Luke 14:28-33: A new interpretation?

I'm preaching on Luke 14:25-35 this coming Sunday and my companions as I preach through Luke have been the commentaries by Green and Marshall. (I find usually reading more than a couple of commentaries for the purpose of preaching a waste of time). However on the subject of the two parables in Luke 14:28-33 I find them both unconvincing and have subsequently come up with my own interpretation. It probably isn't new or unique, but it seems so satisfactory to me I am surprised neither Marshall nor Green even mention the possibility. I'd appreciate your thoughts, whether you think my alternative reading has any merit, and whether you know any other commentators who have suggested something similar.



What they say

Jesus is talking about the need to hate our families and take up our crosses to be his disciples. He then tells two parables, one about understanding the need to estimate the cost of a building project before starting it to avoid ridicule and one about the need to surrender to and enemy that has greater forces than you. Jesus concludes by saying, "in the same way [as in the parables] any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple." Both NIV and NRSV subtitle the section "the cost of discipleship."

For Green Jesus uses these parable to "highlight the importance of considering the conditions he has placed on authentic discipleship" and "by extrapolation [he] insists that such assets as one's network of kin . . . are an insufficient foundation for assuring one's status before God." (Green, NICNT p566)

For Marshall, the parables show "just as one should not attempt a venture without having sufficient resources to complete it . . . so a disciple must be continually ready to give up all he has got in order to follow Jesus. The connection of thought could be smoother, and this confirms that originally independent saying have here been joined together." (Marshall, NIGTC p594-95)

Effectively then, for both Marshall and Green the parables serve as warnings to potential disciples to weigh carefully if they will be able to see their discipleship to the end. In other words, "don't become a disciple unless you are ready to give everything else up." But Marshall does note that this interpretation of the pericope is not very smooth, leading him to doubt the integrity of the passage. Might I be so bold as to suggest it is not the passage that lacks smoothness but that particular reading of it? A reading that renders Jesus warning people off becoming his disciples instead of inviting them to do so?




A better way?

Because we come to this passage with a "cost" mentality we see the parables as primarily about having the resources to see things through, and Jesus demanding that we be willing to give up everything to follow him. But the parables in question do not address resources, in the sense that there is no question or possibility of change in the resources of the characters in the parables. Under the previous reading this becomes a very fatalistic message: either you have what it takes to be a disciple or you don't. But in each parable it is a case of the character realising the true extent of his resources and acting accordingly.

But Jesus does not conclude the thought by saying "in the same way everyone should take stock of their resources for discipleship before following me." He says "in the same way you should give up everything you have." The parables are not about what we can achieve with our resources, but what we should give up.

In v28-30 the character gives up a tower (representing security, stability, wealth?) he cannot build, and in v31-32 a king gives up a kingdom (representing power, autonomy, sovereignty, wealth?) he cannot hold on to. So what point could Jesus be making? Is it not that those things which might come between us and being a disciple of Jesus (our excuses - cf Luke 14:18-20) are not things which we can hold onto or maintain in our own strength anyway? By giving up our social and material possessions to follow Jesus are we not just giving up what we were bound to lose anyway?

In both parables those who "give up" are held up as examples of the wise, and then we too are called to "give up" in order to become dsciples. Suddenly the flow of thought couldn't be smoother, and suddenly rather than trying to put off less committed disciples with a high price Jesus is actually encouraging us to follow him because what he is asking us to give up is beyond us to acheive or hold onto anyway.

In the words of Jim Elliot, martyred missionary, "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose."

Let me know what you think :-)

Hurtado on Jesus and the Syro-Phoenician Woman

pic from sacred sandwich

Hurtado writes,

Since the assigned lection a few Sundays ago on Jesus and the Syro-Phoenician woman (Mark 7:24-30), I’ve intended to comment on what appears to me a surprisingly widespread mis-reading of the passage.  Essentially, the “dogs” (who Jesus says here must wait till after the “children” have eaten before they can be fed) are taken with an extremely pejorative connotation as feral mongrels, and the scene is read as if Jesus is pictured insulting the woman and treating her with contempt. 

