Christocentric Preoccupation in Reformed Evangelical Exegesis

[Gravey]

Hi all,
not to bring up old topics (I couldn't reply on my former post as it was closed, here: http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php/86111-Extreme-Christocentric-Hermeneutics )

But I've finished my paper on this subject. I have to say it was one of the most fascinating topics I've ever studied! I find that it's so easy for those of us in a particular denomination/movement to point out the flaws of another denomination/movement, but rarely do we look inwards at our own issues. As a reformed evangelical, I'm second to none in my affirmation that Christ is the locus of scripture...BUT...Have we gotten carried away in our exegetical practice? That's the question I got to study.

My outline was:
1) Intro
2) Concerns with Christocentric Preoccupation
a) Allegorisation
b) OT Reinterpretation
c) Narrowed Soteriology
d) Homoletical Imbalance
3) Conclusion

Happy to share my studies with anyone who is interested

Dave.

 

[Hamalas]

I'd love to see a copy! Send me a PM.

My minister likes to say that we should have a Christo-Trinitarian hermeneutic. In other words, while we DO want to be Christo-centric, we DON'T want to be Christo-monistic.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

David,

Could you summarize your concern?

I share a concern with what I've detected as a return to the allegorical method in some so called redemptive historical preaching or writing. One of the most egregious examples I found was Tremper Longman's "Elisha is Jesus" in a book I read years ago.

That stated, I do agree with the Westminster Standards' covenant structure. By that I mean that the doctrine of God and the Fall are presented and it is then pointed out that the distance between the Creator and creature is so great such that man could have no fruition of God apart from God condescending by way of Covenant. It then notes that the Son of God is the mediator of the CoG.

Thus, while I agree that we need to be careful not to look for Jesus under every rock of the OT, it seems inescapable to think of any Revelation from God to man without Christ mediating it and providing fruition of it. It's certainly not on the surface of the OT text but lurking beneath it in a broader theological understanding.

 

[Rom]

Hi all,
not to bring up old topics (I couldn't reply on my former post as it was closed, here: http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php/86111-Extreme-Christocentric-Hermeneutics )

But I've finished my paper on this subject. I have to say it was one of the most fascinating topics I've ever studied! I find that it's so easy for those of us in a particular denomination/movement to point out the flaws of another denomination/movement, but rarely do we look inwards at our own issues. As a reformed evangelical, I'm second to none in my affirmation that Christ is the locus of scripture...BUT...Have we gotten carried away in our exegetical practice? That's the question I got to study.

My outline was:
1) Intro
2) Concerns with Christocentric Preoccupation
a) Allegorisation
b) OT Reinterpretation
c) Narrowed Soteriology
d) Homoletical Imbalance
3) Conclusion

Happy to share my studies with anyone who is interested

Dave.

I'd love a copy!

 

[reaganmarsh]

Would you send me a copy too?

Thanks.

 

[God'sElectSaint]

Do you think we could call "Gen 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them." a type of Christ? That the slain animal covered their nakedness(sin)?

 

[Gravey]

David,

Could you summarize your concern?

I share a concern with what I've detected as a return to the allegorical method in some so called redemptive historical preaching or writing. One of the most egregious examples I found was Tremper Longman's "Elisha is Jesus" in a book I read years ago.

That stated, I do agree with the Westminster Standards' covenant structure. By that I mean that the doctrine of God and the Fall are presented and it is then pointed out that the distance between the Creator and creature is so great such that man could have no fruition of God apart from God condescending by way of Covenant. It then notes that the Son of God is the mediator of the CoG.

Thus, while I agree that we need to be careful not to look for Jesus under every rock of the OT, it seems inescapable to think of any Revelation from God to man without Christ mediating it and providing fruition of it. It's certainly not on the surface of the OT text but lurking beneath it in a broader theological understanding.

