It is becoming common to hear preachers “finding Jesus” in every text of Scripture. Many name recognized Bible Scholars and popular writers advocate a Christological hermeneutic that forces Christ onto every text. Albert Mohler in He Is Not Silent: Preaching in a Postmodern World wrote:
Every single text of Scripture points to Christ. He is the Lord of all, and therefore He is the Lord of the Scriptures too. From Moses to the prophets, He is the focus of every single word of the Bible. Every verse of Scripture finds its fulfillment in Him, and every story in the Bible ends with Him.[1]
Tim Keller in his Preaching: Communicating Faith in an Age of Skepticism also promotes the Christological hermeneutic. Keller boldly states that: “Paul hasn’t preached a text unless he has preached about Jesus, not merely as an example to follow but as a savior: ‘Christ Jesus, who has become for us . . . our righteousness, holiness and redemption’ (1 Corinthians 1: 30).”[2]
Our young theology students are enamored with these highly influential leaders. These leaders, however, are jettisoning the Historical/grammatical hermeneutic in the process. The thesis of this paper is the Christological hermeneutic of the Old Testament is not the Historical/grammatical hermeneutic of God’s Word.
This is no small hermeneutic or theological issue we are confronting in this paper. Keith Essex captures the two main hermeneutics concerning interpreting the Old Testament regarding Christology: Although all Evangelicals agree that OT Narrative Literature has a definite theological intent, there is a division between those who relate all of that intent generally to God with only a few direct or indirect references to Christ (Theocentric) and those who would relate every passage to Christ (Christocentric). According to Christocentric exponents, there is a definite “Redemptive-Historical” view of hermeneutics built upon, but distinct from, a merely historical-grammatical-theocentric hermeneutic. My evaluation of this distinction between a Theocentric and Christocentric hermeneutic is shaped by thinking of who is before the text. There seems to be general hermeneutical agreement by Evangelicals of what is behind the text (historical background) and in the text (literary structure and meaning). However, the Theocentric hermeneutic views ancient Israel, and ancient Israel alone, as being before the text in an interpretive sense. The hermeneutical question is, “What did this text mean to the original audience?” The contemporary hearer joins with ancient Israel in receiving the message and from the application to the first audience gains insight into the significance for himself. The Christocentric hermeneutic views the audience in front of the text to include ancient Israel and the new, true Israel, the Church.
Essex next quotes two Christocentric advocates which helps us understand what is in front of the Christocentric hermeneutic. Greidanus writes, “All the foregoing presuppositions support the final principal presupposition of the New Testament writers in preaching Christ from the Old Testament, and that is to read the Old Testament from the perspective of the reality of Christ.” Goldsworthy states, “What went before Christ in the Old Testament finds its meaning in him. So the Old Testament must be understood in its relationship to the gospel event.” Essex summarizes what the Christocentric hermeneutic means: It seems that for the Christ-centered interpreter, the exegetical process of OT narrative has not been completed until Christ is discovered in the specific OT text being studied.[3]
The topic of preaching Christ from the Old Testament either reflects Covenant or Reformed Theology in the Christocentric hermeneutic or Dispensational Theology in the Historical/Grammatical Theocentric hermeneutic. These are two different hermeneutics. Dr. Jerry Hullinger documents this difference when he refers to Covenant theologian Iain Diguid:
Iain Diguid distances himself from the approach that Christ is secretly alluded to in every verse; however, he goes on to say that “the central thrust of every passage leads us in some way to the central message of the gospel” (“Old Testament Hermeneutics” In Seeing Christ in all of Scripture: Hermeneutics at Westminster Theological Seminary [Philadelphia: Westminster Seminary Press, 2016] 19. accessed May 8, 2016. wts.edu/uploads/images/files/Seeing Christ eBook). Though an apparent improvement to seeing Christ in every verse, can this become essentially the same thing? For the Covenant Theologian, would this be the same as seeing the Bible though the grid of the Covenant of Redemption? As Gregory Beale illustrates in the next chapter of the same book, “in the light of corporate solidarity or representation, the New Testament writers view Christ the Messiah as representing the true Israel of the Old Testament (e.g. Isa 49:3) and the church as the true Israel of the New Testament (cf. Gal 3:16 and 3:29).”[4]
THE CHRISTOLOGICAL HERMENEUTIC
The Christological Hermeneutics basically finds Christ in every passage according to Sidney Greidanus in his Preaching Christ from the Old Testament. Sidney Greidanus refers to the David and Goliath story in 1 Samuel 17 as an example of the Christocentric hermeneutic.[5] This view is based on the Covenant of Grace which has the full gospel message of Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection in the Old Testament ignoring progressive revelation. For example, Abraham believed God and it was counted to him in Genesis 15:6 which does not include the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus but rather the special revelation concerning the number of his descendants that will be as numerous as stars in heaven in 15:1-5.
The History of the Christological Hermeneutic
There is a long history of this hermeneutic which ignores the normal sense of language. Justin Martyr in the mid-second century in his Dialogue of Justin with Trypho, A Jew said that “when Moses lifted his hands supported by Aaron, this was an imitation of the cross. It was this sign of the cross that gave victory, that Moses held his hands up until evening typified that Christ would be buried in the evening.”[6] Augustine allegorizes the ark to find Christ in the Ark in The City of God:
Moreover, inasmuch as God commanded Noah, a just man, and, as the truthful Scripture says, a man perfect in his generation — not indeed with the perfection of the citizens of the city of God in that immortal condition in which they equal the angels, but in so far as they can be perfect in their sojourn in this world — inasmuch as God commanded him, I say, to make an ark, in which he might be rescued from the destruction of the flood, along with his family, i.e., his wife, sons, and daughters-in-law, and along with the animals who, in obedience to God's command, came to him into the ark: this is certainly a figure of the city of God sojourning in this world; that is to say, of the church, which is rescued by the wood on which hung the Mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus. 1 Timothy 2:5 For even its very dimensions, in length, breadth, and height, represent the human body in which He came, as it had been foretold. For the length of the human body, from the crown of the head to the sole of the foot, is six times its breadth from side to side, and ten times its depth or thickness, measuring from back to front: that is to say, if you measure a man as he lies on his back or on his face, he is six times as long from head to foot as he is broad from side to side, and ten times as long as he is high from the ground. And therefore the ark was made 300 cubits in length, 50 in breadth, and 30 in height. And its having a door made in the side of it certainly signified the wound which was made when the side of the Crucified was pierced with the spear; for by this those who come to Him enter; for thence flowed the sacraments by which those who believe are initiated. And the fact that it was ordered to be made of squared timbers, signifies the immoveable steadiness of the life of the saints; for however you turn a cube, it still stands. And the other peculiarities of the ark's construction are signs of features of the church.[7]
Augustine illustrates that the sky is the limit when it comes to finding Jesus in a text. Even our beloved Charles Spurgeon had a blind spot here.
