從舊約宣講基督Preaching Christ from the OT
作者：Sinclair Ferguson 譯者/校對者:Maria Marta/駱鴻銘
從舊約宣講基督（一）
幾年前，我們請求傅格森（Sinclair Ferguson）博士為我們寫一篇從舊約宣講基督的短文。在接下來的一周左右，我們會在網上公布這篇編輯過的論文，作為我們夏季系列的一部分。這篇文章值得我們花一些時間研讀。
聖經神學這門學科，在福音派的講道中已經逐漸站穩腳步，並佔有一席之地。因此，在講道學的教學中，強調我們必須以一種考慮到救贖歷史動線的方式，在所有經文中宣講基督，已經可以算是老生常談了。具體來說，我們必須學習從舊約宣講基督，而不至於落入人為造作的解經俗套裡。
但是，作為站在新約五旬節這一頭的人， 我們該如何合理地宣講舊約經文呢？作為耶穌基督的信徒，我們在闡釋創世記或詩篇時，會有什麽不同呢？或者，以更形象的方式來說，我們如何能夠重建耶穌在路加福音第二十四章25-27節和45節所談到的原則，學習跟從祂的榜樣，展示所有的經文是如何指向祂，以致我們「心裡火熱」，並開始燃燒呢？特別是，我們如何能做到這一點，而不落入以下兩種思想陷阱當中（有時作這種判斷會太過於武斷）呢：要麼是教父的靈意解經（patristic
allegorising），要麼是宗教改革後的屬靈化解釋（post-reformation spiritualising）？但願我們曾聽聞耶穌在以馬忤斯道上、在樓房上、在祂復活和升天之間的四十天之間，是怎樣講解舊約的，那麼，我們也許可以掌握這些原則，以致於我們乃是作為基督信仰的傳道人，而不是猶太拉比，來真正宣講舊約的經文！
但是，我們也必須在不剝除經文這三方面的前提下，來宣講所有經文：1.經文所記載的真實歷史事件；2.經文所描述的個人經驗的事實；3. 經文最初所談論的內容。那麼，我們如何在不跳過這些歷史事實，彷彿舊約聖經對自己的歷史背景沒有真正意義的情況下，來宣講基督並祂釘十字架呢？
在討論上帝在基督降生之前，對三位一體的啓示時，華腓德（B.B. Warfield）描述舊約有如是一間陳設華麗，但光線昏暗的房間。只有把燈打開，才會知道房間裡放置了什麼家具，而如今在基督裡，以及新約對祂的見證裡，這盞燈已經打開了，上帝三位一體的位格也變得明顯了。關掉燈來閱讀舊約，就是在否定我們自己救贖脈絡的歷史事實。另一方面，倘若我們認為，同樣的燈光一直照在它自己的書頁上，而我們以這樣的觀念來閱讀並宣講舊約，也可能會否定經文的歷史事實及其脈絡。
因此，作為基督信仰的傳道人，我們的任務必須同時考慮到兩者。要完成這任務，就會驅使基督徒解經者回到基本的釋經學問題：我們如何把舊約聯繫到新約？我們在事工上所花的時間越長，我們就越會問這個問題。我們越了解它的答案，我們就越意識到還有更多內容可以探索。這是終身的追求。在接下來的幾天，我會作一些評論，並提出一些普遍適用的原則，也許對傳道人會特別有幫助。
從舊約宣講基督（二）
宣講基督必須成為一種本能，而不是一種式化的俗套。經常有人告訴年輕的傳道人說：「你必須從舊約宣講基督」，但是在剛結束的詩篇一百二十一篇（例如）的講道中，意識到我們很少或幾乎沒有講到關於耶穌的事（或許沒有明確提到祂的名字！），我們可能會感到非常焦慮，並且會拼命地尋找一項神奇的公式來幫助我們從舊約宣講基督。
當然，提供某種公式，一種類似「托馬斯五個證明上帝存在的方法」（Thomas’s five ways）的講道版本是可能的，例如：通過展示以下五類經文來指向基督：1.這段經文直接預言耶穌。 2. 這段經文表明為什麼需要耶穌。3. 這段經文談到某些使我們想起耶穌的事。4. 這段經文講論某些沒有耶穌就無法完成的事件。5. 這段經文向我們展示不像耶穌的某個人（或一群人）。
這裡的重點不是在評論這五種方法是否對人有幫助，而是在評論該方法固有的危險。公式化的講道很可能產生一種呆板的講道，而無視於聖經神學豐富的輪廓。它的矯揉造作在於佯裝是在解釋和闡明舊約， 然後，心中想著這個公式，整理筆記以便套到這個公式裡。經過一段時間後，最後的成果可能出現類似兒童主日講道中的現象，聰明的孩子很快就認識到牧師問題的答案永遠是以下其中一個選項：1. 上帝 2. 耶穌 3. 罪 4. 聖經 5. 要聽話！
當然，當我們成長為傳道人時，我們在講道中需要運用一般原則，但是更迫切的要求是培養一種本能的思維方式，以及和此相應的，對耶穌基督的激情， 以至於我們會很自然和很實在地找到發現祂的方法，而不僅僅是公式化的方式。
從舊約宣講基督（三）
對我們這些傳道人來說，這整件事比起「我們如何從舊約宣講基督」，是更大的問題，這至少是基於兩方面的原因。
1. 首先，因為（倘若我的評估是正確的）許多取材自福音書的講道——福音書的焦點很明確是在耶穌基督的位格上——從來不去留意舊約，這些講道就完全不能算是以基督為中心的講道。
這怎麼可能呢？這是因為牧師研究經文的主要目的是發現自己和他的會衆，而不是發現基督，講道因此變成是關於「福音中的人」，而不是關於耶穌基督——而祂就是福音。牧師真正感興趣提問和回答的問題，不是：「在這本福音書中我們如何找到耶穌？」而是「在這個故事裡我在哪裡？我應該怎麼做？」這樣的講道，雖然整個系列是在講一本福音書（正如持續讀經法lectio
continuamethod所作的），但是未必是真的把耶穌的一生傳達出來。相反，我們只是上了一堂探討人類光景的課。
因此這裡有一種錯亂的思維方式，會產生比「有公式可以幫助我們宣講舊約的基督嗎？」更深層的問題。更根本的問題乃是：「當我在宣講聖經的任何一部分時，我在尋找什麼？」難道我真的希望告訴人們他們是什麼樣子，以及他們必須做什麼——也就是說，我真的要強調主觀層面（subjective）和命令（imperative，即我們必須做的）——還是我要宣講耶穌基督和福音？我是否應該強調客觀層面（objective）和福音所陳述的事實（indicative），然後根據這些來考慮主觀層面和命令？畢竟拯救或改變人生命的，不是主觀層面（我的光景）或命令（回應！）， 而是上帝恩典的客觀層面和陳述的事實，根據福音的命令在人心中主觀領受的。
2. 在這一點上，第二個值得一提的觀察是：許多（或許是多數）出色的傳道人是那麼本能地宣講聖經（以及所有經文當中的基督）。若問他們的公式是什麼，你會看到他們一臉茫然的表情。他們運用的原則是通過天生能力、恩賜和作為聽眾和講道者的經驗等幾方面的組合，不知不覺地發展出來的。要他們舉辦一系列關於如何講道的講座，有些人可能會感到很困難。為什麼呢？因為他們所發展出來的是一種本能；按照聖經來宣講，已經成為他們的母語。他們無需經過思考使用哪部分詞類，便能夠使用聖經神學的語法。這就是為什麼最好的傳道人不一定是講道學最好的導師，然而可以肯定的是，他們是最能鼓舞純正講道的人。