G'day Rich,
In short, the concern is that in our zealous pursuit of Christ (as reformed evangelicals) we have gotten a little carried away in our exegetical practice, as some insist that out exegetical work is not complete until Jesus is found in every single text and context, or as your put it "under every rock". I argue that, by it's nature a Christocentric hermeneutic can (i.e. not always) lead to this (i.e. when Christ is the centre, naturally he is imported into the text, even though it might be a stretch). I break this down into four points:

(1) Allegorisation - that is eisegeting a Christological into a text rather than exegeting the authors meaning out of the text gives way to allegorical interpretation
(2) OT Reinterpretation - I argue for progressive revelation as opposed to the insistence of having the OT read through the grid of the NT. Basically this is a treatise on how the NT and OT relate to one another, a very complex topic, one that deserves a volume in itself!
(3) Narrowed soteriology - here I argue that isolated fixation on Christ’s first advent leads to the neglect of God’s broader compendium of covenantal promises, thereby depreciating the overall scope of God’s glorious plan of salvation. So there's no surprises here, I'll be clear, I understand there to be a unity-diversity motif with regards to the people of God; that is, there is one people and within that one people, both the Jews and Gentiles have their distinct roles (premill-prorestoration of Israel)
(4) Homoletical imbalance - this is to show more of the practical implications of a misguided Christocentric hermeneutic. In pursuit of Christ many reformed preachers today neglect teaching the Old Testament...When Old Testament passages are eventually expounded more often than not the text is submerged under Christological speculations. I argue that redemptive-historical preaching must be just that, redemptive AND historical. We can't just preach in the indicative mood all the time, and I use Songs of Solomon as an example.

In light of these concerns, and to your point in your final paragraph - I then advocate a move towards a Christotelic method of interpretation. "The term Christotelic is derived from a combination of the words Χριστὸς (Christos) and τέλος (telos, or end). In contrast a Christocentric hermeneutic, which interprets Christ as the central theme or ‘big idea’ of a text, a Christotelic hermeneutic interprets Christ as being the end goal of a text. Like a jigsaw puzzle, the portion of scripture being interpreted is considered as a piece, contributing to the final picture that is Christ. Therefore, instead of asking ‘how is Christ represented in this text’ the interpreter asks ‘what does this text contribute to the progressive revelation of God’s redemptive plan’."

Dave

 

[Gravey]

Do you think we could call "Gen 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them." a type of Christ? That the slain animal covered their nakedness(sin)?

G'day Edward,
A correlation can certainly be made between the grace of God in Gen 3:21 and the grace of God in Christ. As to wether or not that would be labelled a 'type' in the strict sense, is debatable.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

This topic came up last year at the Reformed Forum Conference I attended last year.

http://deutero.reformedforum.org/media/rf14/rf14_01_preconference.mp3

This is the page for the Conference.

http://reformedforum.org/2014-theology-conference-audio-available-now/

I remember there seemed to be pluses and minuses on both sides of the issues. They aren't necessarily opposed to each other till taken to extremes.

 

[Gravey]

I agree Randy, it's when they are pushed to either one end or the other that it becomes an issue. We need to both synchronically and diachronically interpret our passages and in turn balance both the redemptive and historical elements in our preaching, as well as both the imperative and indicative moods.

 

[SolamVeritatem]

David,

Could you summarize your concern?

I share a concern with what I've detected as a return to the allegorical method in some so called redemptive historical preaching or writing. One of the most egregious examples I found was Tremper Longman's "Elisha is Jesus" in a book I read years ago.

That stated, I do agree with the Westminster Standards' covenant structure. By that I mean that the doctrine of God and the Fall are presented and it is then pointed out that the distance between the Creator and creature is so great such that man could have no fruition of God apart from God condescending by way of Covenant. It then notes that the Son of God is the mediator of the CoG.

Thus, while I agree that we need to be careful not to look for Jesus under every rock of the OT, it seems inescapable to think of any Revelation from God to man without Christ mediating it and providing fruition of it. It's certainly not on the surface of the OT text but lurking beneath it in a broader theological understanding.

