Preaching Christ from the Old Testament: An Examination of Three Approaches (Part 4)
Position and Closing
This series of posts comes from a research paper I wrote for a class at Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary.
This is the final post in the series on preaching Christ from the Old Testament. I will be wrapping up our series with some personal interaction with each of the approaches I have examined. If you need to catch up, you can go to the archives and access parts one, two, and three.
Position and Closing
Having evaluated three different approaches to preaching Christ in the Old Testament, I will now spend some time discussing my own position on the issue. I will do so by way of a brief, personal interaction with each approach.
First Testament Priority Approach
Although I appreciate the emphasis this view gives to original context and authorial intent, I am not able to agree with its approach. I believe John 5:46 alone is enough to dismiss it. The approach starts in a good place, but does not end where it should.
It is commendable to first consider the Old Testament passage as it would have been heard and intended by its contemporaries. However, one must not stay there. It is necessary to preach Christ from every text, Old or New. In some texts, Christ is explicit. In others, He is veiled. Yet, all Scripture speaks of Him.
When we come to the New Testament, we are not presented with a brand new message that is added to the Old Testament. The veil is lifted and we are enabled to see the message that has been there all along. As John Owen said,
“This is the line of life and light which runs through the whole Old Testament; without the conduct whereof we can understand nothing aright therein: and the neglect hereof is that which makes many as blind in reading the books of it as are the Jews, – the veil being upon their minds.”[1]
This is why Jesus can say that He was the One Moses spoke of (Jn. 5:46).
I have another issue with this approach. John Goldingay, a proponent of the approach, says that we are “wise to read…the two Testaments in light of each other, as both comprise the Christian Scriptures.”[2] I agree wholeheartedly with that statement. However, it seems to me that what he argues for is the opposite. He would have us read the New Testament in light of the Old, but his position calls for reading the Old in its own right. If Scripture truly is a unified whole, then its central figure and theme (Christ and Him crucified) should reach back into the Old Testament just as much as it reaches forward into the New.
Redemptive-Historical, Christocentric Approach
I appreciate the emphasis this view gives to the theme of Christ in every Old Testament text. My contention with this approach is simple. For what it gains in seeing Christ behind the veil, it loses in the consideration of the practical message of the Old Testament to its contemporaries.
Though Moses spoke of Christ, he also spoke practical instruction from God to His people in their time. The problem for the Jews was not that they believed the practical instruction, but that they could not see that it was ultimately fulfilled in Christ. It is problematic to ignore the Old Testament’s organic context in an effort to quickly connect it to Christ. We must view both and realize that they complement one another. Having said this, it may be no secret to which position I lean.
Christotelic Approach
This is, in my opinion, the strongest of the approaches. It not only emphasizes Christ on every page, but it also retains the original intent of the authors and understanding of the hearers. The Old Testament is just as much practical as it is theological. As I have said, one might argue against this view with the claim that it proposes two different interpretations. In defense, I will take up this argument.
It is not two different interpretations that this approach suggests, but two different readings. There is one interpretation. However, that one interpretation requires two readings because it is the connecting point between the two.
The practical instruction of the Old Testament is still relevant today. Our purpose in the first reading is to locate that instruction. Our purpose in the second reading is to understand how Christ fulfills, informs, and enables that instruction. These are the two readings. The one interpretation is coming to an understanding of how a particular Old Testament text is to be applied to the New Testament believer in light of the person and work of Christ.
Conclusion
In my efforts to research and write this paper, I have come to a greater appreciation of the importance of a proper Scriptural approach. These are not insignificant details. How the preacher approaches Christ in the Old Testament will greatly impact his handling of the text. Therefore, let us all be diligent to think through our own approaches that we may be faithful in our exposition of God’s Word.
[1] John Owen, Meditations and Discourses on the Glory of Christ, in The Works of John Owen, ed. William H. Goold, vol. 1 (1850-1853; repr., Carlisle: Banner of Truth Trust, 1965), 348.
[2] John Goldingay, “First Testament Approach,” in Five Views of Christ in the Old Testament: Genre, Authorial Intent, and the Nature of Scripture, ed. Brian J. Tabb, Andrew M. King, and Stanley N. Gundry, Counterpoints: Bible and Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2022), 21.