Read the rest, you'll be glad you did, first on the how we should understand the dogs in question (not to mention the connection to the gentile mission), and second as to how the parable connects with the woman's own life. This was a real ah-ha! moment for me. Those two posts justified wading through the other 100 worthless posts clogging up my reader. ;-)

For a totally different discussion of Moses' use of canine imagery and women try this old Xenos post.

The Uniqueness of the Cross of Jesus

As a 'blasphemer', Jesus was rejected by the guardians of his people's law. As a 'rebel' he was crucified by the Romans. But finally, and most profoundly, he died as one rejected by his God and Father. In the theological context of his life this is the most important dimension. It is this alone which distinguishes the cross from the many crosses of forgotten and nameless persons in world history.

Jurgen Moltmann, The Crucified God (Fortress 1974/1993), p152

You think the reformation is over? It is now . . .

Carl Trueman's excellent article on how the advent of mega churches signals the end of the reformation is well worth a read and has really stuck with me in my own struggles with a church which, while hardly mega, is getting to the point where it is difficult to know everybody, and certainly not possible to really know everybody.  However even in small churches I have noticed a tendency to jetison the insights and advances of the reformation without so much as a thought. 

This particular regression can be blamed on the "creative" outlet provided by digital video projectors whereby communion is now not complete without either a slide showing a blood stained figure on a cross, or a pained face with a crown of thorns, or even better yet a youtube video where some american crooner sings about the cross set to slide show put together by a theologically illiterate teenager in their bedroom complete with every cliched Christ image on google.  Suddenly we are worshipping an image in our allegedly Bible believing churches, using a cheesy digital image to focus our thoughts on the suffering of Jesus. 

Don't get me wrong I have no problem with movies made out of the story of Jesus, although some of them are terrible, or pictures in the children's Bibles.  But by playing such images as part of our worship, especially as part of a communion service we take attention away from the image Jesus actually did leave us, the bread and the wine shared among the people of God - which is clearly not Jesus but points us to his presence within and among us, and focuses us on the sad tragic physical suffering of crucifixion which is really not the focus of the Bible when it comes to the cross at all.  Jesus' death really wasn't that tragic in the vast scale of human suffering, others have died longer more painful and humiliating deaths.  The evangelists do not labour the fact that he was in pain, or that it was really sad that Jesus was being hurt, etc, etc.  The focus of the gospel writers was on the meaning of his death, and that should be our focus too, but it is hard to do that when corny gory images of someones idea of Christ are filling up the front of the church.

And to reward you for reading my rant, here is some unrelated light relief from the Sacred Sandwich,

Let me know what you think, :-)

Brick-a-Brack 080312: Special Whoop Ass Edition

Ok, all sorts of folk have been putting the internet smack down on some baddies this week,

• Goodacre and McGrath have been tag teaming James Tabor over the Talpiot Tombs
• Meanwhile John Byron puts the boot in on Christian colonialism (Go John GO!)
• Mike Bird simultaneously clothelines über-secularists and boring fundamentalists with his approach to the gospels
• And Franklin Graham body slams President Obama . . . no wait a minute, Franklin Graham body slams his own face into the ground and Gavin Rumney then pins him with precision for an easy win 

What Pastors Should Really Be Doing

Well a couple of interesting posts recently on the subject,

Pastors should spend less time in cafes drinking coffee from Carey Leadership Blog and

7 Things the Church Expects from the Seminary. Which should actually be titled 7 Things the church expects its pastors to be able to do. To which I say, good luck with that.

Lots of things I'd like to respond to in them but today I don't have the energy. Instead I'll give you 4 things pastors (and anyone else) should base their ministry on based on Mark 1:9-13 the start of Jesus' ministry.

9 At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 10 Just as Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. 11 And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.” 12 At once the Spirit sent him out into the wilderness, 13 and he was in the wilderness forty days, being tempted by Satan. He was with the wild animals, and angels attended him.

