Recently, Westminster Theological Seminary had to force teaching staff Doug Green to "retire" early due to controversy regarding interpretation of the Bible, particularly in the O.T.
The tools of hermeneutics in question are christotelic and christocentric. Green distinguished the two and supported christotelic over the other, especially in the OT. The risk of such view: it encourages the dispensationalism pertaining to a distinction between the house of Israel and the Church, something where a lot of Messianic Jews are mistaken.
Christotelic hermeneutics is the study of scripture, primarily the Old Testament, from the view point of the advent of Christ. Christotelic comes from: Christ, teleologically (goal, purpose, oriented). One could obviously relate to this when dealing with OT prophesies concerning the NT.
Christocentric hermeneutics view everything in scripture, even the Old Testament, as the concept and worship of the Son of God being present since the beginning. Christophany in the OT could easily justify this. In John 8, Jesus practically said that Abraham was a Christocentric worship, but the Jews were so into the distinction of their Mosiach-telic view that they had to kill Jesus for making such claim.
In conclusion, the controversy could have rooted from the emphasis of the authors vs. Author of the Book. Too much studying from the view points of the authors would direct one towards the progressive (Christotelic -> Christocentric) view. I see there is no need to worry about too much emphasis on The Author's view, since He is the ultimate author. The latter is preferred. For example: I noticed some seminary graduate sided with the Jews (or even Muslims) on the interpretation of "Us" in Genesis 1. Too much emphasis on the OT authors' point of view would persuade one to interpret the "Us" in the context of majestic plural (pluralis majestatis). This is why it is hard for the Jews or Muslims to accept the concept of Trinity. However, since the "Us" is spoken by God (Elohim) Himself, we must seek the meaning from the view point of God and not of Moses. In fact, even if we were to attempt to prioritize the OT author(s)' view in this case, we cannot hastily conclude that Moses understood the "Us" as majestic plural, instead of humbly taking the meaning as a mystery for due time. Therefore, though some Church Fathers could stomach the conversion from majestic plural to trinity, this faulty interpretation has become a stumbling block for too many. "Mystery->Trinity" is better than "majestic plural->Trinity", not the mention that "majestic plural" is rather materialistic instead of spiritual. We must prioritize God's view over the presumed authors' view in cases such as this.
The best summary from the linked article above is this:
There can be no objection to “Christotelic” in itself. But Scripture is Christotelic just because it is Christocentric. It is Christotelic only as it is Christocentric, and as it is that in every part, the Old Testament included. Or, as we may, in fact must put the issue here in its most ultimate consideration, Christ is the mediatorial Lord and Savior of redemptive history not only at its end but also from beginning to end. He is not only its omega but also its alpha, and he is and can be its omega only as he is its alpha.
-Richard Gaffin
A quick and short summary of the meanings of Christotelic and Christocentric:
http://files.wts.edu/uploads/images/files/News/Christocentric/BriefSummary.pdf
by Jeffrey Jue of WTS.
Basically, it has to do with who's the ultimate author in OT/NT? God or man.
In his "How to Read Old Testament Narratives: The Book of Genesis as a Case Study", Douglas Green's method of "first Read" is intentionally looking down on anyone's power of understanding. Just because he realized something new from the same source after a "second read", doesn't mean others wouldn't have gotten it the first time. So, his approach is actually condescending to human intelligent.
In The Lord is Christ's Shepherd: Psalm 23 as Messianic Prophecy, Green introduced his christotelic method by stating how Psa 23:4-5 shows the death and resurrection of Christ at the end, but was initially not so. He attempted to avoid any discrepancy by using "do not directly predict these specific events", but his motive was clear. As he footnoted the line that in Psalm 16, the original, compositional context speaks "merely" of protection from dying, while Peter read it as a prophecy of Messiah's rescue out of death, resurrection, in Acts 2:25-31. Again, Green despised David's understanding of a Christocentric view of God simply because its out of Green's grasp. I shall mention lastly, that because of Green's alternate view, he was stumbled at the understanding of something as simple as לארך ימים׃, the last words of Psa 23:6 = FOREVER. He had to take the literal meaning of those words to be "lengthening of days". He missed the intended meaning as Psalm 93:5 has illustrated, therefore, for him, such phrase does not associate with eternity.