Charles Spurgeon conveyed his Christological hermeneutic in the following illustration: A young man had been preaching in the presence of a venerable divine, and after he had done he went to the old minister, and said, "What do you think of my sermon?" "A very poor sermon indeed," said he. "A poor sermon?" said the young man, "it took me a long time to study it." "Ay, no doubt of it." "Why, did you not think my explanation of the text a very good one?" "Oh, yes," said the old preacher, "very good indeed." "Well, then, why do you say it is a poor sermon? Didn't you think the metaphors were appropriate and the arguments conclusive?" "Yes, they were very good as far as that goes, but still it was a very poor sermon." "Will you tell me why you think it a poor sermon?" "Because," said he, "there was no Christ in it." "Well," said the young man, "Christ was not in the text; we are not to be preaching Christ always, we must preach what is in the text." So the old man said, "Don't you know young man that from every town, and every village, and every little hamlet in England, wherever it may be, there is a road to London?" "Yes," said the young man. "Ah!" said the old divine "and so form every text in Scripture, there is a road to the metropolis of the Scriptures, that is Christ. And my dear brother, your business in when you get to a text, to say, 'Now what is the road to Christ?' and then preach a sermon, running along the road towards the great metropolis—Christ. And," said he, "I have never yet found a text that had not got a road to Christ in it, and if I ever do find one that has not a road to Christ in it, I will make one; I will go over hedge and ditch but I would get at my Master, for the sermon cannot do any good unless there is a savior of Christ in it."[8]
In other words, the venerable divine will force his Christocentric method of hermeneutics onto the passage instead of allowing the text to speak for itself.
Arguments for the Christological Hermeneutic
We will examine and refute two arguments for the Christological hermeneutic of the Old Testament. The two arguments are that the advocates of the Christological hermeneutic or the Redemptive-historical hermeneutic accuse followers of the Historic/grammatical hermeneutic of moralizing the Bible and of ignoring key passages that teach all Scripture points to Christ.
1. The advocates of the Christological hermeneutic or the Redemptive-historical hermeneutic accuse followers of the Historic/grammatical hermeneutic of moralizing the Bible. Those who hold to the Historic/grammatical hermeneutic are sometimes accused of “exemplary preaching,”[9] moralistic preaching, or anthropological preaching. Edmund Clowney stated that the moralistic view of, for example, preaching on David and Goliath is as if one preached “on Jack the Giant Killer.”[10] Gredianus refers to moralistic preaching as contemporary, popular biographical preaching that “tends to look for attitudes and actions of biblical characters which the hearers should either imitate or avoid”[11] Goldsworthy condemns such a sermon as “at worst demonic in its Christ-denying legalism.”[12] Tim Keller also argues against moralistic preaching in his book on preaching.[13]
Abraham Kuruvilla, Senior Research Professor of Preaching and Pastoral Ministries at Dallas Theological Seminary, refutes this argument against exemplary preaching by arguing that “all biblical genres in the OT engage in moral and ethical instruction; they do not serve exclusively as adumbrations of the Messiah, and neither do they solely establish salvific truths.”[14] The classic verse on inspiration, teaches us that “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for” what? To show us Christ in every passage? No! “All Scripture is God breathed and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” In other words, “all Scripture” which certainly includes the Old Testament in 2 Timothy 3:16 is spiritually beneficial morally and ethically “that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works (2 Timothy 3:17).
2. The advocates of the Christological hermeneutic or the Redemptive-historical hermeneutic accuse followers of the Historic/grammatical hermeneutic of ignoring key passages that teach all Scripture points to Christ.
For example, Sidney Greidanus writes that
In one of his last “sermon,” Jesus scolded two of his disciples on the way to Emmaus, “Oh, how foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have declared! Was it not necessary that the Messiah should suffer these things and then enter into his glory?” (Luke 24:25-26). The Jewish people were looking for a victorious Messiah, not a suffering Messiah. But, says Jesus, the prophets had predicted his sufferings. “Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them the things about himself in all Scriptures” (Luke 24:27). Jesus believed that Moses and all the prophets bore witness to him, the incarnate Christ. How, then, was Jesus present in the Old Testament centuries before he was born? He was “present” basically as promise. The concept of “promise” turns out to be much broader, however, than the predictions in a few messianic prophecies. In his last “sermon” in Luke (24:44-49), Jesus says, “…everything written about me in the law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms must be fulfilled.” Notice, Jesus refers to the three main sections of the Old Testament; not just a few prophecies but the whole Old Testament speaks of Jesus Christ. And what does it reveal about Jesus? At a minimum, it speaks of his suffering, his resurrection, and his teaching. Jesus says, “Thus it is written, that the Messiah is to suffer and to rise from the dead on the third day, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins is to be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.” In John 5:39, similarity, we hear Jesus say to the Jews, “You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that testify on my behalf [about me, NIV].” Not just a few isolated messianic prophecies, but the whole Old Testament bears witness to Jesus.”[15]
Albert Mohler speaks more precisely about Luke 24:27,
“Beginning with Moses and all the prophets,” Luke says, “he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself. Every single text of Scripture points to Christ. He is the Lord of all, and therefore He is the Lord of the Scriptures too. From Moses to the prophets, He is the focus of every single word of the Bible. Every verse of Scripture finds its fulfillment in Him, and every story in the Bible ends with Him.”[16]
Tim Keller advocates “to preach the gospel every time is to preach Christ every time, from every passage.”[17] Other Scriptures used by the advocates of the Christological hermeneutic or the Redemptive-historical hermeneutic, in addition to Luke 24:44-49 and John 5:39, are 1 Corinthians 1: 22– 23; 2: 2; and 2 Corinthians 4: 5. Concerning Jesus’ sermon in Luke 24:44-49, Jesus could not have expounded Himself from every text on a 7-mile walk on the road to Emmaus or even referred to the 1,189 chapters in the Old Testament. So, what was Jesus referring to in Luke 24:27 and 44?