我們大多數人可能在聆聽出色的傳道人講道的過程中，潛移默化地培養出聖經神學和救贖歷史最好的講道本能。聽這類傳道人和他們的講道始終是明智的，就好像我們有二個頭腦——一個是通過話語的傳講來餵養我們，另一個在同時間或稍後會使我們反思，問道：「為什麼這個講道會以這種方式來餵養我？所運用的動力和原則是什麼？」明白隱藏的原則實際上如何實踐出來，是我們自己掌握這些原則的最好方法，好讓這些原則成為我們講道的語法。
從舊約宣講基督（四）
基督是聚集了所有的光線的棱鏡。既然我們不是要成為傳講某種「方法」的傳道人，只是在應用一種編程公式來作聖經的講道，不過仍然有些非常重要的原則，可以幫助我們發展出以基督為中心的講道技巧。當我們應用這些原則時，當這些原則滲透到我們的思想，並改變我們對待聖經的態度時，它們將有助於我們發展出從舊約聖經把人指向基督的本能。
也許我們可以用「應驗」（fulfillment）這詞語來表達最一般的原則：基督成全（fulfill）或「完成」（fills full）了舊約。祂來「不是要廢除律法和先知，而是要完成」（太五17，新譯本）。當基督徒站在新約聖經啓示的亮光處回望舊約，基督自己就是在充當釋經學的棱鏡。通過祂來回顧，我們看到耶穌基督真理的統一白色光束，在舊約的書頁上分解成繽紛的彩色。
然後，向前展望，我們看到了舊約聖經啓示的絢麗多彩匯聚在祂身上。當我們體會到這點，我們會開始看到各種色彩是如何聚合在基督身上，彼此關連，並且與祂建立聯繫。這樣，我們會明白舊約如何指向祂。我們看到有時是一種「顔色」，有時是另一種顔色，或者是幾種顔色的組合，如何指向耶穌基督、與耶穌基督有關，並通過耶穌基督來完成。
從舊約宣講基督（五）
我們想要發展出宣講基督的本能。這是大致的原則。但這大致的原則可以細分為至少四個從屬原則，在以下五篇博文中，我將概述這四個從屬原則。原則一是最長的，所以我會分成兩個！
原則一 應許和應驗的關係
就某種意義而言，創世記三章15節是整本聖經最基本的經文：上帝把敵意放在蛇的後裔和女人的後裔之間；女人的後裔會傷蛇的頭，蛇的後裔要傷女人後裔的腳跟。從基督所完成的工作角度來看，羅馬書第十六章20節和啓示錄十二章9節都清楚表明，創世記三章15節應許了一場我們主耶穌基督和撒但、黑暗勢力之間的終極宇宙戰爭。
當然，創世記第三章沒有提到撒但的名字——這點本身就饒有釋經學的趣味——但是當保羅寫道「賜平安的上帝快要將撒但踐踏在你們腳下」（羅十六20）， 和約翰在啓示錄十二章9節看見那條蛇已經長成一條龍時，很明確，新約作者認為創世記三章15節是指將要來臨的彌賽亞和撒但之間的衝突。啓示錄所說的戰爭僅僅是貫穿整本聖經的對立和對抗的高潮。這是一座以創世記三章15節和啓示錄十二章9節作為書擋的軍事歷史圖書館。
不僅如此，它跟隨整個舊約聖經追溯到上帝應許的工作，直到在耶穌基督裡圓滿完成，並在整個宇宙公布祂的凱旋歸來。耶穌基督的綱領性聲明：「我要在這磐石上建立我的教會，死亡的權勢（『死亡的權勢』原文作『陰間的門』）不能勝過它」（太十六18，新譯本），說到這個宇宙之戰的背景，代表著它的高潮，並應許其勝利。創世記三章15節和馬太福音十六章18節之間所發生的一切，不管怎樣都要和這個應許的應驗產生關連；在馬太福音第十六章18節之後，救贖歷史上的每一次轉折都表現出這個衝突，並引向它的最終結局。在這個意義上，這些轉折都可以在救贖啓示的地圖上精準定位。
這是在所有階段建造上帝國度的故事，與這世界的國形成鮮明對照。因此，國度/上帝統治/天堂必要降臨/正在接近/已經到來是救贖歷史的關鍵結構。從創世記三章15節到聖經結束是上帝的故事：那戰士前來幫助祂的人民，目的是把他們從黑暗國度拯救出來，在他們當中（、裡面，通過他們）建立上帝的統治。這進一步證實了施洗約翰的話：「天國近了」（太三2）。祂的信息打破了幾個世紀以來先知的沈默，是上帝末世戰爭迫近勝利的信息。對約翰來說，由審判的斧頭所代表的審判和忿怒，是黑暗的一方逃避不了的涵義；而對所有悔改的人來說，好消息是赦罪和上帝的統治與國度的祝福。
這國度--衝突--征服--勝利的主題可以追溯到舊約啓示的各種敘事視角和維度。重點是必須把舊約視為與這個基本概念有非常緊密的關聯（雖然不是只有這個關聯）：有一個徹底的對立面貫穿著整個救贖歷史，這對立面就是上帝的君王所建造的國度，與努力摧毀這國度的黑暗勢力。認識到這一點，許多舊約聖經經文就可以按照它在舊約中樞神經系統的位置，被明白解讀。從所有這些不同的要點，進行到這個貫穿舊約聖經的應許骨幹，然後到耶穌基督，是有可能的。
從舊約宣講基督（六）
我們先前看到的第一原則是基本的解釋工具，藉著這個工具，我們可以把舊約歷史的發展連回到上帝的應許，並展望基督的來臨。與此同時，我們能夠獨立地把這些事件（和參與在其中的人）當作是真實的來對待。聖經神學式講道其中一個固有的危險是，因為我們急於以基督為中心來宣講，就把歷史事實縮減到最小。結果是會像教父把經文寓言化那樣，破壞了我們處理經文的完整性。對天上領域的戰爭在歷史中的展開帶著一種靈敏度，能使我們闡明上帝子民的具體歷史和個人經驗，並同時把它們放在這幅大圖畫、整本聖經的宏大敘述之中來解讀。如此，我們就可以認真地看待歷史的本身，與此同時，也將它作為所向無敵的基督，祂的故事的一部分來宣講。
需要強調的是，這不是我們所使用的唯一原則。我們不需要很強的想像力，就可以明白舊約歷史中的事件如何說明這點：亞當和夏娃對抗蛇的故事；該隱和亞伯、上帝之城和巴別塔、以色列和埃及、大衛和歌利亞，等等。約伯記僅僅是這齣戲劇的縮影。以利亞和以利沙的神蹟和衝突，必須從這個角度來解讀。除非我們認識到這些事件的發生，是在一個與有永恒意義的上帝國度產生致命性衝突的脈絡之下，否則，掉在水裡的斧頭或下了毒的湯鍋等等，都是瑣碎的問題，神蹟的神奇性也將減少到如哈利•波特的魔法。但以理的生平和他的啟示異象也要通過同一個鏡頭來解讀。事實上，但以理的開場白表明，我們正在進入一個衝突的故事裡。這是一場兩個國度之間的戰爭。
在這裡，我們既有黑暗勢力和這個世界（巴比倫王尼布甲尼撒到耶路撒冷圍困該城）的攻擊，也有上帝透過祂國度繼續獲勝的公義目的（主把猶大王約雅敬交在尼布甲尼撒手裡）（譯按：但一2）。受到激烈攻擊的國度需要非凡的神蹟來得到保護（現在四個餘下的人，要受毀滅的烈火和獅子口的攻擊，見但以理書第三章和第六章）。在這當中，這世界的國度（和君王！）被看作是暫時的，這給我們暗示，那非人手鑿成的石頭將成長並充滿全地（譯按：但二34）。只有那些以這種方法來解讀歷史的人（但以理和他的三個朋友），才可以在外國的土地上，敵人占領的區域唱耶和華的歌（詩第一百三十七篇）。
類似地，在以斯拉和尼希米時代，反對重建耶路撒冷是創世記三章15節所展開的故事的一部分。這些書卷提供了在上帝揀選之城這個有限空間之內所發生的衝突故事，說明了以弗所書六章10至20節的勸誡，對公元前第五世紀的耶路撒冷來說是有意義的，就像它對公元一世紀的以弗所是有意義的一樣。
