In a class on the Pentateuch and Historical Books of the Old Testament, our professor evoked a question regarding Jesus and how the Old Testament is taught. In more than one opportunity Tim Keller has pointed out that whenever the Bible is taught or preached, the Gospel of Jesus Christ needs to be shared and pointed towards. The question that our professor asked or at least pointed towards made the point that we should not teach the Bible and then point to Jesus not matter where we are at. His statement is that we should let the Bible speak for itself and if there isn't explicit material that deals with the Gospel and/or with Christ, we don't need to put it in there. Let the Bible speak for itself and don't push New Testament categories and themes on every Old Testament passage is the basic idea.
I first heard of this in college when it was discussed that Medieval theologians were faulted for using the allegorical method of interpretation too much. Some saw Christ in the tent pegs of the Tent of Meeting = too far. The Neo-Reformed/Tim Keller approach is an interpretive method of a different order. What Keller and others like him are doing is trying to bring the Gospel into every passage of the Bible because of their Christo-centric hermeneutic. Have they gone too far? I think so and it would seem my professor agrees. Karl Rahner in his book, Trinity, explains that most Christians are functionally Unitarians and that they focus attention too exclusively on the second person of the Trinity, Jesus, and ignore the Father and the Spirit all too much. Roger Olson points this out in his book, Questions to all you Answers, and further points out the instead of saying, "Jesus is the answer," we should say, "the Trinity is the answer." Isaiah 53 is about Jesus, but it is also about Isaiah 53 and about the Father. We bypass the beauty and profundity of Scripture when we look for our preconceived belief to overlay passages in Scripture. If this happens too often, we bypass the ability for Scripture to speak on its own and begin to overlook and avoid the ability of the Bible to confront us with something other than what we're already looking for. If you know what you want to get out of a passage, i.e. the Gospel, then you may be less and less open to allowing the Bible to speak to you on its own terms.
This previous point was brought out by the professor. To him, if we focus on getting to the Gospel and Jesus every time we preach or teach from a passage, then the richness of each passage can be circumvented and the Bible can turn into one big message about the New Testament reality about Jesus. There are so many passages, especially in the OT that do not directly point to or deal with Jesus Christ. If that's the case, then there is nothing wrong with teaching or preaching that passage without pointing to Christ each time. What if the messages of the Bible aren't always about Jesus? They are indirectly of course but many messages don't point towards Jesus.
If the Bible were about one member of the Trinity, wouldn't it make more sense that the most important person to consider in the Trinity would be the Father. These passages seem to point to that...
I Corinthians 15:26-28
26The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27For he "has put everything under his feet."[c] Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.
Hebrews 1:1-4
In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. 3The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. 4So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.
John 1:1;14
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning...14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
So should we focus on one member of the Trinity for every passage of Scripture - should interpretation be directed by Christo-centrism? What if we were to look at each passage and look at it through the lens of the Trinity? We could then discern who might be the most important figure to consider, whether one, two or all three of them when looking at a pertinent passage. We need a Triune-centric interpretation of Scripture which will include Christo-centricism. The Bible isn't about Jesus, it is about the Trinity and though Jesus is a central figure throughout the Bible and a member of the Trinity, the Bible isn't about Jesus. It has to be about the Trinity and the life of the Trinity as they carry out their ongoing plan. Are there important implications to consider because of this? Does it matter? Yes. But that's a whole different post.
We cannot minimize the storyline to one member of the Trinity or give pre-eminence to one member unless that is done with Yahweh himself. He's the one who sends Christ, is the Father, is obeyed by Christ, is given all that Christ accomplishes, is the person of the Trinity who creates through his Son, is whom we access through Christ. He is the Goal and He has the first and final Word. But the point is that we don't need to pick one - we look at Scripture, as much as possible, through the eyes of the Trinity not just one member of the Trinity.
I first heard of this in college when it was discussed that Medieval theologians were faulted for using the allegorical method of interpretation too much. Some saw Christ in the tent pegs of the Tent of Meeting = too far. The Neo-Reformed/Tim Keller approach is an interpretive method of a different order. What Keller and others like him are doing is trying to bring the Gospel into every passage of the Bible because of their Christo-centric hermeneutic. Have they gone too far? I think so and it would seem my professor agrees. Karl Rahner in his book, Trinity, explains that most Christians are functionally Unitarians and that they focus attention too exclusively on the second person of the Trinity, Jesus, and ignore the Father and the Spirit all too much. Roger Olson points this out in his book, Questions to all you Answers, and further points out the instead of saying, "Jesus is the answer," we should say, "the Trinity is the answer." Isaiah 53 is about Jesus, but it is also about Isaiah 53 and about the Father. We bypass the beauty and profundity of Scripture when we look for our preconceived belief to overlay passages in Scripture. If this happens too often, we bypass the ability for Scripture to speak on its own and begin to overlook and avoid the ability of the Bible to confront us with something other than what we're already looking for. If you know what you want to get out of a passage, i.e. the Gospel, then you may be less and less open to allowing the Bible to speak to you on its own terms.
This previous point was brought out by the professor. To him, if we focus on getting to the Gospel and Jesus every time we preach or teach from a passage, then the richness of each passage can be circumvented and the Bible can turn into one big message about the New Testament reality about Jesus. There are so many passages, especially in the OT that do not directly point to or deal with Jesus Christ. If that's the case, then there is nothing wrong with teaching or preaching that passage without pointing to Christ each time. What if the messages of the Bible aren't always about Jesus? They are indirectly of course but many messages don't point towards Jesus.
If the Bible were about one member of the Trinity, wouldn't it make more sense that the most important person to consider in the Trinity would be the Father. These passages seem to point to that...
I Corinthians 15:26-28
26The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27For he "has put everything under his feet."[c] Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.
Hebrews 1:1-4
In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. 3The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. 4So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.
John 1:1;14
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning...14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
So should we focus on one member of the Trinity for every passage of Scripture - should interpretation be directed by Christo-centrism? What if we were to look at each passage and look at it through the lens of the Trinity? We could then discern who might be the most important figure to consider, whether one, two or all three of them when looking at a pertinent passage. We need a Triune-centric interpretation of Scripture which will include Christo-centricism. The Bible isn't about Jesus, it is about the Trinity and though Jesus is a central figure throughout the Bible and a member of the Trinity, the Bible isn't about Jesus. It has to be about the Trinity and the life of the Trinity as they carry out their ongoing plan. Are there important implications to consider because of this? Does it matter? Yes. But that's a whole different post.
We cannot minimize the storyline to one member of the Trinity or give pre-eminence to one member unless that is done with Yahweh himself. He's the one who sends Christ, is the Father, is obeyed by Christ, is given all that Christ accomplishes, is the person of the Trinity who creates through his Son, is whom we access through Christ. He is the Goal and He has the first and final Word. But the point is that we don't need to pick one - we look at Scripture, as much as possible, through the eyes of the Trinity not just one member of the Trinity.
I enjoyed this commentary Nate. Very intriguing indeed. Well-done.
ReplyDeleteLucas D.