Edgework

In order to avert the many perils of Biblicism which we have discussed previously, many contemporary biblical thinkers are accepting the centuries-old Anabaptist perspective that all of Scripture must be read through the lens of Christ. They are telling us that the Bible is more than a collection of individual texts that can be parsed, categorized and blended into a holy handbook of spiritual advice to make lives of modern Christians more manageable.

The emerging consensus admits to an authoritative biblical text, but one that is filtered through the reality of Jesus Christ and those writings that bear witness directly to him. That is to say, on the one hand, that all of the Old Testament is a precursor to Christ. On the other hand, it also means that New Testament writers like Peter and Paul must be read in light of the reality of Jesus and his teachings.

Many believers throughout the history of the church have found a Christocentric hermeneutic difficult to accept. They often feel like a canon is being created within the canon, thus denigrating the Old Testament. It is difficult to break the habit of thinking of the words of Joshua and Jesus to be of equal weight. However, we do well to remember that in some historical contexts, especially during the years of colonial expansion in the Americas and Africa, the Old Testament was frequently held in greater esteem than the New. Justification for the decimation of native populations was sometimes drawn from the story of how Israel conquered Canaan.

Not to accept Jesus Christ as the focal point of the biblical interpretation has created a dual Christian ethic throughout much of Christian history. In the fourth century, Augustine suggested that in the real world it was impractical for all Christians to follow the ethic of Christ. So it was established that while clergy were exempt from taking up the sword, commoners were expected to do so in defense of “Christian” nations. That is to say that clergy were to follow the dictates of Jesus Christ but commoners those of the Old Testament. Reformers in the 16th century created a different duality by stating that in personal life situations Christians should follow the ethic of Christ, but that in the fulfillment of their public duty they should follow the ethic of the Old Testament. Anabaptists of the time proclaimed, however, that all Christians were called to live by the ethic of Christ in all circumstances based on the assumption that the new covenant supersedes the old. And now it appears there is a movement afoot within evangelical circles accepting this latter position as well.

A dual Christian ethic can only be drawn from the Bible if it is seen as a “flat book,” as many evangelicals do. That is to say that any directive in the book of Joshua, for instance, carries as much weight as a directive that comes directly from Christ. They insist that, if the Bible is inerrant and infallible, one should be able to move directly from any text in the Old Testament to contemporary life – even on occasion bypassing the New Testament. However, I in my estimation, to give Joshua and Jesus equivalent authority serves to downplay the uniqueness of the Jesus event as the apex of God’s revelation to humankind.

But to accept a Christocentric hermeneutic does raise the thorny question of how the Old Testament should then be read. As Jon Bonk pointed out in an address presented to the EMMC convention in 1996, “A study of the Old Testament by itself would make it possible…to advocate war, selective genocide, strict Sabbath teaching, animal sacrifices and even polygamy…It would be quite permissible and even desirable, on the basis of the Psalms, to curse one’s enemies, and to seek horrible revenge on them.” The problem, of course, is that on the basis of Christ’s example and teaching such practices are not acceptable for his disciples. This becomes a significant problem for those espousing an inerrant and infallible view of all of Scripture. Indeed, what is to be done with such Old Testament texts?

Throughout Christian history attempts have been made to reconcile the apparent differences between the two testaments. In his book, The World at War, The Church at Peace (1988), Jon Bonk address this issue. Some, like Bishop Marcion of the 2nd century, believe that the God of the Old Testament is a different God than the one of the New (47). But how well I remember my late colleague, Archie Penner, proclaiming passionately that both testaments reveal the same God. On that basis he said that if we find anything in the Old Testament not consistent with Jesus, we must follow Jesus even while we try to figure out what the Old Testament passage was all about.

For myself, I find the notion of progressive revelation the most satisfactory way of understanding the relationship between the Old and New Testaments. Bonk claims, “The New Testament fulfills the Old Testament…The Bible itself indicates that God’s revelation to humanity was progressive“(50). Hebrews 1:1-2 speaks directly to this question. In the words of Bernard Ramm in Protestant Biblical Interpretation (1970), God brought people up, “…through the theological infancy of the Old Testament to the maturity of the New Testament” (102).

So it is fair to suggest that when seeking specific guidance from Scripture, instead of gathering a list of proof texts from Genesis to Revelation to determine God’s will, it is better to get to know the mind of Christ as revealed in the New Testament and then, with the help of the Holy Spirit, ascertain what it is that God wants us to do today. Such an approach will not solve all the problems of pervasive interpretive pluralism that plagues Biblicism, but as Christian Smith says in The Bible Made Impossible (2011), “…this hermeneutic is a necessary and crucial first step in moving in that direction” (116).