Examining that text, one must ask what the extent of “in all the Scriptures” (ἐν πάσαις τας γραфας, en pasais tais graphais, 24: 27) actually is: Is it every portion of Scripture, or every book, or every pericope, or every paragraph, or every verse, or every jot and tittle? The subsequent statements by Jesus to the Emmaus disciples suggest that what is meant is every portion of Scripture— a broad reference to its various parts, primarily the major divisions: Law, Prophets, and Psalms (writings)…. Indeed, in 24: 27, Jesus mentions only those matters from the OT that actually concern himself (τ περ έαυτου, ta peri heautou; “the things concerning himself”); so also in 24: 44 (περ ἐµο, peri emou, “all things which are written about me”). Thus a selectivity and choice of material is explicit in the text. Jesus is not finding himself in all the texts of Scripture, but rather finding just those texts that concern himself in all the major divisions of Scripture.[18]
Jesus probably preached the prophecies and the types from the Old Testament. He most assuredly preached Genesis 1:11-3 (because of John’s reference to Christ as the creator in John 1:1-2); 3:15, Psalm 22, 110, and Isaiah 53 as well as the Rock that Moses struck, the Passover Lamb, and the Brazen serpent (anti-types are referred to in the New Testament); the many Messianic Psalms and the prophecies concerning Jesus first and second coming.
THE HISTORIC/GRAMMATICAL HERMENEUTIC
Martin Luther believed that “The entire Old Testament refers to Christ and agrees with Him.” Sidney Greidanus in Preaching Christ from the Old Testament wrote that in spite of his warnings against allegorical interpretation, Luther continued using this arbitrary method of interpretation. Ironically, while Luther left some limited room for allegorical interpretation, he apparently had no use of typological interpretation, for, as David Dockery puts it, typology with its foreshadowing “annulled the historical presence of Christ in the Old Testament.” The Antioch School “saw shadowy anticipation of what was to come. This meant nothing to Luther. To him, the Old Testament was not a figure of what would be, but a testimony to what always holds true between humankind and God” (Dockery, GTJ I4/2 (1983) 193.[19]
This view reflects Luther’s Christological hermeneutic of the Old Testament that excluded the need for typology which would deny the presence of Christ in the Old Testament. How did Jesus interpret himself to the disciples “beginning with Moses and all the prophets” and the Psalms according to 24:44? We believe as previously stated, that He probably preached the prophecies from the Old Testament that were related to him and the types.
Therefore, it will be helpful to see how according to the historical-grammatical-theocentric hermeneutic the New Testament interprets Old Testament prophecies and especially in typology.
Four Ways the New Testament Interprets Old Testament Prophecies
Bible scholar Robert Thomas shows how the Bible interpretation principle of a single meaning to each passage is very important in the discussion of the New Testament interpreting the Old Testament. The Christological hermeneutic ignores this principle of interpretation. Robert Thomas mentions renowned Bible scholars Milton S. Terry and Bernard Ramm who advocated the interpretation principle of the single meaning of Scripture. Thomas also listed more recent Bible scholars who do not hold to this important principle of interpretation: Clark Pinnock, Greg Beale, Grant Osborne, William Klein, Craig Blomberg, Robert Hubbard, Gordon Fee, James DeYoung, Sarah Hurty, Dan McCartney, Charles Clayton, Kenneth Gentry, Darrell Bock, Craig Blaising, and C. Marvin Pate.[20] Grant Osborne 's interpretation of "the great city" in Revelation 11:8 is an example that Thomas uses. "He assigns two and possibly three meanings to the expression. The city is Jerusalem, and it is Rome, and secondarily, it is all cities that oppose God."[21]
Robert Thomas gives history’s first example of the grammatical-historical interpretation and the first person who rejected the single meaning principle. God commanded Adam in Genesis 2:16b-17 saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it, you shall surely die.” Apparently, Adam clearly understood what God said and meant and communicated that grammatical-historical interpretation to Eve. That certainly is the case because when the serpent tempted Eve, she repeated the single meaning of God’s statement to the serpent: “We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden: but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.’” Thomas comments on this dialogue:
Eve’s hermeneutics were in great shape, as was God’s communicative effectiveness. She worded her repetition of God’s command slightly different from God’s recorded message to Adam, but God probably repeated His original command to Adam in several different ways. Genesis has not preserved a record of every word he spoke to Adam. The serpent, however, abandoning the single meaning of Scripture, said to Eve, “You shall not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” The serpent informed Eve that she had missed the deeper meaning or the sensus plenior of God’s Word. The predecessor of all who reject the single meaning of Scripture is quite infamous.[22]
Roy Zuck discusses the single meaning of a text and sensus plenior or fuller meaning of a text of Scripture. Zuck begins his discussion by asking, “Do the Scriptures have single meanings or multiple meanings?”[23] He follows this question with the four views.
The 1st view, Zuck states is held by Walter Kaiser. This view propounds “that each passage has a single meaning, and only one meaning.”[24] This is the correct view in the historical-grammatical hermeneutic.
The 2nd view has multiple meanings of the different readers. This is purely subjective and the allegorical method of interpretation. Isaiah gives a millennial promise in Isaiah 11:6: "The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb." The normal sense of language demands that this prophecy will literally happen when the curse is lifted in the millennium and wild animals are domesticated. Loraine Boettner, however, allegorically interprets the passage:
A fitting example of the wolf dwelling with the lamb is seen in the change that came over the vicious persecutor Saul of Tarsus, who was a wolf ravening and destroying, but who was so transformed by the Gospel of Christ that he became a lamb. After his conversion he lost his hatred for the Christians, and became instead their humble friend, confidant, defender” (Isa. 11:6).[25]
The 3rd view is called sensus plenior or fuller meaning. “The term was coined by a Roman Catholic writer, Andrea Fernandez, in 1925, and has been more fully developed by other Roman Catholic scholars in recent years, notably by Raymond E. Brown.”[26]
Sensus plenior means ‘fuller sense.’ The idea is that some scriptural passages may have a ‘fuller sense’ than intended or understood by the human author, a sense that was, however, intended by God but not clearly intended by the human author.”[27] Brown reveals the danger of this view when he says, “In the long history of exegesis…texts of Scripture have been interpreted in a way that goes beyond their literal sense.”[28]
The 4th view is the view Zuck prefers. This view says Scriptures have a single meaning, but some Scriptures have related sub meanings. One example is Psalm 78:2: “I will open my mouth in parables.” Zuck says, because Christ quoted this verse in Matthew 13:35 and applied it to Himself, then Psalm 78:2 has two referents.[29]
Robert Thomas takes Zuck to task on his view. “Roy Zuck supports the principle of single meaning, but he treads on dangerous ground when, following Elliot Johnson, he adds related implications or ‘related sub meanings.’ To speak of a single meaning on one hand and of related sub meanings on the other is contradictory. A passage either has one meaning or it has more than one.”[30] I appreciate Thomas holding to a strong and consistent single meaning principle.