G'day Rich,
In short, the concern is that in our zealous pursuit of Christ (as reformed evangelicals) we have gotten a little carried away in our exegetical practice, as some insist that out exegetical work is not complete until Jesus is found in every single text and context, or as your put it "under every rock". I argue that, by it's nature a Christocentric hermeneutic can (i.e. not always) lead to this (i.e. when Christ is the centre, naturally he is imported into the text, even though it might be a stretch). I break this down into four points:

(1) Allegorisation - that is eisegeting a Christological into a text rather than exegeting the authors meaning out of the text gives way to allegorical interpretation
(2) OT Reinterpretation - I argue for progressive revelation as opposed to the insistence of having the OT read through the grid of the NT. Basically this is a treatise on how the NT and OT relate to one another, a very complex topic, one that deserves a volume in itself!
(3) Narrowed soteriology - here I argue that isolated fixation on Christ’s first advent leads to the neglect of God’s broader compendium of covenantal promises, thereby depreciating the overall scope of God’s glorious plan of salvation. So there's no surprises here, I'll be clear, I understand there to be a unity-diversity motif with regards to the people of God; that is, there is one people and within that one people, both the Jews and Gentiles have their distinct roles (premill-prorestoration of Israel)
(4) Homoletical imbalance - this is to show more of the practical implications of a misguided Christocentric hermeneutic. In pursuit of Christ many reformed preachers today neglect teaching the Old Testament...When Old Testament passages are eventually expounded more often than not the text is submerged under Christological speculations. I argue that redemptive-historical preaching must be just that, redemptive AND historical. We can't just preach in the indicative mood all the time, and I use Songs of Solomon as an example.

In light of these concerns, and to your point in your final paragraph - I then advocate a move towards a Christotelic method of interpretation. "The term Christotelic is derived from a combination of the words Χριστὸς (Christos) and τέλος (telos, or end). In contrast a Christocentric hermeneutic, which interprets Christ as the central theme or ‘big idea’ of a text, a Christotelic hermeneutic interprets Christ as being the end goal of a text. Like a jigsaw puzzle, the portion of scripture being interpreted is considered as a piece, contributing to the final picture that is Christ. Therefore, instead of asking ‘how is Christ represented in this text’ the interpreter asks ‘what does this text contribute to the progressive revelation of God’s redemptive plan’."

Dave

Dave,

Excellent study on a most interesting topic. I'm grateful that you were edified in the process.

Just a quick question on point 2 and a portion of your last paragraph. First...

"2) OT Reinterpretation - I argue for progressive revelation as opposed to the insistence of having the OT read through the grid of the NT. Basically this is a treatise on how the NT and OT relate to one another, a very complex topic, one that deserves a volume in itself!"

I think I understand what you're getting at, but I would say that the effort of most reformed preachers is to push against the rising tide of overemphasis on the character traits of OT figures (eg., "be like David, be like Moses, be like Joseph, etc.) I've normally seen this done in a way that seeks to show how the mention of these men point to Christ. Dr. Murray has been helpful in this regard. See below:

http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Every-Page-Simple-Testament/dp/1400205344

So, my question is, how would you suggest ways to guard against making to much of fallible men while also resisting the urge to force a Christocentric hermeneutic on every single OT text? Please forgive me if this is covered in your treatise (which I'd like a copy of too, by the way!) or if you see the focus on the progressive revelation of God's redemptive plan as the answer to that question.

Secondly...

"Therefore, instead of asking ‘how is Christ represented in this text’ the interpreter asks ‘what does this text contribute to the progressive revelation of God’s redemptive plan’."

Here I ask, would not the representation of Christ in the text naturally lead to an understanding of the contribution of the text to the progressive revelation of God's redemptive plan? Do you find these mutually exclusive or interrelated?

Thanks for your time, and I hope to hear from you soon.

In Him,

Craig

 

[Gravey]

Dave,

Excellent study on a most interesting topic. I'm grateful that you were edified in the process.