So

1. We should minister out of the love and acceptance of our Father in Heaven - not our own needs and agendas. (v11)
2. We should be following the leading of the Spirit - not the latest techniques from the USA. (v12)
3. We should understand our vocation is constantly at risk of being derailed by the temptations of Satan - and so our enemy is the devil not the people who annoy us and inside us as much as outside. (v13a)
4. We should embrace the unpredictability and uncertainty of the company of wild animals and angels - not seek to control our lives so that God's work is limited to only what we can imagine and control. (v13b)

Let me know what you think, :-)

The first hymn

The Cyber Hymnal records that the first hymn written in English for public worship was penned by Isaac Watts at the ripe old age of 14 . . .

In a lengthy dis­cuss­ion with his fa­ther, Watts ar­gued that sing­ing on­ly the Psalms in church made them miss much im­port­ant New Test­a­ment truth. Once his con­gre­ga­tion was con­vinced of what Isaac was say­ing, he be­gan turn­ing out a new hymn a week. But this one is the ve­ry first, mak­ing the words Pre­pare new hon­ors for His name, and songs be­fore un­known es­pe­cial­ly mean­ing­ful. This hymn al­so re­veals Watts’ amaz­ing breadth of bib­lical know­ledge (he was on­ly a teen­ag­er at the time); there are al­lu­sions to ma­ny Script­ure pass­ag­es.

And the following is what resulted

Behold the glories of the Lamb
Amidst His Father’s throne.
Prepare new honors for His name,
And songs before unknown.

Let elders worship at His feet,
The Church adore around,
With vials full of odors sweet,
And harps of sweeter sound.

Those are the prayers of the saints,
And these the hymns they raise;
Jesus is kind to our complaints,
He loves to hear our praise.

Eternal Father, who shall look
Into Thy secret will?
Who but the Son should take that Book
And open every seal?

He shall fulfill Thy great decrees,
The Son deserves it well;
Lo, in His hand the sovereign keys
Of Heav’n, and death, and hell!

Now to the Lamb that once was slain
Be endless blessings paid;
Salvation, glory, joy remain
Forever on Thy head.

Thou hast redeemed our souls with blood,
Hast set the prisoner free;
Hast made us kings and priests to God,
And we shall reign with Thee.

The worlds of nature and of grace
Are put beneath Thy power;
Then shorten these delaying days,
And bring the promised hour.

Obviously the main muse for the hymn comes from the book Apocalypse of John.  Watts went on to be a very serious non-conformist theologian and preacher as well as penning nearly 800 hymns.  Of course, my favourite Watts hymn is entitled "Blest is the man whose bowels move." I kid you not, and the second verse is even better than the first line!

Two posts on Mark's Gospel

Steve Douglas discusses equal opportunity salvation,

Neither the rich nor the poor are demonized, because the author understood a focus on class or status to be missing Jesus’ point.

And James McGrath has a hunch (AKA an essay) as to how the gospel story ended in Mark's mind if not on paper.

The Cutting Edge of the Church

A year or so ago one of NZ's top surgeons came to speak at Carey Baptist College.  A staunch and thoughtful Christian, he was asked by the interviewer at one stage, "what is it that future church leaders in this room can do to support people like you in their work?"  He looked genuinely shocked by the question, "I have always felt that pastors were far more intereted in how I could support their ministry than in helping me in mine." 

I preached an experimental message yesterday evening on Eph 4:1-14.  It was a pretty simple message really, that Jesus has given apostles, prophets, pastors and teachers to the church to edify the church to do God's work in the world.  Or put another way, it is not the job of the church to support the ministry of the pastors, but the job of the pastors to support the ministry of the church.  It is not the minister, or the youth pastor, or whoever else happens to be on stage on a Sunday meeting that is the cutting edge of the church, it is everyone else, those who spend their days at work, in school, or making home in the neighbourhood. Beyond this basic attitudinal shift what can we do to reorient church away from the ministry of those upfront on Sunday towards the ministry of everyone's everyday lives?

Let me know what you think :-)

Merry Christmas!