我們乃是站在空墳墓的另一端；以斯拉和尼希米的「未然」，是我們的「已然」。但我們也有一個「未然」；掃蕩戰就像主力戰一樣血腥和致命。根據基督已經作成的工作來說，我們也生活在最終的耶路撒冷尚未完成的階段。這個世界充滿了約翰•班揚的小說《天路歷程》中許多的人物，如饒舌、絕望、名利等，就像尼希米記當日的參巴拉、多比雅、和基善等人物一樣。
作為今天基督教的傳道人，根據國度對國度的宇宙衝突架構來理解應許與應驗的原則，有助於我們應用舊約的信息。
從舊約宣講基督（七）
原則二 預表（type）與對範（antitype，預表的實體）的關係
隨著應許和應驗（在基督裡）原則的發展，我們看到救贖歷史餘下的部分如何作為創世記三章15節的注腳，在同樣的意義上，西方哲學有時被說成是柏拉圖和亞里士多德的一個注腳。
然而，我們也發現，應許本身的發展是漸進和積累的；隨著救贖歷史的展開，它的含義也變得更為清晰。在特定的歷史階段，上帝會暗示出將要發生的事情（像一個偉大藝術家的素描會指向最終的創作）。上帝工作模式的一些例子會鑲嵌在救贖歷史當中。上帝會在祂的傑作中使用這些例子，也就是會在基督這個對範（預表的實體）中得著應驗的一些預表。保羅認為亞當和基督的關係是這種模式最重要的例證；亞當，作為一個真實的歷史人物，是那將要來之人的「預表」（tupos，羅五14[和合本譯為「預像」]，儘管這類比既是正面的又是負面的，羅五12-21）。
摩西禮儀和獻祭制度有類似的功能，這是希伯來書作者的神學裡突出的主題。有真正的祭司，真正的獻祭制度和真正的血。但這些，雖然是真實的，也表徵著一個更偉大的現實，這個現實會完成它們只能描述的。希伯來書暗示，一個被祭物的血的惡臭堵塞鼻孔的真正舊約信徒，從祭司這樣日復一日，年復一年地獻祭的事實中，會推論出這些獻祭不可能帶來赦罪。他的目光必須超越這個系統（才能），望向這些獻祭所預表的——即有待應驗的上帝聖約的應許（正如希伯來書清楚表明的），望向耶穌基督自己。
但這個預表與對範（預表的實體）的原則，也在另一個、不那麼技術性的意義上運作，我們可以把這個原則稱為上帝在救贖歷史上「建立模式」（the diving
patterning）。當我們把這個「基督事件」放在顯微鏡下檢視，我們會看到有一個首次出現在舊約聖經的基本表達模式。根據這個發現，當我們戴著新約眼鏡重讀舊約，我們會看到這些「基督模式」會更加清楚。上帝的足跡在舊約裡已清晰可見。
這模式的一個有趣實例，是馬太福音二章15節引用何西阿書十一章1節：「我從埃及召出我的兒子來。」馬太說， 這些話應驗在基督身上。但難道這不是深奧或天真的聖經閱讀方法嗎？何西阿是在談論出埃及記中，上帝百姓出埃及的歷史事件，而不是談論關於耶穌幼年期返回埃及的事件。那麼，馬太是怎麼想的？他是說何西阿書十一章1節，就像以賽亞書第五十三章那樣，應驗在基督身上了嗎？是的。但意義不同。反而，馬太根據道成肉身、耶穌基督的死和復活的事實，在聖靈的引導下得出這結論，意識到出埃及記的神聖模式（脫離埃及，引到曠野，被賦予盟約的束縛和國度標記）構成了一種要應用在真以色列人、耶穌基督的經歷的模式。在得出這結論的過程中，馬太提供給我們一個閱讀並闡釋整個出埃及故事的關鍵，就是以基督為中心的方法，而實際上，他自己的敘事背景豐富了我們對耶穌的身份和事工的理解。
在救贖歷史上，另一個這種重複模式的例子，是以利沙治癒書念婦人的兒子（王下四8）。以利沙通過施行神蹟，展示出上帝對普通卑微的窮人---寡婦和不育婦女的密切關心。後來，治癒書念婦人兒子的事件重現在拿因城，耶穌也醫好了寡婦的兒子（路七11）。路加的意思是向他的讀者強調，根據拿因城人的心態，他們熟知以利沙（跟隨以利亞）在他們小城內施行神蹟（瑪拉基書第四章5節關於他會回來的應許，應驗在馬太福音第四章5節施洗約翰身上）。拿因城在舊約書念這地點的附近。甚至拿因城人對耶穌的反應重現了這遙遠的典故事件：「一位偉大的先知在我們當中出現了！上帝眷顧祂的百姓。」他們彷彿是在說：「以前這裡發生過這樣的事；自以利沙以來，我們仍然期待更好的事情會出現---先知本人。難道這就是祂？」
所以我們應該看到重複的模式，在耶穌基督身上完滿實現。祂是醫治人的偉大先知，不只是通過上帝委派給祂的權力，而且憑著祂自己的權柄，不必通過儀式和禱告，而是用帶著能力的簡單一句話。這是偉大的上帝和在肉身中顯現的以色列救主，祂的位格既是所有模式的原版，也是所有模式的終末成全，並且呼應著向歷代百姓所預言的恩典。是的，上帝終於在祂兒子的道成肉身上，眷顧祂的百姓。但很明顯地，這回過頭顯明了以利沙的作用。現在我們既在他個人背景的微觀現實之内，又在他救贖歷史模式的宏觀現實意義之內，明白他的醫治的重要意義。
當我們深入地了解兩約，會越來越認識舊約當中的迴響。當我們對這些模式和典故變得敏感，從舊約到基督的線索就會變得更加清晰，也更容易去繪描。
從舊約宣講基督（八）
原則三 盟約與基督的關係
在新約，耶穌自己體現了舊約聖經所有盟約所象徵的實體。祂是新約的血（路廿二20）。祂應驗了上帝在盟約中所有的應許。「上帝的應許，不論有多少，在基督都是是的」（林後一20）。
上帝把腳手架（scaffolding）放置在救贖歷史上合適的位置，以指向耶穌基督的到來，這腳手架乃是由上帝的盟約應許所構成的。因此舊約中的腳手架乃是圍繞著主耶穌基督的工作和位格搭建起來的，並且由祂來定型。我們可從兩個方面來看這點。
[ 1 ] 第一，在盟約關係中有一個原則：上帝的倫理要求（imperative，祂的法律和命令）總是植根在恩典的事實說明（indicative）上。那就是盟約的作用方式：「我要作你們的上帝；你們要作我的子民。」這是圍繞著基督和福音所建造的腳手架。因為這就是福音的工作：「我會為你而死；因此信靠我、順服我。」舊約盟約的動態乃是著眼於耶穌基督的降生。
我們可以更進一步地說：上帝在西奈之約中的應許與盟約所要求的命令，沒有足夠堅實的基礎使到所吩咐的命令産生效果。地理位置的改換（geographical relocation）不足以對摩西十誡所要求的道德聖潔提供足夠的動力（參羅八3-4）。地理的重新安置（geographical resettlement）可以給人動機，但不能取消罪惡或道德上的能力。因此，西奈之約——在它的不足之中——一直在預言一個透過上帝救贖恩典所成全的更大、更全面的拯救。「我是耶和華你的上帝，曾將你從埃及地為奴之家領出來。除了我以外，你不可有別的上帝。」（出廿2-3）這一直是一段展望和回顧的聲明。書寫在舊約如何發揮作用當中的，是一個隱含的期望，這甚至是必要的，即上帝恩典的事實說明，會找到更好的終末成全，而其倫理命令也會找到更好的根基——在耶穌基督裡。
[ 2 ]第二，基督工作的輪廓，體現在盟約的祝福和詛咒的原則上。
我們今天已經不太能欣賞聖經的語言。有一種傾向認為「祝福」和「詛咒」這兩個單詞所發揮的作用，相對來說並不太大，相當於上帝對道德的某種「情緒性反應」（boo-hurrah）。當別人打噴嚏時，我們說「祝福你！」很少人會把它設置在前現代社會（the pre-modern