Green has forgotten who is the real author in David's psalms and the fellowship David had with the Holy Spirit.
Ultimately it is one of those sayings to everyone, and particularly to the ancients in this case: If you didn't know, it's okay, it's not your fault (1st & 2nd readings towards Christotelic). But don't think for a second that that meant that you were not responsible to seek it out (the ultimate will of God for mankind). Hence, Christocentric. The tendency of justifying a kind of non-responsibility to what you do not "yet" know, is in a general principle, irresponsible and cold. Unless, there was a taboo against those who sought after His Kingdom and His righteousness, it is not possible that the old testament saints did not live in a christocentric manner as well as christotelic. This is why David was able to write so many christocentric/messianic psalms. By not following Green's method, one could appreciate the grace of God upon king David's life more.
What I posted on FB:
Regarding Christotelic & Christocentric:
If you believe the Gospel is in the OT, then you are Christotelic.
If you believe the saints of the OT were serving Christ, then you are both Christotelic & Christocentric.
If you are Christotelic but not Christocentric, or neither, then your Christian faith has problem.
#############
Technical Definition not on FB:
Christotelic: Without the guidance of NT, one cannot see the relationship of the OT with the Gospel. Which is where the "2nd reading" comes in, after reading both OT & NT, when one sees the bigger picture in OT.
Christocentric: Everyone (Christians on both sides) acknowledges that the Holy Spirit is the author of the Bible. But the Christotelic-only believers are more prone to disregard any understanding of Christology in the OT writers.
"To miss Jesus in the Old Testament is to misunderstand Jesus in the New Testament." - David Garner
I didn't realized there was so much controversy tracing Christ in the OT; I thought that many of my brothers and sisters in Christ would stand corrected, but apparently not. Nevertheless, I'm thankful for the art hermeneutics and exegeses. Christo-centric preaching is when Christ is at the center of the Old and New Testament with a dash of Christotilic preaching because Christ is not in every word of the bible, however, He is the word, because in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was (God John 1). Finally, the OT portrays some characters as type of Christ looking to the future for the Prototype .
Some have thought such debate are irrelevant in real life. However, controversies today such as that of Larycia Hawkins, are examples of such debate, when she claimed Muslims worship the same God as Christians do.
In her defense, she stated: I respectfully want to ask such Bible believers what they make of Abraham (who is held up as a paradigm of faith in the New Testament) and the list of Old Testament saints (who are held up as paradigms of faith to Christians in Hebrews 11), precisely none of whom can be seriously understood as holding trinitarian views and some proleptic vision of the identity and career of Jesus Christ.”
It is quite clear, in my opinion, that Hawkins rejects a christocentric OT.
Though I will not explore the issue of "Do Muslims and Christians worship the same God" here, I would give my brief response: That Abraham and the Old Testament Saints were prepared to hold trinitarian view, because they were prepared by the Holy Spirit. It is more questionable to presume with our confined rationality that these old saints were incapable of mysterious achievements.
Therefore, to say that "they cannot be seriously understood as holding trinitarian view..." is inaccurate, for they had mysteriously lived a trinitarian lifestyle on Earth. How else could David call his son, his Lord? Does the Spirit move a saint without reason as demon possessions do? Nay, though David was before Jesus' incarnation, he was taught by the Spirit to live in anticipation of it. David's life was christ-centered, well prepared for a trinitarian view.
""Mystery->Trinity" is better than "majestic plural->Trinity", not the mention that "majestic plural" is rather materialistic instead of spiritual. We must prioritize God's view over the presumed authors' view in cases such as this."
Sounds Gnostic, where the only thing real is spirit.
The progression in scripture is spirit to material, not material to spirit. God creating, the Son becoming man, and so forth.