OK, just one more from my favourite American preacher! :-)

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Jesus Is a Liberal Democrat
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog</a> March to Keep Fear Alive

Thanks to Rhett on FB.

brick-a-brack 8/12/10

• Randy Alcom takes evangelical dishonesty to task, it is a chilling article.
• Robin Gunston, National Director of Prison Fellowship NZ, speaks on Prisons (their rising costs), Penal Policy (our highly punitive outlook), and how ordinary New Zealanders can influence both for the better. 
• Lots of people have been getting excited about Scot McKnight's article on Jesus and Paul.  
• Stuart has a great post on preaching in a digital age.
• A fascinating post on Joseph's reasons for wanting to send Mary away, suspicion or humility?

Brick-A-Brack 01/12/10

• Claude Mariottini gives a concise and very helpful argument that God did not command genocide in Joshua and Judges
• Loren Rossen cites three historical Jesus scholars on why the non-canonical gospels are not admissible for historical Jesus research, "Two of them are secular liberals, so it's not as if plain sense flows only from Christian bias." 
• TVNZ reports on "a former atheist who found God and like many Christians he's trying to make the world a better place."
• Darrell on the modern and hypothetical ancient Greek word for blog.

And something to get you in the Christmas mood, 

Ramachandra Asks About Gospel Priorities

And as usual he is angry about Western Christianity's myopic vision and not afraid to say why,

Whenever I ask such preachers, “Don’t you want everybody in the world to have the benefits you enjoy?”, the answer I receive is either “That’s the social gospel” or “That’s not our priority, as non-Christians can do that”. If the Gospel is not social, then what is it? And, if non-Christians can make sacrifices to ensure that people like us have a decent life, why are we reluctant to do the same for them? What we are facing here is hypocrisy and double standards, the very things that stirred the indignation of Jesus!

Axwell - Nothing But Love

Came across this on facebook, interesting vid and message to the song.  I checked out some of their other songs/videos and they all seemed to be about how many bikini clad women they could cram onto the set so not very interesting, but I thought this one was a) an interesting example of pop culture using a contemporised Jesus narrative and b) might be a usefull discussion starter for a Bible study/sermon on loving your enemies.  Plus it is a pretty sweet choon. :-)

brick-a-brack 03/11/10

• the ridiculous prudish literal mindedness of Christians around the world has once again been proven by the reaction to Skosana's sermon "Jesus had HIV."  Also interesting to note the African Christologies coming through in some of the discussion, Jesus the heavenly power is very important in that context, but a frail human Jesus is a source of suspicion.
• Loren Rosson gives a characteristicly interesting review of Dale Allison's Constructing Jesus
• Tim Bulkely fires a shot across the bow of the whinging Avalos and Lemenche
• Paul Windsor reflects on the recent sea changes in NZ theological training
• Marc wonders if we should read less in seminary
• Daniel Kirk on Mark 13 and the fall of Jerusalem HT

Christian Preaching on the Old Testament #7

[This is the seventh in a serialisation and slight revision of an old essay of mine, in the hope of getting some interaction from others and also making it more accessible. Funnily enough this section was judged by its one time marker as being totally pointless, but although perhaps it could use a rewrite I think the basic point it makes is hugely important. (Part 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)]

The issue of authority

Kasier argues forcefully that Christians need the OT for ‘doctrine, ethics, practical living, and preaching.’[1]  Because the NT presupposes the OT many important subjects that the OT covers are not dealt with by the NT.  Both Bright and Goldingay suggest that the NT focus on explaining Christ from the OT was a response to 1^st C. Jews struggling to understand the Christ who had come, rather than an exposition of the OT as a whole.[2]  But even if this is the case the NT does not provide us with a clear method for appropriating the OT for Christian interpretation.  The NT, with the gospels presenting Jesus as teacher and exemplar and the epistles giving pastoral and theological instruction to the early church, is the sort of literature that lends itself well to being authoritative.  With regard to authorial intent, it is clearly written with its own authority in mind.  But the literary forms of the OT cannot carry authority in the same way.  In what way are we to understand that aphoristic wisdom literature, strange narratives of incest or rape, erotic poetry, or ancient sacrificial rites, have authority over Christians?[3]  Even the legal passages are written to religious and national circumstances which no longer exist.

