March 14, 2007
-
Imagine…
A
preacher gets up in the pulpit and reads the parable of the sowers. He
reflects upon the context of this passage and he also talks about the
Jewish agricultural customs in Christ’s day. Then based on his
grammatical-historical analysis, the preacher concludes by listing what
he think the “soils” and “seed” might represent.Did you notice something? The preacher never looked at Christ’s infallible interpretation of the parable.
And
what would you think of this preacher? Most people would accuse him of
“exalting himself above Christ”. This is true — the preacher is
ignoring Christ’s interpretation, and exalting his own methods and
ideas above Christ’s.Now, think about the Psalms.
Why is it OK for preachers to interpret the PSALMS (without looking at Christ and the Apostle’s interpretation of the Psalms)?
Christ
and the Apostles applied at least 30 Psalms to Christ. So isn’t your
preacher “exalting himself above Christ” when he says a Psalm is
describing DAVID, when Christ said the Psalm was describing HIMSELF
ALONE?Introducing…
The Psalms Challenge
“to prove that none of the Psalms are about David’s personal experiences”
Comments (5)
“…when Christ said the Psalm was describing HIMSELF ALONE…”
What verse are you referring to where Christ specifically stated that all Psalms were referring to Him alone? GBU!
Shane
“to prove that none of the Psalms are about David’s personal experiences”
Andrew, are you serious? NONE of the Psalms are about David’s personal experiences? Have you read the Psalms? First of all not all of them were written by David so that is a problem with your “Psalm’s Challenge” already. Secondly, almost all of David’s psalms are about his personal experiences. Psalm 51 is a prime example – how is that not about David confessing his great sin with Bathsheba? Psalm 22, which Christ quotes verse 1 from the cross, that is David pouring out his heart in the midst of pressures surrounding him.
With your logic of proving that none of the Psalms are reflections of actual people living in the theocracy of Israel, then you will have to make the whole OT follow the same conclusion – why just limit it to the Psalms?
I think that you are missing a key idea of typology – many, many things in the OT are types and shadows of their ultimate fulfillment in the work of Christ, but that does not make the “story” void for those people actually experiencing the events first-hand as recorded in the OT.
So then, using the same resoning as you describe above, since Christ showed that Moses’ bronze serpent was about him (John 3:14), then what is recorded in Numbers 21:9 cannot actually be something that the people of Israel experienced because that story was only pointing to Christ.
I admire your desire to be christocentric in your hermeneutic, but you cannot forget the types and shadows of the OT as the book of Hebrews tells us. The redemptive-historical hermeneutic is key here.
Take care,
Mark Vander Pol
Hi Andrew, that was just silly!
Sup Andy?
It’s called typology, physical truths having a higher application. Otherwise known as “composite”.