifying which things concerning himself he interpreted for them. Now, let's take a structurally identical sentence with different words. "He interpreted for me the things written in Latin in all the Keil-Delitzsch commentaries." If I said this, no one would think that the K-D commentaries were written entirely in Latin. They would surmise that within all the K-D commentaries are Latin portions. 

So, the same holds true here. The most this verse can prove is that there are messianic sections throughout the whole extent of the OT canon.


----------



## au5t1n (May 6, 2010)

Nevertheless, a substantial number of the messianic references validated by Christ and the Apostles would not have been immediately obvious to the reader.


----------



## Willem van Oranje (May 6, 2010)

Spurgeon said, "I start with the text and make a beeline for the cross."


----------



## chbrooking (May 6, 2010)

I never pointed to v. 27 -- though that is certainly relevant. Rather, I'd ask you, what the force of “in” in v. 44 is. Does the prepositional phrase (which controls at least to the end of "Psalms") circumscribe the entire OT in all its parts with no remainder, or only to certain strands of the OT, along with other teaching? Is Jesus leaving any material out? Is the reference a comprehensive or partial reference, inclusive of everything, or excluding some material? 

The reference is comprehensive. Look, for example at v. 45 “he opened their mind to understand the Scriptures”. V. 45 does not say he opened their minds to understand these Scriptures, a particular aspect of OT revelation, a set of Scriptures within the OT. Rather, he opened their minds to understand THE Scriptures. The entire OT, as a whole. _Tas grafas_ is a term that always refers to the whole of the OT (even in extra-biblical judaic writings) (see, e.g., Mt 22:29; John 5:39; Acts 17:2). In other words, in the light of the resurrection, the disciples are now, for the first time brought to an understanding of what Jesus had all along been saying in his earthly ministry about the necessary fulfillment of Scripture. And their new understanding is said to be an understanding of the Scriptures. They are brought to understand how it all holds together, the coherence, the unity of the OT. 

There are other factors in the passage which support the understanding that the OT in its entirety is about the death, resurrection and church of Jesus Christ. This little section (44ff) is a summary of the 40 day period between the resurrection and the ascension, and should be seen as a summarization of the period -- one of instruction. Vv. 46-47 clearly point to the death, resurrection and resulting church as a summary statement of the teaching of the OT as a whole.

You would agree, of course, that the Bible is about redemption, right? So what does it contain that is NOT about Christ?



CharlieJ said:


> I really don't understand how the reference to Luke 24:27 can be taken as proof that every sub-sub-section of Scripture directly relates to Christ. Grammatically, it just doesn't fly.
> 
> ESV Luke 24:27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.
> 
> ...


----------



## CharlieJ (May 7, 2010)

I think you missed my point. I'm not disputing that the person and work of Christ forms a hermeneutical center for the Bible, including the OT. What I'm saying is that in any work of literature there are distinctions to be made between the central theme and the first-level significance of any particular sub-section. For example, someone may conclude that the theme of _Jane Eyre_ is the redemptive power of virtuous love. Within _Jane Eyre_ there are paragraphs which in their material content describe the appearance of Thornfield Manor. If someone were to ask what the purpose of those paragraphs are, the most obvious answer is, "They tell us what Thornfield Manor looks like." I can't imagine someone indignantly replying that since the theme of _Jane Eyre_ is the redemptive power of virtuous love, I must find a direct and explicit connection between those paragraphs and the theme. That's simply not how literature develops its themes. 

So, one can certainly affirm that the Old Testament, considered as a whole, is about Christ. One can further affirm that portions of the OT are explicitly devoted to developing messianic themes. However, I see no reason why anyone should have a problem recognizing that not every sentence in the OT has Christ as its explicit or primary focus. 

I doubt that we really disagree in substance. I just get concerned about language that could easily suggest that the answer to every possible exegetical question is, "Jesus!" Biblical exposition and preaching requires that we do justice to both the near-context and the far-context. So, if we ask what Leviticus 18 is about, I would say, "sexual regulations for Israel." Now, if we start asking probing questions, such as, "Why did God give them those laws?" we will undoubtedly at some point reach Christ. But you can't short-circuit the process. You can't just say Leviticus 18 is about Jesus. 

As far as Luke 24:27 goes, I remain unconvinced. By the way, your comment on τας γραφας is questionable. In Acts 17:11 they "searched the scriptures [τας γραφας] daily." I think this more likely means they read portions of the Scripture daily rather than they read the whole OT every day. This is common sense. The word "Bible" generally refers to a book, but if I said, "I read my Bible today," no one on this board would assume I meant I read the entire Bible in one day. 

As far as verse 44 goes, I think the "in.." refers to the messianic prophecies. You can't "fulfill" anything but a prophecy, properly speaking. How would you fulfill "And Abraham begat Isaac"?


----------



## chbrooking (May 8, 2010)

Actually, Acts 17:11 makes my point. The scriptures are viewed as a whole. Nothing within scripture was left out of their search. But you are ignoring the fact that this 40 day period was a period of instruction. It is exceedingly doubtful that Jesus left anything out -- that he left his disciples in the dark about any book therein. 

I think you are right, though, that we don't disagree by much. It's a matter of emphasis. Your example of Lev. 18 is apropos. I wouldn't short-circuit the process. But neither would I leave an exegetical paper, much less a sermon at "sexual relations for Israel." The interpretation is simply incomplete if it is not taken to Christ. The whole Bible is about Christ. So any of its parts plays a specific role in the history leading to Christ. Sometimes that's easy to see. Sometimes it's not. Sometimes it's very direct. Sometimes it requires a long circuitous route. But I don't think I'm willing to back down from my language of saying that every part of the Bible is about Christ, because every part of the Bible plays a role in the unfolding history of redemption. There's nothing there that is not related to redemption.

It doesn't sound like we are really in disagreement though. It's just a matter of emphasis.


----------