Peterson suggests that ‘The inspiration, unity and authority of Scripture are practically demonstrated and pastorally experienced as these ancient texts are expounded in the light of God’s ultimate purpose for us in Christ.’[4]  If this is true then authority is not a static characteristic of the text so much as the result of an experience with that text.  Not only so but Schleiermacher’s approach to texts that divides understanding from application is no longer useful, instead an approach like Hans-Georg Gadamer’s makes sense:

In both legal and theological hermeneutics there is an essential tension between the fixed text - the law or the gospel - on the one hand and, on the other, the sense arrived at by applying it at the concrete moment of interpretation, either in judgement or in preaching.  A Law does not exist in order to be understood historically, but to be concretized in its legal validity by being interpreted.  Similarly, the gospel does not exist in order to be understood as a merely historical document, but to be taken in such a way that it exercises its saving effect…  Understanding here is always application.[5] 

For a text to have authority over us it must also apply to us.   Although Kaiser and Mathewson intend to save the OT from being flattened out to only say what the NT says their approach using the bridge paradigm instead flattens out the OT into being an analogical vehicle carrying abstract theological principles.  The  inherent probloem with this is that by not relating the text first to Jesus Christ, they negate any connection the text has with the Christian audience.  The contradiction arises because their theology of scripture as divinely inspired is divorced from their hermeneutic which exegetes the OT as a purely human creation, only attributing authority to the principles discovered therein.

The Principlizing Bridge, while providing a method for relating the OT to Christians does not provide the authority for doing so.  We could equally well use it to relate Gilgamesh, Beowulf or any other ancient text to our congregations.  The contemporary Christian is most likely not a Jew, the OT is not their history.  Their commitment is to Christ, who we worship, not a collection of old books gathered by men.  Only if Christ is to be found in those books can those books claim authority over the Christian.[6]  The only way the OT can have authority over Christians is if it is a source of truth about Christ.  In this sense we can also argue that the only way the OT can be found to be relevant to modern life is through Christ.  Kaiser and Mathewson are rightly concerned to let each text speak with its own voice rather than allowing all texts to be seen purely as illustrations of the interpreter’s own theology.  But is their expectation that the voice of each text will speak, in principle, to today’s Christians valid?

---

[1] Kaiser, Preaching and teaching from the Old Testament, 40

[2] Bright, The Authority of the Old Testament,  204; Goldingay, Approaches to Old Testament Interpretation, 113

[3] Bright, The Authority of the Old Testament,  18

[4] Peterson, Christ and His People in the Book of Isaiah,  25

[5] Hans-Georg Gadamer, Truth and Method, trans Garrett Barden and John Cumming (New York: Seabury Press, 1975), 309-10.  Cited in John W. Wright, Telling God’s Story, 28-29.

[6] In this way we do not worship Christ because we find him in the Bible but we read the Bible because in it we find Christ.  To not make this distinction is idolatry.

Kittel on the Jesus of History and the Christ of Faith

Back in the day, when asked as an undergrad to write an essay on that dichotomy I refused, and wrote one called the Jesus of History, the Christ of Faith and the Risen Lord instead. But if I were to write one, I would start with this quote:

The Jesus of History is valueless and unintelligible unless He be experienced and confessed by faith as the living Christ. But, if we would be true to the New Testament, we must at once reverse this judgment. The Christ of faith has no existence, is mere noise and smoke, apart from the reality of Jesus of History. These two are utterly inseparable in the New Testament. They cannot even be thought of apart … Anyone who attempts first to separate the two and then to describe only one of them, has nothing in common with the New Testament.

Gerhard Kittel, G. K. A. Bell and A. Deissman (eds), Mysterium Christi (London, 1930), 49.  HT

A Challenge from David Black

Just came across NT scholar David Black's website, it is kind of a funny not-quite-a-blog-blog-imitation, not really sure whether I'll be coming back much, but this article caught my eye.

I’m still waiting for it – the church marquee that says:

Senior Pastor: Jesus Christ

I could not think of anything greater than to be part of a fellowship of believers where Jesus Himself is intentionally given charge to lead His church, where all bow before Him whether pastor or deacon or so-called layperson. Paul insists that Christ must receive the preeminence in all things (Col. 1:18). Toward Him all must move.

