What Preaching Christ From All Of Scripture Does And Does Not Mean

In recent days there has been considerable discussion about what it means to speak of “preaching Christ from all of Scripture.” Some object to this way of speaking and this approach to Bible interpretation on the grounds that it does violence to the true meaning of Scripture. For those within Dispensationalism, there are two peoples of God, an earthly people (Israel) and a heavenly people. As they read Scripture, there is a genuine sense in which God’s promises to national Israel are the center of Scripture. In this view it is held that God intends to restore national Israel, including the temple and the sacrificial system. Thus, according to most forms of Dispensationalism, those promises of an earthly kingdom are thought to be the norm by which all the rest of Scripture must be understood. Another objection is that the project of preaching Christ from all of Scripture does not do justice to the particular text at hand, that it neglects the specific contribution of this text before us to the unfolding story of Scripture. Still another objection complains that “preaching Christ from all of Scripture” tends to give short shrift to the ethical demands of Scripture. Sometimes, they argue, the text is really about us and our growth in godliness.

Let us define our terms. What does it mean or what should it mean to speak of “preaching Christ from all of Scripture”? There are versions of this approach that, because of the desire to lead the congregation to Christ, probably do not do justice to particular texts of Scripture. It is possible to turn a text into a springboard, as an opportunity to say what the preacher really wants to say. This is a genuine danger in all forms of topical preaching when the text of Scripture does not govern and drive the sermon. Preachers have been known to pass over the original intent of the human author of Scripture, to pass over the message of the text in its original social and churchly context, and to pass over the sense of the text in the flow of the immediate biblical context. I have seen this done under the guise of “preaching Christ from all of Scripture” but I have also seen this done in the interests of applying the text to the congregation’s Christian experience or to their ethical life.

Properly understood, to preaching Christ from all of Scripture is a godly, biblical, and true goal of preaching and properly understood it requires the preacher to pay close attention to the original language and contexts of the passage at hand as well as the broader context. Preaching Christ from all of Scripture means that the preacher must discipline himself and the sermon to let the text before him govern not whether it leads us to Christ but how.

This brings us to the problem of Dispensationalism and what we might call an Israeleo-centric way of reading Scripture (hermeneutics). This is a nineteenth-century theological system that has been popular since the early part of the 19th century. Nevertheless, it is not the historic Christian approach to reading Scripture. For most of the church prior to the rise of Dispensationalism, such an approach would have been described as “Judaizing.” Indeed, those approaches that did seek to restore the types and shadows (Col 2:17; Heb 8:5; 10:1) of the Old Testament were regarded as Judaizing in the sense that they did not properly recognize the progress of redemptive history and revelation.

Since the earliest days of the Reformation, the Protestants followed the earliest Christian Fathers (e.g., Barnabas, Irenaeus) in seeing that, in one way or another, all of Scripture points us to Christ. Our Lord himself taught us to think this way in Luke 24. As Luke records the encounter with the disciples he showed them how all the Scriptures pointed to himself. Only after their eyes were opened, however, did they understand what he had said: “They said to each other, “Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us on the road, while he opened to us the Scriptures?” (Luke 24:32; ESV). Space permitting, we could survey our Lord’s argument with the Jews in John 8. He argued explicitly and repeatedly that the Old Testament Scriptures were pointing to him and even that Old Testament believers already knew him by faith (8:56).

The Apostle Paul also read the Scripture this way. In order to confirm to the Corinthian congregation the validity of his ministry, he argues from something that he and they both accepted as a given: “For all the promises of God find their Yes in him. That is why it is through him that we utter our Amen to God for his glory” (2 Cor 1:20; ESV). The significance of the various events in redemptive history was not the establishment of a permanent national people. They were speaking to us. Paul writes, “Now these things happened to them as an example, but they were written down for our instruction, on whom the end of the ages has come” (1 Cor 10:11; ESV). The writer to the Hebrews reads the Old Testament as though they pointed us to Christ: “Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world” (Heb 1:1–2; ESV). The Apostle Peter affirmed this way of reading Scripture:

Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully, inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories. It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you, in the things that have now been announced to you through those who preached the good news to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, things into which angels long to look (1 Pet 1:10-12; ESV).

