What Luke DOES NOT say in Luke 24
Since we’ve touched on Luke 24, it may be helpful to observe what Luke 24 does not say.
First, Luke 24:27 does not actually say that Christ is the subject of all the Scriptures. It says that Jesus explained to them the things concerning himself in the Scriptures. This appears to mean that the Scriptures contain things about him, or, in the words of John 5:39–40, they testify to him.
Second, Luke 24:27 does not say that ‘every passage of scripture’ testifies to Christ. It does say that the scriptures contain things concerning Christ but not that ‘every passage’ contains things concerning Christ or that ‘all biblical texts’ somehow testify to Jesus Christ. In fact, given the context, it may very well be that Jesus was specifically referring to the testimony of the scriptures to the necessity that the Christ should suffer (Luke 24:26)
A similar point can be made in relation to Luke 24:44. What it says is that ‘everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms.’
I only point this out because I often read comments on Luke 24 that give the distinct impression that some people think that the verses actually read something along these lines:
‘And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them that all the Scriptures said things concerning himself.’ (Luke 24:27)
‘He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms is about me and must be fulfilled.”’ (Luke 24:44)
December 14th, 2007 at 3:33 am
I get that impression from some Bible teachers too, that every single OT passage is about Jesus. It drives me nuts, because I can’t see how some OT passages have anything to do with Jesus. Thanks for this good insight.
April 2nd, 2008 at 7:03 pm
Hi Andrew,
I’m confused! If this is what Luke 24 DOES NOT say why do some believe that these passages refer to ‘all Scripture referring to Christ’? What mistake are people making? Is it a theological one or exegetical one?
Look forward to your thoughts.
Dave
April 2nd, 2008 at 9:16 pm
Hello Dave, great to hear from you!
Your question is a good one and I have no definitive answer. Hosts of evangelical authors on hermeneutics cite Luke 24 and say things like this. However, when you turn to the commentators on Luke 24 they do not say it. In fact, a number of them think that the things ‘concerning him’ are actually references to the necessity that the Messiah suffer and not even general references to Christ. So, I sit down and think to myself, ‘So where does this come from?’ My only answer is that it comes from a time honoured tradition handed down from person to person and continually cited. Before long people actually think that this is what it says without bothering to check.
So, in answer to your question, I think the problem is an exegetical one and that Luke 24 is being used as a proof text without being adequately exegeted. However, the danger is that this is then turned into a theory of how the Old and New Testaments are related. The problem then turns into theological or hermeneutical one.
Andrew
April 3rd, 2008 at 10:12 am
Hi Andrew,
Thanks for your reply. It seems to me that there is a tension in the argument. On the one hand, there is a correctness in taking passages of the Old Testament to Christ. Your hermeneutical model (which I think is very good) tells us to look forward to see how that part of the Bible fits into God’s good purposes in Jesus Christ. This is what we call Biblical Theology.
Yet, on the other hand, it seems to me that you are saying there is a limit (not sure if that is the right word) to this, not every sentence has to have a Christological element? Luke 24 is not the mandate to take passages to Christ when exegeted.
But why is it that some passages are explicitly Christological like Ps 2 or Is 53 where others are not? Is it forcing some texts to say too much when we insist on taking it to Christ? Or is there a legitimate claim to apply the Scriptures without going to Christ?
I guess I’m just trying to grapple with the tension that I feel and having a go at writing it down helps to clarify things for me. Having grown up on a ‘diet’ of Biblical Theology where application without going to Christ first is not Biblical Theology means that I’m being stretched in my thinking!
Dave
April 3rd, 2008 at 11:30 am
Dave,
Before answering your question, I should say that I think that BT is much more than just looking forward. It is also looking backward. Jesus asks his hearers to do this in the gospel. In other words, he tells them that they should look at their Old Testaments and see that they witness to him. In one sense he is then asking them to read their OTs without any Christological presuppositions (although they have met him and heard him and so they are not entirely without some presuppositions concerning him). However, he is saying that those Scriptures natively point to him. In other words, he is saying that you will not understand who he is and what he has come to do without reading the OT. One of the dangers of reading the OT through overly tinged Christological glasses is that we won’t fully understand who he is and what he came to do.
Having said this, there IS a tension, which you have rightly noticed. There is a correctness in taking passages to Christ. However, this should not do violence to those texts as understood in their larger context. This is one of the limits/restrictions. When Jesus said ‘it is written’ he was calling on people to assent to his reading of those texts as he interpreted them.
And, yes, what I am saying is that Luke 24 (and John 5, and 2 Cor 1) are not mandates to make all passages speak of Christ. Both in theory and practice the NT writers do not do this (e.g. look at Paul’s observations about Genesis 1-3 in the end of 1 Timothy 2).
So, why is it that some passages are so explicitly Christological? In the end we cannot answer this. I think some were explicitly Christological or Messianic when they were first written. Some are only later recognised to be Christological. If we, like the disciples in Matthew 13 and Luke 24, have come to know Christ, then we cannot help but read both the explicit ones and some others and see Christological allusions.
Having said this, my own view is that if we jump too quickly to the Christological perspective we won’t fully understand how Christ fulfils them. For example, only when we understand the depth of Psalm 22 understood in its own right will be understand what Jesus is doing when he quotes it.
The danger, of course, is that when we read Luke 24 wrongly we see it as a licence to read all texts Christologically or to read them through a particular theological grid against their original meaning.
As for your last question, my own view is that there is of course a legitimate claim to apply the Scriptures without going to Christ (although not without recognising that we do it because we are in relationship with Chirst and seek to honour him). The New Testament authors do this all the time. I haven’t yet put my thoughts on 2 Timothy 3:15-17 on the blog but I think that it is a helpful way to think about how to use the OT.
First, the OT scriptures are helpful to make us wise for salvation in Christ Jesus (i.e. they witness to Christ).
Second, the OT is useful for instructing us in right doctrine positively (’teaching’) and negatively (’rebuking’).
Third, the OT is useful for instructing us in morality negativel (’correcting’) and positively (’training in righteousness’).
So, the NT writers without any hint of Christology can quote Leviticus directly as teaching that God is holy and we should be holy as well (1 Peter 1:16). At the same time, they can interpret Leviticus Christologically as is done in Hebrews.
Your tension is the very reason that I’m doing my doctorate on this very subject. I’m still learning but feel that I’m making good progress on working out a model for my own approach that both honours the Lord Jesus and also treats the scriptures faithfully. I enjoy the interaction and the break from the books. However, now I must return…
Andrew