(Part 1)

JBTM Jeffrey G. Audirsch
51
Before discussing some helpful guiding principles for preaching biblical poetry, I think it
will be helpful to consider an overarching question related to the study of the Old Testament:
How do Christians interpret and apply the Old Testament? Sadly, most Old Testament
commentaries do not help Christians contextualize and contemporize the Old Testament—
the one obvious exception is the NIV Application Commentary series. Broadly speaking, most,
if not all, critical Old Testament commentaries emphasize historical-critical methodologies,
which help readers understand and grasp the contextual and linguistic elements of Old
Testament books. This critical approach to the books of the Old Testament is sometimes a
detriment of the biblical books’ theological richness. Yet, pastoral commentaries are equally
culpable for overlooking and/or obscuring the intricacies and theological maxims of the Old
Testament. Thus, pastors, many times, are forced to use New Testament commentaries as a
reference point for understanding and preaching the themes from the “Old Covenant” (i.e.,
the First Testament).
Returning to my initial question (“How do Christians interpret and apply the Old
Testament?), the manner in which we answer this question will have direct implications
on preaching the Old Testament, including biblical poetry. Most pastors will answer the
aforementioned question with one of two methodological approaches—a redemptivehistorical
Christocentric approach or a Christotelic approach. The redemptive-historical
Christocentric approach examines first the New Testament, then explores the Old Testament
to discover places where Christ—and other New Testament motifs—may be found. This
approach is seen as being viable and valuable for its insistence that at the center of the Old
Testament is Christ himself (e.g., Christophanies, allegorical interpretations, and typological
analysis). The redemptive-historical Christocentric approach recognizes the importance of
Christ as the culmination of God’s redemptive work for humanity.
Naturally, advocates of the redemptive-historical Christocentric approach have
received criticism from Old Testament scholars. Opponents of the redemptive-historical
Christocentric approach argue the approach can hinder interpreters/preachers from
studying and grasping the depths of the Old Testament’s revelation. 82 Closely related to this
first critique, the redemptive-historical Christocentric approach dismisses the historical
context of the Old Testament text in favor of Christological connections and implications.
In other words, the redemptive-historical Christocentric approach can lead interpreters/
preachers to undermine the authority of the Old Testament message. Old Testament
scholar John Goldingay emphasizes the importance of letting the First Testament speak for
itself: “All Scripture has an inspired first meaning, its meaning as a communication between
God and people in a particular historical context, to which we can have access by the usual
82
See Elizabeth Achtemeier, review of Preaching Christ from the Old Testament in Interpretation 54
(2000): 218. James Barr made a similar argument 50 years ago: “Our decision against a ‘Christological’
kind of interpretation here is not primarily founded on historical-critical method, though this is not
without importance. Theologically, it rests upon the fact that, though the God of the Old Testament
is the Father of our Lord, the Old Testament is the time in which our Lord is not yet come. It is at
the time in which he is not yet come that we ought to understand it.” See James Barr, Old and New in
Interpretation: A Study of the Two Testament (London: S.C.M. Press, 1966), 152.