The interpretation principle of “one interpretation, many applications” is an integral ingredient of classic hermeneutics. Unbiblical sensus plenior, which includes the Christological hermeneutic, is in contrast to this important principle of interpretation.
There is, however, a Biblical and unbiblical sensus plenior. We will begin with the unbiblical sensus plenior. In contrast to the principle of “one interpretation, many applications” is sensus plenior or fuller or multiple meanings of a Biblical text. Zuck correctly stated that the term sensus plenior was coined and used as a principle of interpretation by Roman Catholics who reject the literal interpretation of Scripture. Robert Thomas adds that sensus plenior “amounts to an allegorical rather than a literal method of interpretation.”[31] Bernard Ramm[32] and Milton S. Terry also reject sensus plenior. Terry writes that the Bible interpreter "must not import into the text of Scripture the ideas of later times, or build upon any words or passages a dogma which they do not legitimately teach."[33] The Christological hermeneutic clearly violates this principle of reading the complete New Testament revelation of Christ back into the Old Testament as Christological advocate stress.
This issue of sensus plenior or fuller meaning or multiple interpretations of Scriptures has to do with the New Testament use of the Old Testament. Clearly the Roman Catholic and newer evangelicals, employ the unbiblical sensus plenior.[34]
Robert Thomas, however, endorses an inspired sensus plenior application (ISPA). Again, this issue has to do with how the New Testament uses the Old Testament. About this controversial subject, Zuck writes: “The use of the Old Testament in the New Testament is one of the most difficult aspects of Bible interpretation.”[35] There are times when the New Testament gives an inspired sensus plenior or fuller meaning to Old Testament prophecies. When this happens, Thomas is quick to state that, this is not reading the New Testament back into the Old Testament and giving another meaning or interpretation to the Old Testament text, rather “it is an application because it does not eradicate the literal meaning of the Old Testament passage but simply applies the Old Testament wording to a new setting.”[36]
The New Testament uses the Old Testament prophecies in one of four ways. Three of the four involve what Robert Thomas calls Inspired Sensus Plenary Application (ISPA) without violating the original and single interpretation of the Old Testament prophecies.
Direct Prophecy
The first way the New Testament uses Old Testament prophecies is what Dwight Pentecost (1981) calls direct prophecy[37] and Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum calls literal prophecy plus literal fulfillment.[38] An example is the prophecy in Micah 5: 1-2 that predicted that Jesus would be born in Bethlehem. Matthew 2:5-6 said it was fulfilled. There is no New Testament fuller or even Inspired Sensus Plenary Application meaning attached to this prophecy. This prophecy was directly fulfilled. The next three prophecies will involve what Robert Thomas accurately calls Inspired Sensus Plenary Application (ISPA).
Literal Fulfillment Plus Application
There is one point of comparison between Matthew 2:17-18 and the prophecy in Jeremiah 31:15: In both cases Jewish women weep for their sons that they will never see again. Pentecost calls this a prophecy of double reference.[39] Robert Thomas would object to the idea of double reference or fulfillment which would do away with the single meaning of Jeremiah 31:15. Fruchtenbaum more accurately identifies this fulfillment of Jeremiah 31:15 in Matthew 2:18 as literal fulfillment plus application.[40] The original meaning of the women weeping in Jeremiah 31:15 is not changed and has only one meaning or interpretation. This historical incident is applied by Matthew. This is an example of ISPA. The meaning of Jeremiah 31:15 was not altered but was applied and expanded to Jesus’ life.
Prophetic Summary
Pentecost calls the prophecy in Matthew 2:23 a prophetic summary of Old Testament prophecies.[41] Fruchtenbaum simply calls this a “summation.” Matthew 2:23 even refers to the “prophets” in the plural… "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophets that he should be called a Nazarene.” There is no direct prophecy that predicted this incident. Here is Fruchtenbaum’s explanation:
Nazarenes were a people despised and rejected and the term was used to reproach and to shame (John 1:46). The prophets did teach that the Messiah would be a despised and rejected individual (e.g. Isa. 53:3) and that is summarized by the term Nazarene.[42]
Prophetic Type
I would like to focus on the ISPA of Hosea 11:1 and Matthew 2:15. Pentecost calls this a "prophetic type"[43] and Fruchtenbaum calls it "literal plus typical."[44] Hosea 11:1 is the historical reference to God calling Israel “my son” out of Egypt and is not even a prophecy. And yet Matthew 2:15 says when the child Jesus was brought out of Egypt by His parents Hosea 11:1 was “fulfilled.” Pentecost says, “Matthew saw Israel’s history as a type of God’s future dealing with His people.”[45]
Robert Thomas explains that the word “fulfilled” can also mean “complete.” In the Matthew 2:15 citation of Hosea 11:1, Matthew uses it to indicate the completion of a sensus plenior meaning he finds in Hosea 11:1. The Hosea passage is not a prophecy, and translating the word fulfill in this instance is misleading. Matthew’s meaning is that in some sense the transport of Jesus by His parents from Egypt completed the deliverance of Israel from Egypt that had begun during the time of Moses. In Mark 1:15 Jesus uses the same Greek verb to speak of the completion of a period prior to the drawing near of the kingdom of God. The English word fulfill would hardly communicate the correct idea in a case like that.[46]
Roman Catholics and newer evangelicals use sensus plenior to change the original Old Testament prophecies and thus violate the single meaning principle of interpretation. Thomas’ ISPA is true to the classic principle in hermeneutics. The Christological Hermeneutic violate the single meaning of the Old Testament to force Christ being found and preached from every passage.