world）的歷史背景之下來解釋，因為在當時，打噴嚏是病疫的症狀。因此，打噴嚏會被認為可能是上帝不悅的跡象。人們祈禱，打噴嚏的人會得到上帝的祝福，因此不會滅亡。這種用法比我們的用法更加接近祝福和詛咒的聖經解釋。
祝福不是「祝你今天愉快」，詛咒也不是「你脖子多痛一點」。相反，這裡是說上帝的盟約；當我們以信心回應，祂就傾倒與我們立約時所應許的祝福。當我們以不信回應，祂就傾倒祂的詛咒（參申命記第二十七至三十章）。福音是耶穌基督承擔了盟約的詛咒，為的是讓我們得著盟約的福分（對亞伯拉罕的應許）（加三13）。保羅在這裡的思想既是救贖歷史、又是聖經神學。他確認所有在舊約盟約的祝福和詛咒，與在耶穌基督裡上帝立約的目的和應許是密不可分的。
「基督是上帝盟約的中心」這個原則，就盟約的祝福和詛咒來說，會幫助我們根據祝福和詛咒在基督裡的應驗，來解釋和應用舊約，把舊約作為以盟約為焦點的信息。包含在盟約祝福和詛咒裡的後果，會無情地為我們指向接受或拒絕福音的永恒後果（如果從預表的角度上說）。聖經的歷史內容、智慧文學、預言和詩篇都啓示出這盟約的動態。只要這是真實的，我們就能夠把它們與這個動態在基督和福音裡的最終實現連繫起來。
從舊約宣講基督（九）
原則四 預期參與和隨後實現
儘管在福音派內部，時代論的各個派別仍然有持久的影響力，但是它是取決於使徒著作的表面，即新約時代大多數的救恩例證，實際上取材自舊約！當然，使徒們承認舊新約之間有相當程度的不連續性。五旬節的確是一個巨大的飛躍。但儘管如此，當保羅想要說明福音是如何發揮作用時，他回顧舊約聖經人物亞伯拉罕和大衛，說：「福音就是這樣發揮作用的」。在五旬節之後發生了一場地震，以至在天國裡最小的比最大的先知（施洗約翰，太十一11）還大。除了經歷更美的事的新約信徒們以外，有信心的男女無法達到完全（來十一40）。然而，亞伯、以諾、挪亞、亞伯拉罕、以撒、雅各、約瑟、摩西、喇合、基甸、巴拉、參孫、耶弗他、大衛、撒母耳等人和衆先知是信心的榜樣（來第十一章）。我們乃是「更好地」領受救恩，而不是領受「更好的」救恩。如果你想知道基督徒生活是什麼樣子，還有很多方面可以從舊約學習！哪個思想健全的基督徒不渴望經歷詩篇所記載的整個靈魂的信仰和崇拜呢？
但是舊約信徒如何經歷恩典和聖靈的果子呢？他們經歷到的，是預期性地參與（proleptic
participation）到要在耶穌基督裡圓滿終結的，以及隨後會在後五旬節的信徒裡面完全實現的。
就稱義而言，正統的福音派基督徒也使用預期參與的原則。舊約時代的聖徒是否因恩典稱義呢？若是如此，這是如何完成的呢？是的，當然也是通過信靠救主的應許。我們像亞伯拉罕一樣，在時間上也是與基督遠隔的人。我們被稱義是因為我們相信那曾是應許的基督，現在到來了。但通過上帝的應許，亞伯拉罕以預期的方式經歷了我們現在依據道成肉身所經歷的事實。
然而，相同的原則也在成聖的領域運作---包括最終的成聖（在重生時一次性脫離罪的管轄）和逐漸的成聖（在基督徒的生命中不斷克服罪的存在和影響）。
雖然稱義、成聖是有別的，但是既不可把它們從舊約、也不可把它們從新約的現實中分隔開來。舊約聖徒根據基督將會作的而稱義；他們也以同樣的方式成聖：他們的生活乃是根據基督將會作的事來定型和塑造。在希伯來書第十章39節看到這樣的一個例子：「但我們不是那些後退以致滅亡的人，而是有信心以致保全生命的人。」
作者引用什麼資源來說明這種蒙恩典保守的原則呢？從舊約！舊約聖徒的信心受到稱讚，但他們沒有一人得著所應許的事。上帝已經為我們計劃了更美的事。只有與我們在一起，他們才會得到成全。那麼，他們所經歷的就是預期性的和預料的形式，我們已經更好地經歷了其豐盛，即與耶穌基督的聯合與交通。
這是新約的視角：當個體一旦成為信徒，他或她的生命就被上帝的護理所塑造，並且被壓入一個模具當中（這模具採用的外形是正在死亡和復活中的耶穌），並且由耶穌被釘十字架和復活、祂的死帶來新生命所定型。在成聖當中，上帝把我們變成祂兒子的模樣，以致耶穌基督受難和復活的往事，活現在我們眼前，耶穌死和復活的模式塑造著我們的生命---這些是所有信徒共同分享的真正合乎聖經的釘痕。
但這種模式也呈現在舊約聖徒的生命當中。無可否認，在一些福音派小圈子中，對預表論的陶醉是不幸的、不受管制的；但無論如何，某種的基督形狀和基督模式清楚地呈現在許多舊約聖徒身上，並最終必須被解讀為他們生命中的影子，這些影子是基督在歷史上的工作的逆向投影。
由於這點有很多的例證，以至於幾乎可以說任何篇幅的舊約歷史傳記記述，都會涉及這些內容：死亡與復活，羞辱和升高，被貶黜和得升高，經歷反對然後獲得拯救，遭受缺乏然後經歷非凡供應。這不僅是講好故事的形式，更是福音模式的體現。
約瑟是一個經典例子：他的生平故事被死亡和復活的模式所定型。這種模式是顯而易見的：降卑（遭拒絕，他榮耀的彩衣被剝奪，成為一個奴隸，默默無聞）；升高（被高舉在法老的右手邊）；預備（全世界的需要）；他百姓的收穫。最終，這是基督模式的素描形式。這種「意思是邪惡的、卻收獲好的，保全多人性命」（創五十20）的模式，應驗在被不法之人的手釘在十字架上的那一位身上---按著上帝的定旨，為了萬國獲得救恩，祂從死裡復活（徒二23）。清晰顯現在約瑟身上的同一種模式，也出現在整個舊約當中。它將舊約聖徒與基督連接起來，並突出了若離開了這個模板，我們就無法完全了解他們的經歷。
從舊約宣講基督（十）
發展以基督為中心的本能
如果這些原則是有效的，那麼沿著不同的路線，有時沿著一條路線，有時沿著組合的路線，從舊約中的任何一點進入救贖歷史的骨幹主道，最終通向基督的應驗和終末全成，就必定是可行的。這樣，我們宣講的背景和目的地都將是耶穌基督自己，祂是救主和主。
這些是一般的原則；它們並不構成一個簡單的公式，也不是撒在講道上的煉金藥，能將講道變換成基督的宣講。沒有任何宣講的公式可以做到這點。談到宣講基督，我們從未「抵達」或「破解」。但當我們更深入地了解聖經，當我們看到這些深植於聖經的模式，並且——同樣重要的是——當我們更親密地認識基督、更愛祂，我們肯定會培養出一種本能，就是從所有的經文中陳明、解釋、證明，在耶穌、基督、世界的救主裡所宣布的豐盛恩典。能夠做到這一點，便是自己辛勤工作的充足回報。這份工作牽涉到在舊約的背景下認真地看待舊約，用這種方式來宣講，而且要認識到，離開了耶穌基督，這個背景就是不完整的。
Preaching Christ from the OT
By Sinclair Ferguson
part 1
Summer
series . Some years ago, we asked Sinclair Ferguson to write a brief paper for
us on preaching Christ from the Old Testament. Over the next week or so, we’re
going to publish an edited version online as part of our summer series. It’s
worth some time.