Last week in our theology class I surveyed the main Scriptures having to do with authority in the church. I feel there are so many things in our churches that are inconsistent with Paul’s pronouncement that Christ is first and that everything must enhance His preeminence. How is it, I asked, that no one can name the “pastor” of any New Testament church? The answer is precisely because their first priority was Christ. The leadership they had was a “fellowship of leadership” (Michael Green) – a group of  co-equal, non-hierarchical leaders who sought to steer their flocks’ energies into loving God, loving others, and loving the world.

It is essential that Jesus Christ be dynamically first in the life of our churches. When He is at the center – leading, empowering, directing, rearranging – our churches will no longer be pastor- or program-centered. To let a man or a method become too important is not only carnal, it’s idolatrous. It is an affront to Jesus Christ, who is the church’s only Senior Pastor.

Read the rest here
But comment beneath, because there is no where to comment on Black's website :-(

Christ but not Jesus?

In response to an earlier post on Christian preaching of the Old Testament Bob MacDonald makes the intriguing suggestion that perhaps not all NT references to Christ refer exclusively to Jesus.  I have to be honest I find this highly problematic on a number of fronts, but wasn't sure which particular texts Bob might have in mind.  When pressed he suggests Col 1:24, "in my flesh I am completing what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is the church."  To me the reference to "affliction" (θλῖψις) unmistakably invokes Jesus' passion.  In the gospels this word is usually used of eschatalogical tribulation, not Jesus' suffering per se, but in Paul's letters it is mainly used to talk about suffering caused by external circumstances, e.g. Rom 5:3, 1 Cor 7:28, 1 Thess 1:6.  Not only that but in Colossians it is a particular suffering for Christ's body the church.  (This idea of the church as Christ's body frequently causes confusion, but it is simply a possesive genitive, the body corporate that belongs to Christ.)  Now in Paul's thinking who suffered for the sake of the church's salvation? Was it a nebulous formless cosmic "Christ" or was it the human Jesus, the Christ, who suffered and died "in his fleshly body . . . so as to present [the church] holy and blameless and irreproachable before him."(Col 1:23)? 

Now none of this solves the problem of what Paul finds lacking in Christ's sufferings, or how his suffering helps complete it, but that is a topic for another post.  Suffice to say I'm not convinved that the NT ever talks about Christ with out exclusively intending to denote Jesus.

Christian Preaching from the Old Testament #4

[This is the second in a serialisation and slight revision of an old essay of mine, in the hope of getting some interaction from others and also making it more accessible. (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3)]

Defining Christian Preaching

When it comes to establishing whether or not a sermon can be considered Christian Goldsworthy and Greidanus have very different criteria from Kaiser and Mathewson.  For both Goldsworthy and Greidanus the progressive nature of revelation means that God’s truth can only be rightly understood in an individual scripture from the perspective of Salvation History, in particular the Christ event.  As such, a Christian interpretation must be substantively different to the interpretation of a non-Christian (cf. 2 Cor 3:14-16).[1]  In response to Greidanus’ book Kaiser affirms ‘that the central theme of both Old and New Testaments is Christ.’[2]  However it is clear that when Kaiser states that the theme of the OT is Christ he does not mean Jesus Christ, i.e. the historical person who the OT predates, but a rather more nebulous Christ in seed form who exists only as ‘the promise plan of God.’[3]  On the other hand Mathewson is more forthright about his rejection of Greidanus’ approach, ‘sometimes a Christ-centred sermon may not even mention Jesus.  The issue is, does a sermon demonstrate the relationship of the passage preached to the overall war between the seed of the woman and Satan.[sic]’[4]  For both Kaiser and Mathewson the hermeneutical key to the OT is not Christ but God’s promise to Abraham (Gen 12:1-3) or God’s curse of the serpent (Gen 3:15) respectively.  Moreover they both raise objections to any approach that interprets the OT in the light of the NT Christ event.  For Kaiser, ‘This whole approach is wrongheaded historically, logically and biblically.’[5]  For Mathewson, ‘Often, such an approach does not pay sufficient attention to the stories’ specific message nor [sic] to the legitimate ethical demands that flow from it.’[6]