Types Are Interpreted Like Prophecies
The view of this author is that when Christ began with Moses and all the prophets and interpreted to them the things about himself in all Scriptures” (Luke 24:27), He used prophecies and types. We just discussed the proper use of the Old Testament prophecies, now let’s discuss the proper use of types. Remember that Martin Luther rejected types in the Old Testament, because of his Christological hermeneutic that demanded the presence of Christ throughout the Old Testament. A Historical/Grammatical hermeneutic will correct this low view of types.
Types are “picture prophecies” because types are a kind of prophecy. Types prefigure coming reality while prophecies verbally describe the future. Types are expressed in events, persons, and acts while prophecies are expressed in words. Dr. Charles Stevens, founder of our college, made this observation about types: “In the Old, we have the portrait; in the New we have the Person.” For example, the brazen serpent (Numbers 21:9) was a picture prophecy or type of Christ’s death (John 3:14). Isaiah 53 is a verbal prophecy of Christ’s death. Both are predictive. Prophecy is verbally predictive. Types are typically predictive. “Typology is but the handmaiden of theology” according to Stevens. Typology is the Old Testament visual aid to the New Testament doctrines.”[47]
What is a Type?
Dwight Pentecost defines a type: “A type is an institution, historical event or person, ordained by God, which effectively prefigures some truth connected with Christianity.”[48] Bernard Ramm states his definition: "In the science of theology it properly signifies the preordained representative relation which certain persons, events and institutions of the Old Testament bear to corresponding persons, events, and institutions in the New."[49]
Why Should We Study Types?
We should study types because God Himself used types (Hebrews 8:5; 9:8-9; 10:19-20). Revelation mentions "Lamb" 29 times. Christ used types (Luke 24:25-44; John 6:32-35). Christ expounding Himself from the Old Testament to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus used types. The Bible uses vocabulary that speak of types in relationship to the Tabernacle: Hebrews 8:5 “example” (hupodeigma), “shadow” (skia), Hebrews 9:8-9 “figure” (parabole), and Hebrews 10:1 “image” (eikon). Also in relationship to the Wilderness wanderings (1 Corinthians 10:6, 11 “examples” tupoi). Zuck makes an important point when he states that typos is not always a technical word. Only 1 of the 15 times typos is used is theologically (Hebrews 8:5). There is a Scriptural limitation on types in the Old Testament finding their antitype in the New Testament.
What Are The Different Views Concerning Types?
One view is there are no types in the Bible: This is the Liberal view which denies the supernatural aspect of predictive prophecy.
The opposite view is an excessive use of types: Every nut, bolt, socket, and board of the Tabernacle typifies Christ. Walter L. Wilson has 1163 types in the Old Testament in his Wilson’s Dictionary of Bible Types[50] which is in stark contrast with Zuck who sees only 17 types.
Allegorizers, like Oswald T. Allis accuse Dispensationalists of allegorizing in their typology and their accusation is correct in some cases:
While Dispensationalists are extreme literalists, they are very inconsistent ones. They are literalists in interpreting prophecy. But in the interpreting of history, they carry the principle of typical interpretation to an extreme which has rarely been exceeded even by the most ardent of allegorizers.”[51]
Is the allegorical and typological interpretation the same method or different methods? Amillennialists see little difference. The allegorical interpretation finds meanings in a text that is foreign, peculiar, or hidden. It is independent of the literal meaning of a text. The typological interpretation proceeds directly out of the literal explanation.
In addition to the liberal view and the excessive view, there is the moderate view. This would be the innate type view of Milton S. Terry. There are two kinds of types (innate and inferred) according to Milton S. Terry’s view.[52] An innate type is specifically designated in Scripture. An inferred type is strongly suggested. If the whole of the Tabernacle or Wilderness journey is typical then are the parts typical. Bernard Ramm wrote “If the whole (e.g., the Tabernacle, the Wilderness journey) is typical, then the parts are typical. It is up to the exegetical ability of the interpreter to determine additional types in the parts of these wholes.”[53]
Herbert Marsh accurately states that types are types only if the New Testament designates: “Just so much of the Old Testament is to be accounted typical as the New Testament affirms to be so, and no more.”[54]
Dr. Jerry Hullinger (2016) also issues an appropriate warning on the abuse of types:
Moving from these clear examples, many people start to speculate and find types where there are no types. A classic illustration of this is the fanciful liberty some take with the tabernacle. Every hook, board, animal skin, and color becomes a type of Christ. In my opinion, that is the kind of thing condemned here---there is no indication in the tabernacle description nor is there any later revelation which says that is what is being indicated. Thus the invention of a type has no objective, textual basis and is merely spawned from the creative mind of the interpreter. This is why my definition of a type above includes the words “divinely ordained,” which means that there are probably fewer types than we many think. After all, Jesus never said in the Gospel of John, “I am the tent peg.”[5
This is preferable view to avoid the excesses of the Scofield example. This is also preferable to the Christological abuse of the Old Testament of trying to force Christ into every text like extreme typologists who try to find Jesus in every part of the Tabernacle.
How Do We Interpret a Type?
Roy Zuck gives the following helpful tips on interpreting types.
