My Journal

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