The
discipline of biblical theology has slowly but surely found a place in
evangelical preaching. As a result, it
has now become a commonplace in the teaching of homiletics to stress that we
must preach Christ in all the Scriptures in a manner that takes account of the
flow of redemptive history. In particular we must learn to preach Christ from
the Old Testament without falling into the old traps of an artificial exegesis.
But
how do we legitimately preach the text of the Old Testament as those who stand
on this side of Pentecost? What difference does it make to expound Genesis or
Psalms as believers in Jesus Christ? Or,
to put it in a more graphic way, how can we reconstruct the principles of
Jesus’ conversation in Luke 24:25-7 and 45, and learn to follow his example of
showing how all the Scriptures point to him so that hearts are ‘strangely
warmed’ and begin to burn? In particular, how may we do this without lapsing
into what we (sometimes a little too cavalierly) deem to be either patristic
allegorising or post-reformation spiritualising? If only we had heard how Jesus did this on
the Emmaus Road, in the Upper Room, during the forty days between his
resurrection and his ascension, we might grasp the principles by which it is
done, so that we too could genuinely preach the text of the Old Testament as
Christian preachers and not as rabbis!
Yet
we must also preach the Scriptures without denuding them of the genuine
historical events they record and the reality of the personal experiences they
describe or to which they were originally addressed. How, then, do we preach
Christ, and him crucified without leapfrogging over these historical realities
as though the Old Testament Scriptures had no real significance for their own
historical context?
In
discussing the pre-Christ revelation of God as Trinity B.B. Warfield describes
the Old Testament as a richly furnished but dimly lit room. Only when the light
is turned on do the contents become clear. That light has been switched on in
Christ and in the New Testament’s testimony to him. Now the triune personal
being of God becomes clear. To read the Old Testament with the light switched
off would be to deny the historical reality of our own context. On the other
hand, we would be denying the historical reality of the text and its context if
we were to read and preach it as though that same light had already been
switched on within its own pages.
Thus
our task as Christian preachers must be to take account of both. Fulfilling
that task drives us back us into the basic hermeneutical question for the
Christian exegete: How do we relate the Old Testament to the New Testament? The
longer we labour in ministry, the more we ask that question. The more we know
about the answer to it, the more we realise there is so much more left to
explore. It is a life-long pursuit. Over the next few days, I’m going to make a
few comments and suggest some principles that are generally applicable and may
be specifically helpful to the preacher.
part 2
Preaching Christ must become
instinctive, not formulaic
Young
preachers are often told, ‘You must preach Christ from the Old Testament.’ But having just finished preaching on (for
example) Psalm 121, and realising that we have said little or nothing about
Jesus (perhaps not explicitly mentioned his name!), we may be in great
agitation, and search desperately for a magic formula which will help us to preach
Christ from the Old Testament.
It
would be possible, of course, to provide a kind of formula, a kind of
homiletical version of Thomas’s five ways, such as: Point to Christ by showing:
(1) the passage is a direct prophecy of him; or (2) the passage shows why Jesus
is needed; or (3) the passage speaks about something that reminds us of Jesus;
or (4) the passage speaks about something that could not be accomplished
without Jesus; or (5) the passage shows us an individual/group unlike Jesus.
The
point here is not to comment on whether these five ways are helpful or not so
much as the inherent danger in the approach. It is likely to produce preaching
that is wooden and insensitive to the rich contours of biblical theology. Its
artificiality would lie in our going through the motions of exegeting and
expounding the Old Testament and then, remembering the formula, tidying our
notes in order to align them with it. The net result over an extended period of
time might be akin to that produced by children’s sermons in which the
intelligent child soon recognises that the answer to the minister’s questions
will always be one of: 1: God; 2: Jesus;
3. Sin; 4. Bible; 5. Be Good!
Of
course we need to work with general principles as we develop as preachers; but
it is a far greater desideratum that we develop an instinctive mindset and,
corresponding to that, such a passion for Jesus Christ himself, that we will
find our way to him in a natural and realistic way rather than a merely
formulaic way.
part 3
For
us as preachers, this whole issue is a much bigger one than how we preach
Christ from the Old Testament, for at least two reasons.
1.
First, because (if my own assessment is correct) many sermons from the Gospels
—where the focus is explicitly on the person of Jesus—never mind from the Old
Testament are far from Christ-centred.
How
is this possible? The preacher has looked into the text principally to find
himself and his congregation, not to find Christ. The sermon is consequently
about ‘people in the Gospels’ rather than about Jesus Christ who is the gospel.
The real question the preacher has been interested in asking and answering, is
not ‘How do we find Christ in this Gospel?’ but ‘Where am I in this story? What
have I got to do?’ Even although an entire series of such sermons on a Gospel
is preached (as in the lectio continua method), we will not necessarily have
communicated the basic life of Jesus. Instead we have been given an exploration
of the human condition.
So
there is a confused mindset here that raises a deeper question than, ‘Is there
a formula that helps us to preach Christ from the Old Testament?’ The more
fundamental issue is the question, ‘What am I really looking for when I am
preaching on any part of the Bible? Am I really looking to tell people what
they are like and what they must do—that is, am I really stressing the
subjective and the imperative—or am I talking about Jesus Christ himself and
the gospel? Do I stress the objective and the indicative of the gospel in the
light of which the subjective and imperative are to be considered? After all it
is not the subjective (my condition) or the imperative (respond!) that saves or
transforms people’s lives, but the objective and the indicative of God’s grace
received subjectively in the light of the imperatives of the gospel.
2. A
second observation worth noting in this connection is that many (perhaps most)
outstanding preachers of the Bible (and of Christ in all Scripture) are so
instinctively. Ask them what their formula is and you will draw a blank
expression. The principles they use have been developed unconsciously, through
a combination of native ability, gift and experience as listeners and
preachers. Some men might struggle to give a series of lectures on how they go
about preaching. Why? Because what they have developed is an instinct;
preaching biblically has become their native language. They are able to use the
grammar of biblical theology, without reflecting on what part of speech they are
using. That is why the best preachers are not necessarily the best instructors
in homiletics, although they are, surely, the greatest inspirers of true
preaching.