Kaiser’s argument hinges on his assertion that ‘the first New testament Believers tested what they had heard from Jesus and his disciples against what was written in the Old Testament.’[7]  Therefore the revelation of the OT should be hermeneutically prior to that of the NT.  This is problematic in that in the gospel accounts those steeped in the OT (scribes and Pharisees) clearly did not recognise Jesus, but only those who first recognised Jesus were then able to see how the OT witnessed to him.[8]  While they may have tested their experience of Christ against the OT they did so with an interpretation of the OT which had been radically altered by meeting Christ.  On the other hand, Mathewson’s argument is that sermons don’t need to always mention Christ especially when the sermon's context is a Christ centred worship service.[9]  Mathewson’s emphasis on ethical demands also causes him to run foul of Chapell's worthy rule: ‘Exhortations for moral behaviour apart from the work of the Saviour degenerate into mere pharisaism even if preachers advocate the actions with Biblical evidence and good intent.’[10]  Goldsworthy agrees that any sermon application that doesn’t mention Christ can only be ‘wishful and pietistic thinking… [or] Christ denying legalism.’[11]

For Kaiser and Mathewson sermons from the OT are Christian simply by virtue of being from the OT.  Both are committed to authorial intent being the final arbiter of an interpretation.  Their methodology depends on the internal unity of the OT and on its absolute unity with the NT;[12] but either way they fail to provide a homiletic that will necessarily produce sermons that are specifically Christian.  By contrast Goldsworthy and Greidanus while committed to the original meaning restricting the direction of interpretation also insist that that interpretation must point to the incarnate Christ in some way.[13]  For both Goldsworthy and Greidanus while there is continuity between the testaments we must also account for a level of discontinuity as progression requires both continuity and discontinuity.[14]   This fundamental difference in how the authors understand the relation between the testaments is of great importance and will fundamentally shape their homiletic hermeneutic.

---

[1] And this is in agreement with the historical record where the early Christians and their Jewish counterparts use the same exegetical techniques but arrive at different meanings, see Beale and Carson, Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament, xxv-xxvi

[2] Kaiser, Preaching and Teaching from the Old Testament,  41

[3] Kaiser, Preaching and Teaching from the Old Testament, 37-38

[4] Mathewson, The art of Preaching Old Testament Narrative,  175

[5] Kaiser, Preaching and Teaching from the Old Testament, 26

[6] Mathewson, The Art of Preaching Old Testament Narrative,  175

[7] Kaiser, Preaching and Teaching from the Old Testament, 26

[8] cf. Beale and Carson, Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament,  xxv-xxvi

[9] Mathewson’s rebuttal of Greidanus though is rather perplexing.  In defence of his position against Greidanus he cites Bryan Chappell, Christ Centred Preaching, (Grand Rapids: baker, 1994), 295.  Interestingly enough on this very page, and in reference to this very point, Chapell quotes Greidanus to support his position.  So in effect Mathewson quotes Chapell quoting Greidanus to respond to Greidanus!  Both Mathewson and Chapell misrepresent Greidanus’ Christ centred approach and the result is a compound error. (Mathewson, The Art of Preaching Old Testament Narrative, 175)  Greidanus is clear that Christian preaching should ‘authentically integrate the message of the text with the climax of God’s revelation in the person, work, and or teaching of Jesus Christ as revealed in the New Testament.’ Greidanus, Preaching Christ from the Old Testament 10

[10] Chapell, Christ Centred Preaching, 268

[11] Goldsworthy, Preaching the Whole Bible, 124, see also chapter 4

[12] Kaiser, Preaching and Teaching from the Old Testament,  37-8; Kaiser seems to see the OT and NT as thematically unified whereas Mathewson appears to work more with an assumption of theological unity, Mathewson, The Art of Preaching Old Testament Narrative,  84-85

[13] Greidanus, Preaching Christ from the Old Testament 1-68; Goldsworthy, Preaching The Whole Bible as Christian Scripture,  1-10

[14] Greidanus, Preaching Christ from the Old Testament 46-52; Goldsworthy, Preaching The Whole Bible as Christian Scripture,  63-80