Luke 24:27, and 44: Every Verse In The Bible Is Not About Christ
A supposed “proof text” used by Sonship / GS proponents is Luke 24:27 and 24:44: “And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.” And, “He said to them, ‘This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms’” (verse 44).
Supposedly, these verses demonstrate that all of Scripture is about Christ. Let me be clear; if someone wants to say that every verse in the Bible is about what Christ says / commands / teaches / demonstrates, I agree wholeheartedly, but that’s not what GS proponents are saying. They are saying, with an ever-so slight twist and a wink, that all of Scripture is about Christ as a “person.” Instead of focusing on what Christ says, the goal now is to discover who He is personally so you can have an “intimate” relationship with Him. Nobody knows what that means exactly—it just sounds spiritual. Certainly, it sounds more spiritual than living by “a bunch of rules and a list of do’s and don’ts.” Bingo, you have gone from the objective to the subjective; now you can teach anything you want to teach. And trust me, they do. We are not yet trying to ascertain from Scripture what Jesus’ favorite color is, or His favorite food, but give it time—maybe till the next Francis Chan book.
However, to begin with, Christ wasn’t even saying that all Scripture concerns Him. The totality of Scripture available at that time was the Old Testament, and had three divisions: the law, the prophets, writings (which included the Psalms). Most historians think that this is how the OT was divided at that time (actually, the evidence is pretty solid). The order was later changed in the Septuagint (LXX). So in Luke 24:44, why did Jesus only mention the Psalms in the writings part / division? Normally, when Jesus spoke of the OT as a whole, he used the term, “Law and the Prophets” (Matthew 5:17) or just “Law” (Matthew 5:18). A good explanation can be found in “The Infallible Word” written by the Westminster Theological Seminary faculty in 1946 (when their faculty had their right minds).
In the book, Edward Young attributes Luke 24:44 to the idea that Christ was speaking only of those scriptures that He prophetically and historically fulfilled, not the Sonship / GS idea that all Scripture is Christocentric. Here is what he said on page 61:
“What, however is meant by Christ’s use of the word ‘psalms’? Did he thereby intend to refer to all the books in the third division of the canon, or did he merely have in mind the book of Psalms itself? The latter alternative, we think, is probably correct. Christ singled out the book of Psalms, it would appear, not so much because it was the best known and most influential book of the third division, but rather because in the Psalms there were many predictions about himself. This was the Christological book, par excellence, of the third division of the Old Testament canon.
Most of the books of this third division do not contain direct messianic prophesies. Hence, if Christ had used a technical designation to indicate this third division, he would probably have weakened his argument to a certain extent. But by the reference to the Psalms he directs the minds of his hearers immediately to that particular book in which occur the greater number of references to himself.”
In the estimation of the Westminster faculty during that time, the whole Bible isn’t a “Christological book, par excellence” as it is more than fair to say of the GS mantra, but only the Psalms, which is a “particular” book having a “greater number of references” to himself [Christ]. “Greater number” of…, obviously implies that their view wasn’t in alignment with a comprehensive soteriology, but rather the latter being among other revelations of God’s will and character, although a major theme.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
Oustanding, Paul. I agree with you. I’ve had GS folks put this Luke passage in front of me with a “see!” expression, and I’ve been underwhelmed. Really? This one passage says every single verse in all 66 books is about Christ? Baloney.
It shocks me how much one misses once they sacrifice common sense at the alter of a mystical hermeneutic.
LikeLike
Paul,
it’s all about getting control, as you mentioned in another article. They are taking control of Bible interpretation. Following commoners will then be dependent on leadership because the common sense langauge of the Bible can mislead. It’s also about destroying the opposition outside the movement too. The word “apostate” is thrown out all to often. Although sometimes there is some truth to it. They claim people turn faith into works and the result is Christless Salvation grounded on works and merit. They complain that Evangelicals have altered Salvation doctrine over the years. Rome at least has been consistent in this error since the Reformation.
Well, let’s check with the consistently erroring one -Rome. Going online, let’s verify with Pope Benedict 16 and the Catachism of the Catholic Church (1994) to get a Catholic world veiw of Soteriology.
Here is Salvation Grounded on Works:
CCC 1998 GRACE: “This vocation to eternal life is supernatural. It depends entirely on God’s gratuitous initiative, for he alone can reveal and give himself. It surpasses the power of human intellect and will, as that of every other creature.”
Here is Salvation Grounded on Merit:
CCC 2025 “We can have merit in God’s sight only because of God’s free plan to associate man with the work of his grace. Merit is to be ascribed in the first place to the grace of God, and secondly to man’s collaboration. Man’s merit is due to God.”
Now, do I not have my Christocentric glasses on, or what? Where is the Gospel GROUNDED on works and merit? Ha! I think there have been exaggerations in the apostate claims….. on both sides! Whatever it takes to get attention to themselves.
Bottom line is this: the GS/Sonship Christian world veiw is being confirmed, more and more, as contrary to the WHOLE TENOR OF SCRIPTURE. They are getting more possessive about their own people and more hostile toward outsiders.
Arkansas Bill
LikeLike
Bill, Unfortunately, a lot of what your saying is true. If your in a GS church (the Sonship crowd seems to be a little tamer), and you want to leave because of doctrine–you better keep your mouth shut and leave quietly.I have more information about that than I want to know. paul
> —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike
In fact, there is one church that I know of where visiting this blog will get you brought up on church discipline if they find out. paul
> —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike
In my situation, the first indication of the Pastor’s conversion to Sonship were the unfriendly comments about other churches. Unusual for him, he had been very meek and mild, even got married down the street in the Baptist church. But suddenly, every other Church was guilty of Works Salvation! Merit mongers! At the top of the list was THE APOSTATE of them all, the church at Rome. When all became apparent about Sonship, I showed opposition. The Pastor became distant and alarmed. He eventually got other elders and deacons in office agreeing with him. At one elders meeting the Pastor singled me out. I was told that the church is now Sonship and not going back. I needed to be on-board with Sonship. Well, they all knew I was separate. A pain-in-the-neck at Sunday school. Possibly, by then perceived as dangerous. I turned in my resignation.
Others had agreed with me, including two other elders, but we were outnumbered. One other elder left soon after I did. We had some great Bible studies in the back of Luby’s Cafeteria in following weeks. Teary eyed, we knew our church had been robbed from us. Later encounters in town with church leadership were rather cold. Ya know, I kinda felt like they viewed me as some kind of heretic, but I really can’t say. All I know is this: I am alien to their concept of Sonship. Ha!
Arkansas Bill
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Paul's Passing Thoughts.
LikeLike