Most
of us probably develop the instinct for biblical-theological and
redemptive-historical preaching best by the osmosis involved in listening to
those who do it well. It is always wise to listen to such preachers and their
preaching as though we had two minds—one through which the preaching of the
word nourishes us, the other through which, simultaneously or on later
reflection, asks: ‘Why did this exposition nourish me in that way? What
dynamics and principles were operative?’
Seeing how the hidden principles work out in practice is the best way to
make those principles our own so that they become the grammar of our preaching.
part 4
Christ
is the prism where all light converges Given that we are not to become ‘method’
preachers applying a programmatic formula for biblical preaching, there are nevertheless
very important principles that help us to develop Christ-centred expository
skills. As we work with them, and as they percolate through our thinking and
our approach to the Bible, they will help us develop the instinct to point
people to Christ from the Old Testament Scriptures. The most general principle
is one for which we might coin the expression fillfulment: Christ fulfils or ‘fills full’ the Old
Testament. He came ‘not to abolish the Law or the Prophets but to fulfil them’
(Matt. 5:17). As Christians standing
within the light of New Testament revelation and looking back on the Old
Testament, Christ himself acts as a hermeneutical prism. Looking back through
him, we see the white light of the unity of the truth of Jesus Christ broken
down into its constituent colours in the pages of the Old Testament. Then,
looking forwards we see how the multi-coloured strands of Old Testament
revelation converge in him. When we
appreciate this we begin to see how the constituent colours unite in Christ and
are related both to each other and to him. In this way we see how the Old
Testament points forward to him. We see how sometimes one ‘colour’, sometimes
another, or perhaps a combination of them, points forward to Jesus Christ, is
related to Jesus Christ, and is fulfilled by Jesus Christ.
part 5
We
want to develop an instinct to preach Christ. This is the general principle.
But it can be broken down into at least four subordinate principles which I’ll
outline over the next five posts. Principle 1 is the longest, so I’ll split it
into two!
Principle 1. The relationship
between promise and fulfilment
Genesis
3:15 is in a sense the most basic text in the whole Bible: God puts enmity
between the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman; the seed of the
woman will bruise the head of the serpent, and the serpent will crush the heel
of the woman’s seed. Romans 16:20 and Revelation 12:9 both make crystal clear
from the perspective of Christ’s completed work that Genesis 3:15 promises the
ultimate cosmic conflict between our Lord Jesus Christ and Satan and the powers
of darkness.
Of
course Satan is not mentioned by name in Genesis 3—a point of some
hermeneutical interest in itself—but when Paul writes that ‘the God of peace
will bruise Satan under your head shortly’ (Rom. 16:20), and John sees in
Revelation 12:9 that the serpent has grown into a dragon, it is clear that the
New Testament writers thought of Genesis 3:15 as a reference to the coming
Messiah, and to his conflict with Satan. The war about which the book of
Revelation speaks then merely climaxes an antithesis and antagonism that has
run through the whole of Scripture. It is a Library of Military History, with
Genesis 3:15 and Revelation 12:9-20:10 as the bookcase. Not only so, but it follows that the whole of
Old Testament Scriptures traces the outworking of this promise of God until it
is consummated in Jesus Christ, and finally publicised throughout the universe
in his triumphant return. Jesus’ programmatic statement, ‘I will build my
church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it’ (Matt. 16:18) speaks
of this cosmic-conflict context, represents its high point and promises victory
in it. Everything between Genesis 3:15 and Matthew 16:18 can, in one way or
another, be tied to the fulfilment of that promise; every twist and turn in redemptive
history following Matthew 16:18 expresses that conflict, flows onward to its
denouement and to that extent can be pinpointed on the map of redemptive
revelation.
This
is the story of the building of the kingdom of God in all its various stages, over
against the kingdom of this world. The promise that the kingdom/reign of
God/heaven will come/ is near/has arrived is therefore a structural key to
redemptive history. From Genesis 3:15 to the end the Bible is the story of God
the Warrior coming to the aid of his people in order to deliver them from the
kingdom of darkness and to establish his reign among, in and through them. This
is what gives weight to the words of John the Baptist that ‘the kingdom of
heaven is near’ (Matt. 3:2). Breaking the prophetic silence of the centuries
his message was of God’s impending eschatological war-triumph. Judgement-wrath
represented by the judgement axe was, for John, the inevitable implication on
the dark side; forgiveness and the reign and kingdom-blessing of God was the
food news for all who repented.
This
kingdom-conflict-conquest-victory theme can be traced in all kinds of narrative
perspectives and dimensions of Old Testament revelation. The central point is
to see the Old Testament as intimately (although of course not exclusively)
connected to this fundamental idea that there is a radical antithesis driving
through the whole of redemptive history, between the building of the kingdom of
God by his king, and the efforts of the powers of darkness to destroy that kingdom.
Recognise this and much of Old Testament Scripture can readily be understood in
terms of its position in the central nervous system of the Old Testament. It
should be possible to move from all of these different points to this backbone
promise that runs through the Old Testament Scripture to Jesus Christ.
part 6
The
first principle we saw yesterday is an essential hermeneutical tool with which
to relate historical developments in the Old Testament back to the promise of
God and forward to the coming of Christ. At the same time we are able to treat these
incidents (and the people involved in them) as real in their own right. For one
of the dangers inherent in biblical-theological preaching is to minimise
historical actuality in our anxiety to preach Christocentrically. The result
can be as damaging to the integrity of our handling of the text as was
patristic allegorising. Sensitivity to
the war in the heavenly realms being played out in history enables us to
expound the concrete-historical and individual experiences of God’s people, yet
simultaneously to interpret and place them within the big picture, the
meta-narrative of the whole Bible. The historical is thus taken seriously for
its own sake, while at the same time it is preached as part of the story of the
all-conquering Christ.
This—it
needs to be underlined—is not the only principle to be employed. But it does
not require great imagination to see how events in Old Testament history
illustrate it: the narrative of Adam and Eve against the serpent; the story of
Cain and Abel, of the City of God and the Tower of Babel, Israel and Egypt,
David and Goliath. The Book of Job is simply a dramatic microcosm of this. The
conflicts and the miracles of Elijah and Elisha need to be read within this
perspective. A submerged axehead or a poisoned stew are trivial problems, the
miraculous reduced to a Harry Potter piece of magic, unless we recognise that
these events take place in the context of a deadly conflict with eternal
significance for the kingdom of God. Daniel’s life story and his apocalyptic
visions are to be read through the same lenses. Indeed the opening words of the
Book of Daniel indicate that we are entering a conflict narrative. There is war
between two kingdoms. Here we have both the onslaught of the powers of darkness
and this world (‘Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged
it’) and the righteous purposes of God through which his kingdom will continue
and prevail (‘the Lord delivered Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand . . .’).
Under fierce attack it requires extraordinary miracles to preserve the kingdom
(now a remnant of four, exposed to destroying fire and the mouths of lions,
Daniel 3 and 6). In the midst of this the kingdom (and king!) of this world is
seen to be temporary and it and we are given intimation that it is the rock cut
without human hands that will grow and fill the whole earth. Only those who see
history this way (Daniel and his three friends) can sing the Lord’s song in a
foreign land, in enemy occupied territory (Ps. 137).