1. There must be a resemblance between the type and the antitype. But there must be more than resemblance.
2. There must be a historical reality (Hebrew 8:5; 9:23-24).
3. There must be a prefiguring. “Does this mean that people in the OT knew that various thing were types?” The answer is no according to Hebrews 9:8. Illustrations look back: Elijah (James 5:17) Jonah (Mt. 12:40). Types look forward. Allegorical interpretation looks behind. 4. There must be a heightening of truth. “The antitypes were on a higher plane than the types.” 5. There must be divine design. 6. There must be a designation of a type in the New Testament. “Scripture must in some way indicate that an item is typical.”[56]
Walter C. Kaiser, gives the foreward to one of the Christological classics by E. W. Hengsterberg. About this classic Christology of the Old Testament: and a Commentary on the Messianic Predictions, Kaiser wrote, “Christ is identified as the center of the Old Testament revelation.” Does this classic praised by theologian Walter Kaiser, employ the Christological hermeneutic of finding Christ is every passage in the Old Testament? No! For example, in Genesis, Hengsterberg discusses four passages the contain Christological prophecies: The Protevangelium in Genesis 3:14-15; 9:26-27; 12:3; and 49:10. For “Messianic Predictions in the Remaining Books of the Pentateuch, Hengsterberg exposits Numbers 24:17 and Deuteronomy 18:15-18. From the Psalms Hengsterberg declares as Messianic Psalms 2, 16, 22, 40, 45, 72, and 110. My point, without listing the other Christological passages in the balance of the Old Testament, is that while the goal of Hengsterberg was to teach Christology from the Old Testament, he obviously did not find Christ in every passage. He did not employ the Christological hermeneutic and neither should we when studying or preaching the Old Testament.[57]
Steven D. Mathewson, in his very practical book on both interpreting and preaching Old Testament narratives, The Art of Preaching Old Testament Narrative, shared his view on the Christological hermeneutic debate: “My preaching occurs in the context of Christ-centered worship services. I don’t feel pressured to show how every OT story I preach points forward to Jesus. Often, such an approach does not pay sufficient attention to a story’s specific message nor to the legitimate ethical demands that flow from it.” Steven Mathewson responded to Sidney Greidanus. “I’ve wrestled with this issue quite a bit recently as I’ve worked through Preaching Christ from the Old Testament by Sidney Greidanus. In his book Greidanus compares the Christological approach of Martin Luther with the theocentric approach of John Calvin. While the view of Greidanus falls somewhere between the two, my view is closer to Calvin’s. Based on Calvin’s understanding of the Triune God, his God-centered sermons were implicitly Christ-centered. But because of (1) his insistence on unfolding the mind of the author in a passage of Scripture and (2) his focus on the sovereignty and glory of God as his interpretive center, Calvin did not see the need to make every Old Testament sermon explicitly Christ-centered. He preached what was in the passage.[58]
That is challenge, with which I want to end this hermeneutical debate between the Christological hermeneutic and the Historical/grammatical hermeneutic. Preach only what is in the passage. If Christ is there, preach Him. If He is not there, don’t manipulate Him into the text. Preach what is in the passage.
Walter Kaiser issued a simple but striking statement in his commencement address at Dallas Theological Seminary in April 2000. “When a man preaches, he should never remove his finger from the Scriptures, Kaiser affirmed. If he is gesturing with his right hand, he should keep his left hand’s finger on the text. If he reverses hands for gesturing, then he should also reverse hands for holding his spot in the text. He should always be pointing to the Scriptures.”[59]
If Christ is in the Scripture where your finger is pointing, then preach Christ. If Christ is not in the Scripture where your finger is pointing, then preach what is in passage.
[1] Albert Mohler, He Is Not Silent, Preaching in a Postmodern World, (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2008), 96.
[2] Keller also adds that Paul sees Christ as the key to understanding each biblical text. Sometimes, then, you can’t help but think about Christ even if the text you are looking at doesn’t seem to be specifically a messianic prophecy or a major figure foreshadowing Christ or an intercanonical theme or part of a key biblical image or metaphor. Yet you just can’t not see him. Here’s an obscure passage in the Bible where we see this played out. At the end of Judges, in chapters 19 through 21, we read a terrible story of a cowardly Israelite with a concubine, a second-class wife, as it were. He comes into a town where some ruffians from the tribe of Benjamin threaten him, and to save himself he offers this woman to them to have their way with. He goes to bed and all that night the men rape her and abuse her. In the morning the husband comes out of the house and finds her on the doorstep, dead. He is furious, and he takes her body home, cuts it into several pieces, and sends one to each of the other tribes of Israel, to inflame them to go to battle against the tribe of Benjamin over this outrage. The husband conveniently fails to tell everyone of his own cowardice. The resulting civil war is bloody and devastating. What a bleak and terrible passage! How in the world could you preach Christ here? Actually, there is more than one way to do it. Put this passage into the context of the whole book’s theme. What is the theme of the whole book of Judges? The answer to that question is easier to find than in many other books, because the narrator ends his account of this event, and of the entire book of Judges, with this sentence: “In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as they saw fit” (Judges 21:25). The social disorder and moral degradation revealed the desperate need for good governance. …. How can we not see, even in such a dark pool, a reflection of something beyond it? When we see a man who sacrifices his wife to save his own skin— a bad husband— how can we not think of a man who sacrificed himself to save his spouse— the true husband? Jesus gave himself for us, the church, his bride (Ephesians 5: 22– 33). Here is a true spouse who will never abuse people of their sin and rebellions (Timothy Keller. Preaching: Communicating Faith in an Age of Skepticism. Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition, 2015, 16).
So the Levite who callously handed over his wife to the Benjaminite perverts to gang rape all night, who then cut her abused body into 12 pieces and mailed those pieces to the 12 tribes of Israel is a type of Christ? That is a huge hermeneutical stretch! This is not the authorial intent of the passage in Judges 19-21 nor is there any New Testament basis for this episode being an Old Testament type. This is a Christological interpretation high jacking a text because of the hermeneutic that demands every text must present Christ.
[3] Essex, Keith. MSJ 26/1 (Spring 2015) 3–17. Interpreting and Applying Old Testament Historical Narrative: Survey of the Evangelical Landscape.
[4] “New Testament Hermeneutics,” in Seeing Christ in all of Scripture: Hermeneutics at Westminster Theological Seminary [Philadelphia: Westminster Seminary Press, 2016] 29. Accessed May 8, 2016. .wts.edu/uploads/images.files/seeing Christ ebook). Jerry Hullinger. From Ezra to Gnostic Devotions: The Importance of Interpretive Method, 2016, 101.
[5] The essence of this story, therefore, is more than Israel’s king defeating the enemy; the essence is that the Lord himself defeats the enemy of his people. This theme locates this passage on the highway of God’s kingdom history which leads straight to Jesus’ victory over Satan. This history of enmity began right after the fall into sin when God said to the serpent (later identified as Satan): “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will strike your head, and you will strike his heel’ (Gen 3:15). Thus the battle between David and Goliath is more than a personal scrap; it is more that Israel’s king defeating a powerful enemy; it is a small chapter in the battle between the seed of the woman, and the seed of the serpent --- a battle which reaches its climax in Jesus’ victory over Satan, first with his death and resurrection, and finally at his Second Coming when Satan will be thrown “into the lake of fire and sulfur” (Rev 20:10). In the sermon, then, one can travel the road of redemptive-historical progression from the battle of David and Goliath to the battle of Christ and Satan (Sidney Greidanus. Preaching Christ from the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999, 239).