Just a quick question on point 2 and a portion of your last paragraph. First...

"2) OT Reinterpretation - I argue for progressive revelation as opposed to the insistence of having the OT read through the grid of the NT. Basically this is a treatise on how the NT and OT relate to one another, a very complex topic, one that deserves a volume in itself!"

I think I understand what you're getting at, but I would say that the effort of most reformed preachers is to push against the rising tide of overemphasis on the character traits of OT figures (eg., "be like David, be like Moses, be like Joseph, etc.) I've normally seen this done in a way that seeks to show how the mention of these men point to Christ. Dr. Murray has been helpful in this regard. See below:

http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Every-Page-Simple-Testament/dp/1400205344

So, my question is, how would you suggest ways to guard against making to much of fallible men while also resisting the urge to force a Christocentric hermeneutic on every single OT text? Please forgive me if this is covered in your treatise (which I'd like a copy of too, by the way!) or if you see the focus on the progressive revelation of God's redemptive plan as the answer to that question.

Secondly...

"Therefore, instead of asking ‘how is Christ represented in this text’ the interpreter asks ‘what does this text contribute to the progressive revelation of God’s redemptive plan’."

Here I ask, would not the representation of Christ in the text naturally lead to an understanding of the contribution of the text to the progressive revelation of God's redemptive plan? Do you find these mutually exclusive or interrelated?

Thanks for your time, and I hope to hear from you soon.

In Him,

Craig

G'day Craig,
thanks for your response, and good questions.

1)I don't expound much on the preaching side of things(due to space constraints) but it is certainly what I would want to further develop, and do I touch on what you're getting at in a footnote on my final page. I agree that many reformed preachers have reacted against what has been labelled 'moralistic preaching' (i.e. be like David etc.) It has been said if your preaching is acceptable by a Jew, then you've lost your distinctive Christian flair. But to react so strongly and got to the other end of the spectrum (which I have noticed many preachers do) seems to go against Scripture. There is an extent to which the analogy of faith is a legitimate practice. For example, the epistle of James with all its immense practical doctrine presents Job (Jas. 5:11) and Elijah (Jas. 5:17) as examples for believers to emulate. Furthermore, Christ Himself exhorts us to “remember Lot’s wife” (Lk. 17:32). I just finished taking our bible study through Acts 7 and the stoning of Stephen, and I couldn't help but admire the man's grace under fire, and how he so paralleled Christ's own martyrdom. But these analogies of faith must always be kept in balance. Christ is our ultimate model, but we need to be very careful about 'jumping to a Christological destination' for the sake of it (the paper will clear this up more). So in short, I think it's perfectly ok to admire, say the courage and faith of David before Goliath, in our preaching, and even exhort our congregations likewise...But, (as you noted) this needs to be balanced with the question 'what was the purpose of David's battle with Goliath in the larger metanarrative of God's redemptive plan'?... Jesus isn't explicit in the narrative of David and Goliath, but He certainly is implicit and paralleled when you consider the larger metanarrative of Christ, who went before the enemy as a representative for the people of God, defeating His foe. The practical point of this paper was to say we need to preach both the forest (Jesus) AND the trees (details), but so much of what I've witnessed in reformed preaching simply the forest.

2) To the second point, I wouldn't say that they're necessarily mutually exclusive, I use lots of words in the paper like "tend to" and "more often then not" because these issues aren't necessarily linked, but the trend is to link them. The point of this is that we need to first of all deal with the trees and then move to the forest. We need to deal with the text historically-grammatically, then move it to the redemptive aspect. Unfortunately I have noticed that when people jump straight to the 'Jesus' question they tend to neglect the historical-grammatical aspects. To use the analogy from my paper, if the passage being studied is like a jigsaw puzzle piece, rather then studying the piece and making Jesus the big idea of the piece, study the piece and extract all the information you can from it, then place that piece back onto the board and proclaim the overall picture as culminated in Christ.

Hope that helps.

Dave