In a
similar way the opposition to the rebuilding of Jerusalem in the days of Ezra
and Nehemiah is part of the unfolding of Genesis 3:15. These books provide
conflict narratives in the confined space of God’s chosen city, illustrating
that the exhortations of Ephesians 6:10-20 are as relevant in fifth century BC
Jerusalem as in first century AD Ephesus.
We
stand on the other side of the empty tomb; what was ‘not yet’ for Ezra and
Nehemiah is ‘already’ for us. But there is also a ‘not yet’ for us; the
conflict in the mopping up operations of war is as bloody and potentially fatal
as in the decisive battle. We too, in the light of what Christ has
accomplished, live in the ‘not yet-ness’ of the completion of the final
Jerusalem. This world is as full of the
Tobiah, Sanballat and Geshem of Nehemiah’s day as it is of the Mr Talkative and
the Giant Despair and Vanity Fair of John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress.
Understanding
the principle of promise and fulfilment in terms of an ongoing kingdom-against-
kingdom cosmic-conflict helps us to apply the message of the Old Testament as
Christian preachers today.
part 7
Principle 2. The relationship
between type and antitype
As
the principle of promise and fulfilment (in Christ) develops, we see how the
rest of redemptive history functions as a kind of footnote to Genesis 3:15 in
the same sense that western philosophy is sometimes said to be a footnote to
Plato and Aristotle.
However,
we also discover that the promise itself is developed both progressively and
cumulatively; its implications become clearer as redemptive history unfolds. At
particular stages in history God gives hints of what is to come (as a great
artist’s sketches point towards the final work will be). So embedded into
redemptive history are illustrations of the pattern of working which God will
employ in his masterwork—types that will be fulfilled in work of Christ the
antitype. Paul views the relation between Adam and Christ as the supreme
illustration of this patterning; Adam, viewed as a real historical figure, is
the tupos of the coming one (Rom. 5:14, albeit the analogy is both positive and
negative, Rom. 5:12-21).
The
Mosaic ceremonial and sacrificial system functions similarly, a prominent theme
in the theology of the author of Hebrews. There is a real priesthood, real
sacrifice and real blood. But these, while real, also signify a greater reality
that accomplishes what they can only portray. Hebrews suggests that a genuine
Old Testament believer, with the stench of the sacrificial blood clogging his
nostrils, could deduce from the fact that the priests ministered in this way
day after day that these could not be the sacrifices that bring forgiveness. He
must look beyond this (and was able to), to that of which these sacrifices were
a type—namely to God’s covenant promises yet to be fulfilled, and therefore (as Hebrews makes so clear), to
Jesus Christ himself.
But
this principle of type and antitype operates in another, less technical sense,
in what we could call the divine patterning of redemptive history. When we put
‘the Christ event’ under the microscope we see that there are basic patterns
expressed which are first seen in the Old Testament. In the light of that discovery, when we
re-read the Old Testament wearing the lenses of the New, we see these
Christ-patterns more opaquely. The
divine footprints are already visible.
An
interesting illustration of this is the use of Hosea 11:1 in Matthew 2:15: ‘Out
of Egypt I have called my son’. These words, Matthew says, are fulfilled in
Christ. But isn’t this either an esoteric or naïve approach to reading the
Bible? Hosea is talking about the
historic event of the people of God coming out of Egypt in the Exodus, not
about Jesus going to and returning from Egypt in his infancy. So what is going
on in Matthew’s mind? Is he saying Hosea 11:1 is fulfilled in Jesus just as
Isaiah 53 is? Yes. But not in the same sense. Rather Matthew, writing in the
light of the incarnation, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and under the
guidance of the Holy Spirit, recognises that the divine pattern in the Exodus
(delivered from Egypt, led through the wilderness, given the covenant bond and
kingdom-code) constitutes a pattern to be used in the experience of the true
Israelite, Jesus Christ. In doing this Matthew provides us with a key to
reading and expounding the entire Exodus narrative in a Christo-centric way,
and indeed his own narrative against a background that enriches our
understanding of Jesus’ identity and ministry.
Another
example of this kind of pattern-repetition in redemptive history is that of
Elisha healing the son of the Shunammite woman (2 Kings 4:8ff.). The miracles
worked through Elisha demonstrate God’s intimate care for ordinary
people—the humble poor, the widow and
the barren woman. The healing of the
Shunammite’s son echoes later in the town of Nain, where Jesus too healed a
widow’s son (Luke 7:11ff.). Luke surely means his readers to empathise with the
mindset of the people in Nain who knew well that it was in their little
community that the miracle had been accomplished through Elisha (who followed
Elijah, the one whose return was promised, Mal. 4:5 and fulfilled in John the
Baptist, Matt. 11:14). Nain was near the
site of Old Testament Shunem. Even the reaction of the people of Nain to Jesus
echoes with allusions to this distant event: ‘A great prophet has arisen among
us! God has visited his people’. It is as if they are saying ‘something like
this happened here before; and ever since Elisha, we have been looking forward
to something even better still to come—the prophet himself. Could this be he?’
So we
are meant to see pattern repetition, which comes to its fullness in the person
of Jesus Christ, the great prophet who heals not merely through delegated
authority from God, but on his own authority, without rituals or prayers, but
with a simple word of power. Here is the great God and Saviour of Israel in the
flesh, whose person is both the origin and consummation of all the patterns and
echoes which have prophesied this grace to his people all down the long ages of
their history. Yes, God has visited his people, at last, in the person of his
Son. But clearly this sheds light
backwards on the function of Elisha. Now we see the significance of his healing
within both the micro-reality of his personal context, and also within the
macro-reality of his significance in the patterns of redemptive history.
As we
work intimately with the two Testaments we will increasingly recognise the
echoes of the Old Testament. And as we become sensitive to these patterns and
allusions, lines from the Old Testament to Christ will become clearer to us and
easier to draw.
part 8
Principle 3. The relationship
between the covenant and Christ
In
the New Testament Jesus himself embodies all that the covenant signified in the
Old Testament. His is the blood of the new covenant (Lk.22: 20). He fulfils all
the covenant promises of God. ‘No matter how many promises God has made, they
are “Yes” in Christ’ (2 Cor. 1:20).
The
covenant promises of God form the scaffolding that God was putting in place as
he directed redemptive history towards the coming of Jesus Christ. The
scaffolding in the Old Testament is therefore built around the person and work
of our Lord Jesus Christ and shaped by him. We can see this in two ways.
[1] First, there is the principle that in
the covenant relationship the imperatives of God (his laws and commands) are
always rooted in the indicatives of his grace. That is how the covenant works:
‘I will be your God; you will be my people.’
This is scaffolding shaped around Christ and the gospel. For this is how
the gospel works: ‘I will die for you; therefore trust in and obey me.’ The dynamic of the Old Testament covenant was
shaped with a view to the coming of Jesus Christ.
We
can go further to say this: that which was promised by God in the Covenant at
Sinai, and demanded by God in terms of its imperatives, did not have a
sufficiently strong foundation to effect what it commanded. Geographical
relocation is not an adequate support to provide the dynamic for
Decalogue-style moral holiness (cf. Rom. 8:3-4). A geographical resettlement
may motivate, but it cannot cancel the guilt of sin or empower morally. Thus
the Sinai covenant—in its weakness—was always prophetic of a greater and fuller
deliverance through God’s redeeming grace. ‘I am the Lord your God who brought
you out of the land of Egypt. You shall not have any other gods before me’ (Ex.
20:2-3) was always a statement that looked forwards as well as backwards. Written
into the way in which the old covenant works is an implied expectation, even
necessity, that the indicatives of God’s grace will find a better consummation
and the imperatives a better foundation—in Jesus Christ.