Was this Samuel’s intent when he 1 Samuel 17? Samuel is giving us the three leaders that God raised: Samuel, Saul, and David. David defeated Goliath right after he is anointed to be Israel’s next king. God enabled David to defeat Goliath to show Israel he was qualified to be their God appointed king.
[6] Justin Martyr. “Dialogue of Justin with Trypho, a Jew.” In The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. Vol. 1. The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885) Chapter 40.
[7]Augustine. City of God .xv.xxvi, 312 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120115.htm)
[8] Charles Spurgeon. Christ is Precious to Believers. Accessed March 12, 2018. https://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0242.htm
[9] Sidney Greidaus. Sola Scriptura: Problems and Principles in Preaching Historical Texts (Toronto: Wedge, 1970), 8.
[10] Edmund P. Clowney, Preaching and Biblical Theology, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1961), 82.
[11] Sidney Greidaus. Preaching Christ from the Old Testament, (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999), 293.
[12] Graeme Goldsworthy, Preaching the Whole Bible as Christian Scripture: The Application of Biblical Theology to Expository Preaching, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 124.
[13] What if you are preaching a text on Joseph resisting the temptation of Potiphar’s wife, or of Josiah reading the forgotten law of God to the assembled nation, or of David bravely facing Goliath, and you distill the lesson for life— such as fleeing temptation, loving the Scripture, and trusting God in danger— but you end the sermon there? Then you are only reinforcing the self-salvation default mode of the human heart. Your sermon will be heard as encouraging the listeners to procure God’s blessing through right living. If you don’t every time emphatically and clearly fit that text into Christ’s salvation and show how he saved us through resisting temptation, fulfilling the law perfectly, and taking on the ultimate giants of sin and death— all for us, as our substitute— then you are only confirming moralists in their moralism (Keller, Timothy. Preaching: Communicating Faith in an Age of Skepticism, 2015, (p. 61). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
Christ did not save us by resisting temptation, fulfilling the law, but by dying as our substitute on the cross. This is the active obedience of Christ view of imputation that sinners are saved by the life obedience of Christ in addition to his passive obedient death on the cross. This makes every passage salvic.
[14] The same situation pertains to other genres of the OT, as well. For instance, while not denying the employment of the psalms for messianic purposes, they are often applied to believers: Ps 2, for instance, is applied both to Christ and to Christians (Acts 4: 25– 27; 13: 33; Heb 1: 5; 5: 5; Rev 2: 26, 27; 12: 5; 19: 15); also see Ps 44: 22 (Rom 8: 36); Ps 95: 7– 11 (Heb 3: 7– 11, 15; 4: 3, 5, 7); etc. Prophecy, too, is applied to the believer: Gen 3: 15 (Rom 16: 20); both Jesus and believers are called “light of the world” (Matt 5: 14 and John 8: 12; 9: 5; from Isa 49: 6; 60: 3); and Isa 45: 23 is used both of Jesus’ ultimate victory (Phil 2: 10) as well as to motivate believers to remember the final accounting and, therefore, to treat one another decently (Rom 14: 11). Wisdom literature is also employed in the NT for instruction in godly living— the book of Prov, for instance: Prov 3: 7 (2 Cor 8: 12); Prov 3: 11– 12 (Heb 12: 5– 6); Prov 3: 34 (Jas 4: 5; 1 Pet 5: 5); Prov 11: 31 (1 Pet 4: 18); Prov 25: 21– 22 (Rom 12: 20); etc. In other words, Scripture is more than just a witness to the fulfillment of messianic promises; there are ethical demands therein as well that must be brought to bear upon the lives of God’s people. Christocentric preaching tends to undermine the ethical emphasis of individual texts (Abraham Kuruvilla. Privilege the Text!: A Theological Hermeneutic for Preaching, 2013, (p. 243). Moody Publishers. Kindle Edition).
[15] Sidney Greidaus. Preaching Christ from the Old Testament, (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999), 56.
[16] Mohler, He Is Not Silent, 96.
[17] Keller, Timothy. Preaching: Communicating Faith in an Age of Skepticism (pp. 56-57).
[18] Kuruvilla, Abraham. Privilege the Text!: A Theological Hermeneutic for Preaching (248- 250). Abraham Kuruvilla also gives a refutation of the Christological interpretation of 1 Corinthians 1: 22– 23; 2: 2; and 2 Corinthians 4: 5.
[19] Greidanus, Sidney. Preaching Christ from the Old Testament, (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999), 0, 126.
[20] Thomas, Robert L. Evangelical Hermeneutics: The New Versus the Old, (Grand Rapids, (MI: Kregel, 2002), 141-154.
[21] Ibid., 146.
[22] Ibid., 156.
[23] Zuck, Roy. Basic Bible Interpretation. (Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1991), 273.
[24] Ibid., 273.
[25] Boettner, Loraine. Postmillennialism in Robert G. Clouse (Ed.), The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1977), 90.
[26] Zuck, 273.
[27] Ibid., 273.
[28] Brown, Raymond E. Hermeneutics in The Jerome Bible Commentary, 2 vols., (Englewood cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1968), 2:616.
[29] Zuck, 274.
[30] Thomas, 157. What is the solution to Psalm 78:2 according to Thomas? Instead of saying the psalm has two referents, which in essence assigns two meanings to it, to say that the psalm’s lone referent is Asaph, thereby limiting the psalm to one meaning is preferable…. It is proper to say that it refers to Asaph and that Matthew 13:35 refers to Jesus. By itself, Psalm 78:2 cannot carry the weight of the latter referent.”
[31] Ibid., 361.
[32] Ramm, Bernard. Protestant Biblical Interpretation. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1970), 40-42.
[33] Terry, Melton S. Biblical Hermeneutics. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1890), 583
[34] F. F. Bruce makes a distinction between the primary and plenary sense of interpretation: Since the Bible is the church's book, a further context within which any part of it may be read is supplied by the whole of Christian history...The primary sense is what the author intended to convey, established by the grammatico-historical method; but the plenary sense, provided it does not violate the primary sense, enriches the appreciation of the Bible both in the life of the church as a whole and in the personal experience of Christian men and women (F. F. Bruce. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2001, 567).
The primary interpretation of a passage is not influenced by the whole of church history to arrive at a plenary sense.
[35] Zuck, Roy. Basic Bible Interpretation. (Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1991), 250.
