A couple of weeks ago we were blessed to have a young man
visiting our pulpit, apparently some sort of aspiring preacher. Clearly excited
about the Scriptures it was truly an encouragement to see someone from the Millennial
generation that appeared to be serious and sober. We've had other preachers of
that generation visit and apart from a strange pulpit manner, an odd cadence
and even some maturity issues, the messages were a bit disappointing. This
young man was refreshing.
That said, there were some issues that came out during his
sermon and I took the opportunity to discuss them with my own family, and I
thought they warranted further comment. Focusing on Habakkuk chapter 3, the
preacher honed in on the prophet's humbling and the fact that he had questioned
God as to what He was doing. Clearly the prophet expressed dismay with regard
to the rise of the Chaldeans. Habakkuk was reminded of God's previous works
with regard to Israel and the Exodus. This was expressed in the Psalm-like
prayer we call chapter 3.
While this is certainly true and a valid reading of the
passage, the focus of the sermon remained on the Old Testament and the analogy
of Israel and the Exodus. It was a decent sermon but then took a bad turn in
terms of application. Suddenly we were talking about America, and being urged
(in a somewhat confused manner) to recall God's works both in the history of
the United States and with regard to the Exodus and his provision for the
Israelites.
A disappointing end to be sure but I was still blessed by the
young man's zeal. On the ride home we talked about the sermon and I pointed out
that the greatest flaw in his reading of Habakkuk was his failure to understand
it Christocentrically. A lack of Redemptive-Historical awareness and
hermeneutical method means that he read the passage without New Testament eyes.
I suppose there are some, even some Evangelicals that find
such a notion to be controversial. Shouldn't we read it in situ, understanding the passage as it was meant to be delivered at that time? We can certainly address the message as it came to the ear of
those in the Old Covenant, but as Christians it is critical that our reading
and understanding be guided and shaped by the Christ focused and dominant New
Testament. Christ is everywhere in the Old to be sure but it's only through the
New Testament that we are able to truly understand this reality, let alone
grasp something of just how pervasive Christ is in the Old and the profundity
that His overshadowing presence and focus generates.
Using what has been rightly called Prophetic Perspective,
Habakkuk doesn't just find comfort in reviewing Israel's history vis-à-vis the
Chaldean menace and crisis. Rather he is granted an eschatological vision, one
that conflates both the imagery of the Exodus with the Parousia of the Messiah,
the True Moses and deliverer. Of course the Parousia is usually somewhat veiled
in the Old Testament, caught in a visionary and often symbolic miasma of
immediate context, imminent typological fulfillment, and finally ultimate fulfillment
in Christ. This is further complicated by the delay (or two part division)
between the Resurrection-Ascension and the Final Judgment-Consummation. Separate
events in terms of chronology, in terms of prophecy (and even in a sense
eschatology) they are both aspects of Christ's singular epiphanic revelation,
His very Parousia. The Coming of Christ is presented as a single event, both
the centerpiece and end of history.
Habakkuk is seeing a vision that finds its fulfillment in
Christ but because he's in the Old Testament epoch the vision is revealed in
idiomatic terms appropriate to his own sensibilities and that of his audience.
This is not to understand the context in the sense of the prophets being mere
men utilising the communicative style and iconography of their period. Rather
the vision is granted by God, by the work of the Holy Spirit and the words of
the prophet are (as the New Testament tells us), God-breathed. The Holy Spirit
is speaking to the context and at the same time revealing a great deal more.
But in the New Testament we are able to understand that
Christ was and is the fulfillment of all promises. They were about Him and
confirmed by Him. And thus the typology of Moses and the Exodus are appropriate
because they too point to Christ. In fact Christ is Israel (and the fulfillment
of typological Israel) and its particularly interesting how Habakkuk, speaking
of Jehovah but also in the voice and imagery of Christ refers to Israel's
exploits as deeds done by God Himself... and yet clearly the described events
point to something far beyond the mere Exodus led by Moses. This is hardly
surprising for the New Testament reveals that Jehovah (and often the angel or
messenger of Jehovah) is none other than Jesus Christ who is the very
image-icon of God.
And thus the imagery in Habakkuk can on the one hand utilise
Mosaic concepts and symbols but at the same time point to something
eschatological, something transcendent.... namely Christ and His Eternal
Kingdom. This is how almost all Old Testament prophecy works. Supernatural and
Spirit-wrought, to render it in wooden and strictly literalistic terms is to impoverish
its bounteous glories and blessed doctrines and it is to strip it of its multi-faceted
and yet Christ focused wonder and ability to comfort. The aforementioned
preacher has not (best I can tell) succumbed to the hyper-literalistic
hermeneutic of Scofieldite eschatology. However, a mere grammatico-historical hermeneutic
is also found wanting and incapable of putting the text into its proper focus, nor
is it able to experience the rich harvest to be found in understanding the
prophets and their prophecies in light of Christ and the eschaton.
A Christocentric reading of Habakkuk allows the true meaning
of the text to come out. The New Testament confirms the Christ-centered nature
of redemptive history and Old Testament prophecy and thus because of this it (even
as an Old Testament prophecy) is fully applicable to the era of the Christ
mediated New Covenant. In fact it applies to an even greater extent to our
time, the era in which the holy people of God are rooted not in a union with a typological
figure like Moses, but rather experience both in outward form and substance the
anti-typal pleroma of the ancient promises through their corporeal union with
Christ Himself. The promises of the Old Testament are fulfilled in the New. The
symbols and lessons, the didactic episodes of God's mighty hand at work are
more pertinent and applicable to this era than they were even in the Old
Testament at the time of their occurring.
Were the works of God surrounding Moses and the Exodus a
wonder? They were indeed. But how much more the real Moses and the real Exodus?
How much more the real sundering of the waters, the real deluge and the real breaking
of the Pharaonic Leviathan? The Hebrew
Exodus was but a type of the True Exodus led by One greater than Moses.
We do well to frequently revisit and ponder this reality by
considering passages like the aforementioned 2 Corinthians 1.20 and passages
like 1 Corinthians 10, 1 Peter 1.10-12, 2 Peter 1.19-21 and of course 2 Timothy
3.16-17. The Old Testament while an obsolete canon (as per the testimony of the
Apostles) is still a powerful testimony to the New Covenant and its Lordly
Risen Mediator.
Additionally a non redemptive-historical reading quickly
falls prey to both moralism and misapplication. Habakkuk is not speaking to
America or nations which possess a veneer of Christianisation (itself a false
concept). Such readings de-contextualise the prophecy and remove it from its
covenantal framework. If there is a New Covenant era analogy it belongs to Christ's
Body, the Holy Church and it is when the prophecies are applied to that context
that suddenly we understand that even the Church age is one of remnants and
apostasies, and the Church is called not to appropriate the nations (and redefine
the Kingdom and Gospel in order to do so) but to make disciples from them and humbly
and even submissively bear witness against them and their evil deeds. And this
is no less true when it comes to a nation like the United States. And its
condemnation, (as the preacher clearly missed) is not something of recent vintage
but stems from its very inception. Born of blood, rebellion and rooted in
philosophical and epistemic rejections of the Authority of Christ and His inscripturated
Word, the avaricious and militant United States is (via Habakkukian analogy)
not Israel in any sense but instead finds its analog in bestial Chaldea.
The implications of this mis-step cannot be overstated.