[2] Second, the shape of Christ’s work is
expressed in the covenant principle of blessing and cursing.
Today
our appreciation of much of the Bible’s language has become very threadbare.
There is a tendency to think that the words ‘blessing’ and ‘cursing’ function
in a relatively trivial manner, equivalent to a kind of divine ‘boo-hurrah’
approach to morality. When someone sneezes, we say ‘Bless you!’ Few people set this within the historical
context of the pre-modern world when sneezing was a symptom of the plague. It
was therefore seen potentially as a sign of the displeasure of God. One prayed
that the person sneezing would receive the blessing of God and therefore not
perish. That is much nearer the Bible’s understanding of blessing and cursing
than our usage is.
Blessing
is not ‘have a nice day!’ nor is cursing
‘you are a bit of a pain in the neck.’ Rather, here is God’s covenant;
when we respond to it in faith he showers upon us the blessing he promised when
he made it with us. And when we respond in unbelief he showers upon us curses
(cf. Deut. 27-30). The gospel is that Christ took the curse of the covenant in
order that the blessings of the covenant (promised to Abraham) might come to us
(Gal. 3:13). Paul’s thinking here is both redemptive-historical and
biblical-theological. He recognises that
all of this covenantal outworking of blessing and cursing in the Old Testament
is inextricably tied to the fulfilment of God’s covenant purpose and promise in
Jesus Christ.
This
principle of Christ as the heart of the covenants of God, with respect to their
blessing and cursing, helps us expound and apply the Old Testament as a
covenant-focussed message in the light of the fulfilment of both blessing and
cursing in Christ. The consequences bound up in the covenant blessing and
cursing point us forwards inexorably, if typologically, to the eternal
consequences of acceptance or rejection of the gospel. The contents of biblical
history and wisdom literature, prophecy and the psalms all reveal this covenant
dynamic. Insofar as this is true we are able to relate them to the ultimate
fulfilment of that dynamic in Christ and the gospel.
part 9
Principle 4. Proleptic
participation and subsequent realisation
Despite
the continuing influence within evangelicalism of various brands of
dispensationalism, it lies on the surface of the apostolic writings that the
majority of illustrations of salvation in the new covenant era are actually
drawn from the old! Of course the
apostles recognise the substantial discontinuity between old and new. Pentecost is indeed a quantum leap forward.
But that notwithstanding, when Paul wants to illustrate how the gospel works,
he goes back to the Old Testament figures of Abraham and David and says ‘This
is how the gospel works’. A seismic shift took place after Pentecost so that
the least in the kingdom is greater than the greatest of the prophets (John the
Baptist, Matt.11:11). Men and women of faith do not come to perfection apart
from new covenant believers who experience better things (Heb. 11:40).
Nevertheless Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Rahab,
Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, Samuel and the prophets are examples of
faith (Heb.11). We receive salvation ‘better’, but not a better salvation. If you want to know what the Christian life
looks like, then there is much to be learned from the Old Testament! What right-thinking Christian has not aspired
to experience the whole-souled faith and worship of the Psalms?
But
how could Old Testament believers experience grace and the fruit of the Spirit?
They experienced proleptic participation
in what would be consummated in Jesus Christ and then subsequently realised in
its fulness in post-Pentecost Christian believers.
Orthodox
evangelical Christians employ the principle of proleptic participation with
respect to justification. Were Old Testament saints justified by grace, and if
so, how? Yes, of course—by faith in the promise of the Saviour. We who are as
far removed in time as Abraham was from Christ are justified because we believe
in the once-promised Christ now come. But through the promise of God, Abraham
experienced in proleptic fashion what we now experience in the light of the
actuality of the incarnation.
But
exactly the same principle operates in the area of sanctification—both
definitive (the once-for-all separation from the dominion of sin which takes
place in regeneration) and progressive (the ongoing overcoming of the presence
and influence of sin which takes place throughout the Christian life). For
justification and sanctification, while distinguishable, are not separable in
either old or new covenant realities.
Saints in the Old Testament were justified in the light of what Christ
would do; they were sanctified in the same way: their lives were shaped and
formed in the light of what Christ would do. An example of that is seen in
Hebrews 10:39: ‘We are not those who would shrink back and be destroyed. We are
those who believe and who are saved’. But from what source does the author
illustrate this principle of the grace of perseverance? From the Old
Testament! Old Testament saints were
commended for their faith, yet none of them had received what had been promised.
God had planned something better for us and only together with us would they be
made perfect. What they experienced then, was a proleptic, anticipatory, form
of the reality we better experience in its fullness, namely the working out of
union and communion with Jesus Christ.
It is
the perspective of the New Testament that from the moment an individual becomes
a believer, his or her life is shaped providentially by God and pressed into a
mould which takes its form from the dying and rising of Jesus, and is shaped by
his crucifixion and resurrection, his death bringing new life. In
sanctification God transforms us into the likeness of his Son, so that
reminiscences of Jesus Christ crucified and resurrected appear in us, and the
pattern of death and resurrection shapes our lives—these are the genuine
biblical stigmata in which all believers share.
But
this pattern is also present in the lives of Old Testament saints. Admittedly
the fascination with typology in some evangelical groupings has been
unfortunate and without controls; but nevertheless a Christ-shape and a
Christ-pattern appears clearly in a variety of Old Testament saints, and must
ultimately be analysed as a shadow in their lives created by the backwards
projection into history of the work of Christ.
There
are so many illustrations of this that one might almost say that there is not
an Old Testament historical-biographical account of any length that does not
involve dying and rising, humiliation and exaltation, being brought down and
being raised up, experiencing opposition and then deliverance, suffering want
and then experiencing extraordinary provision. This is not merely the form of
good story-telling. It is the embodiment of the gospel pattern.
Joseph
is a classic case: the story of his life is shaped unmistakably by the pattern
of death and resurrection. A pattern is written large in him: humiliation
(rejected and stripped of his glory-robe, becoming a slave, being made of no
reputation)à exaltation (being highly exalted at Pharaoh’s right hand)à
provision (for the needs of the whole world)àthe ingathering of his people. This, at the end of the day, is the
Christ-pattern in sketch-like form. The pattern of meant-for-evilàproducing
good, the salvation of many (Gen. 50:20) is fulfilled in the One crucified by
the hands of wicked men—yet according to the plan of the God who raised him from
the dead for the salvation of the nations (Acts 2:23). That same pattern, while written large in
Joseph, appears throughout the Old Testament. It connects the Old Testament
saints to Christ, and underlines that we do not fully understand their experience
apart from this template.
part 10
Developing a Christ centred
instinct
If
these principles hold good, then it must be possible along different lines,
sometimes using one, sometimes using a combination, to move from any point in
the Old Testament into the backbone of redemptive history which leads
ultimately to Christ its fulfilment and consummation. In this way, the context
and destination for all our preaching will be Jesus Christ himself, Saviour and
Lord.
These
are general principles; they do not constitute a simple formula, an elixir to
be sprinkled on our sermons to transform them into the preaching of
Christ. There is no formula that will
do that. We never ‘arrive’ or ‘have it cracked’ when it comes to preaching Christ. But as we come to know the Scriptures more
intimately, as we see these patterns deeply embedded in the Bible, and—just as
crucially—as we come to know Christ himself more intimately and to love him
better, we shall surely develop the instinct to reason, explain and prove from
all the Scriptures the riches of grace which are proclaimed in Jesus, the
Christ, the Saviour of the world. The ability to do that will itself be
adequate reward for the hard work involved in learning to preach in a way that
takes the Old Testament seriously within its own context, but also recognises
that that context is not complete apart from Jesus Christ.