36] Thomas, 242. Arnold Fruchtenbaum concurs: “A new application to an Old Testament text without denying that what the original said literally did or will happen” Fruchtenbaum, Arnold. Israel and The Church in Wesley R. Willis & John R. Master (Eds.), Issues in Dispensationalism. (pp. 46-47). Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1994, 843.
[37] Pentecost, Dwight. The Words and Works of Jesus Christ. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1981), 68.
[38] Fruchtenbaum, Arnold. Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology. (Tustin, CA: Areil, 1994), 843.
[39] Pentecost, 71.
[40] Fruchtenbaum, 844.
[41] Pentecost, Dwight. The Words and Works of Jesus Christ. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1981), 73.
[42] Fruchtenbaum, 845.
[43] Pentecost, 70.
[44] Fruchtenbaum, 845.
[45] Pentecost, 70.
[46] Thomas, Robert L. Evangelical Hermeneutics: The New Versus the Old, 263.
[47] Stevens, Charles, H. The Wilderness Journey. Chicago, (IL: Moody Press, 1971), 12.
[48] Pentecost, Dwight. Things To Come, (Grand Rapids, MI. Zondervan, 1958), 51.
[49] Ramm, Bernard. Protestant Biblical Interpretation, 1970, 227.
[50] Wilson, Walter, L. Wilson’s Dictionary of Bible Types. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1957).
[51] Allis, Oswald T. Prophecy and the Church. (Eugene, OR: P & R Publishing, 1969), 21. C. I. Scofield in The Scofield Study Bible provides an example about Exodus 15:25 where God tells Moses to cast a tree in the bitter waters of Marah which then became sweet: "The 'tree' is the cross (Gal. 3:13), which became sweet to Christ as the expression of the Father's will (John 18:11)" (Scofield, C. I. Scofield Reference Bible. New York, NY. Oxford University Press, 1945, 89).
[52] Terry, Melton S. Biblical Hermeneutics. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1890), 255-256.
[53] Ramm, Bernard. Protestant Biblical Interpretation. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1970), 228.
[54] Marsh, Herbert. Lectures on the Criticism and Interpretation of the Bible. (London, ENG: J.G. & Rivington, 1838), 373.
[55] Hullinger, Jerry M. From Ezra to Gnostic Devotions: The Importance of Interpretive Menhod, 129.
[56] Zuck, Roy. (1991). Basic Bible Interpretation. (Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1991), 172-176. Dr. Jerry Hullinger gives a few examples: The brazen serpent in Numbers 21 was a type because in the mind of God that was pointing forward to the death of Christ. The reason we know it was a type is because of Jesus’ words in John 3:14. Another example of a type was Melchizedek. He was a real, historical man and though he was not aware of it, his life and circumstances typified what would be true of Christ. We know this is the case because of the comparison between Melchizedek and Christ in Hebrews 7 (Hullenger, 129).
[57] E. W. Hengstenberg. Christology of the Old Testament and a Commentary on the Messianic Predictions. (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1970), 12-92.
[57] Keller, Timothy. Preaching: Communicating Faith in an Age of Skepticism (pp. 87-88).
[58] Steven D. Mathewson. The Art of Preaching Old Testament Narrative (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), 175.
[59] Steven J. Lawson, The Pattern of Biblical Preaching: An Expository Study of Ezra 7:10 and Nehemiah 8:1-18, Bibliotheca Sacra 158 October-December 200: 451.
Bibliography
Augustine. The City of God, xv.xxvi, n.d. Accessed on March 15, 2018. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120115.htm)
Boettner, Loraine. (1977). Postmillennialism in Robert G. Clouse (Ed.), The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1977.
Brown, Raymond E. Hermeneutics in The Jerome Bible Commentary, 2 vols., Englewood cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1968.
Bruce, F. F. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2001.
Chapell, Bryan. Christ-Centered Preaching: Redeeming the Expository Sermon. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1994.
Clowney, Edmund P. Preaching and Biblical Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1961.
Diguid, Iain. (MSJ 26/1 (Spring 2015) 3–17. Interpreting and Applying Old Testament Historical Narrative: A Survey of the Evangelical Landscape.
Dockery, David. GTJ I4/2, 1983.
Essex, Keith. MSJ 26/1 (Spring 2015) 3–17. Interpreting and Applying Old Testament Historical Narrative: Survey of the Evangelical Landscape.
Fruchtenbaum, Arnold. Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology. Tustin, CA: Areil, 1994.
Fruchtenbaum, Arnold. Israel and The Church in Wesley R. Willis & John R. Master (Eds.), Issues in Dispensationalism. Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1994.
Goldsworthy, Graeme. Preaching the Whole Bible as Christian Scripture: The Application of Biblical Theology to Expository Preaching. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.
Greidanus, Sidney. Preaching Christ from the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999.
Greidaus, Sidney. Sola Scriptura: Problems and Principles in Preaching Historical Texts. Toronto: Wedge, 1970.
Hengstenberg, E. W. Christology of the Old Testament and a Commentary on the Messianic Predictions. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1970.
Hullinger, Jerry. From Ezra to Gnostic Devotions: The Importance of Interpretive Method, 2016.
Keller, Timothy. Preaching: Communicating Faith in an Age of Skepticism. Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition, 2015.
Kuruvilla, Abraham. Privilege the Text!: A Theological Hermeneutic for Preaching. Moody Publishers. Kindle Edition, 2013.
Steven J. Lawson, The Pattern of Biblical Preaching: An Expository Study of Ezra 7:10 and Nehemiah 8:1-18, Bibliotheca Sacra 158 October-December.
Martyr, Justin. “Dialogue of Justin with Trypho, a Jew.” In The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. Vol. 1. The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885.
Mathewson, Steven D. The Art of Preaching Old Testament Narrative. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002.
Melton S, Terry. Biblical Hermeneutics. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1890.
Mohler, Albert. He Is Not Silent: Preaching in a Postmodern World. Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2008.
Pentecost, Dwight. The Words and Works of Jesus Christ. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1981.
_______________. Things To Come. Grand Rapids, MI. Zondervan, 1958.
Ramm, Bernard. Protestant Biblical Interpretation. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1970.
Spurgeon, Charles. Christ is Precious to Believers. Accessed March 12, 2018. https://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0242.htm
Stevens, Charles. H. The Wilderness Journey. Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1971.
Thomas, Robert L. Evangelical Hermeneutics: The New Versus the Old, Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2002.
Zuck, Roy. Basic Bible Interpretation. Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1991.