The Old Testament prophets were preaching Christ through types and shadows. We have the reality but Christ is the center of all of Scripture. So, the Bible does have a focus, a central, organizing narrative but to preach Christ properly we have to pay attention not only to the punchline, if you will, but to the story that God the Spirit gave us. The OT narratives and the other types of literature in the OT were not given to be passed over lightly but to read carefully and in context.

The Abounding Grace of God is that God the Spirit directed, moved, carried, and inspired the writers of Scripture (by using their background and personality) to point us to Christ in a rich tapestry of revelation. We need not flatten out the message of Scripture so that every passage sounds like every other passage. Leviticus leads us to Christ rather differently (and sometimes surprisingly) than Nehemiah does. A good, careful reading of Scripture will recognize its diversity as well as its unifying message.

We need not choose between preaching Christ from all of Scripture and accounting for the ethical obligations that belong to those who have been saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. Part of the story is that we have been given new life in Christ and that we are being gradually sanctified. As the apostles typically present the story, our new life is grounded in the person of and finished work of Christ for us and for our salvation.

R. Scott Clark, Escondido

RESOURCES

Resources On Reading Scripture in Light Of Redemptive History

Subscribe to AGR Live

4 comments

  1. Thank you! I was just explaining this to my young friend last night. I will share this with him

  2. I must take issue with the comments stating that the Dispensational approach has only recently appeared as a new kid on the block, in some way demeaning Christ and would have been seen as Judaizing prior to the Reformation as well as since. The restoration of the people of Israel to the Land of Israel for the literal fulfilment of OT prophecies (during a literal Millennium) is nothing like the Judaizing that Paul speaks against! It gives Christ His rightful place in the fulfilment of His own words in Matt. 23:39.
    It appears that others in the Reformed tradition don’t share the opinion that this a recent development in theology and wasn’t the opinion of the early church fathers:

    Phillip Schaff, (a Presbyterian/Lutheran minster with Catholic leanings, who didn’t believe in an Earthly Millennium), writing in 1884
    “The most striking point in the eschatology of the ante-Nicene age is the prominent chiliasm, or millenarianism, that is the belief of the visible reign of Christ in glory on the earth with the risen saints for a thousand years, before the general resurrection and judgement. It was … a widely current opinion of distinguished teachers such as Barnabas, Papias, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Methodius and Lactantius”

    Johann Heinrich Alsted (a Calvinist minister) wrote in 1643
    “It was the constant opinion of the Church, in the very next age to the Apostles, that there should be a resurrection before the general rising of the last day, and an happy condition of the faithful upon the earth for C10 yeeres. This we may learn from Tertullian and Ireneaus and Justin Martyr … But what Christian soever in his time were in all respects Orthodox, maintained the same — it seemed the Heretiques of those times, especially, or indeed onely, believed it not.”

    All the Dispensationalists I have known have been extremely Christ-centred in their preaching. However, they see the promises as fulfilled in Christ (as in 2 Cor. 1 that you quote), through the Church *and* through Israel, with God faithfully fulfilling His promises in both those spheres – and Christ being vindicated here on *this* earth, the very place of His rejection, as well as in the New Creation, with all the potential of pre-Fall Eden restored before the eyes of unregenerate man prior to the final Judgement. It grieves me that some want to deny Christ that part of His glory!

    • David,

      I appreciate this. I was using “Judaizing” in the broad sense, not in the narrow sense of salvation by works but in in the sense of “unjustified renewal of the OT types and shadows” in the New Testament era.

      Dispensationalism as a system, in all its forms with the possible exception of aspects of the very latest versions (as of the last decade or so) expressly sees national Israel as the center of redemptive history so much so that they anticipate a rebuilding of the temple and a reinstitution of the temple sacrificial system.

      To be sure, I didn’t say anything about historic pre-millennialism or chiliasm. I quite understand that it’s long been taught and held and, as you indicate, even by some Reformed theologians. No Reformed church confesses chiliasm, however. The Dispensational eschatology is not old-fashioned chiliasm. They have elaborate Israeleo-centric eschatology that is rather different from Alsted’s chiliasm or even the chiliasm of the early church.

Comments are closed.