Beyond Seeing Jesus Everywhere: A Case for Christo-telic Hermeneutics

I saw a slide recently in a presentation about biblical application. The title read: "The Gospel of Jesus in Every Passage." The argument that followed was familiar to—that all of Scripture is about Jesus, specifically they have in mind the Old Testament. This approach was presented as the height of Christ-centred biblical interpretation.

But I wonder if we can do better.

While I appreciate the desire to preach Christ from all of Scripture, I think there's a more faithful way to read the Bible that honours both the text itself and the centrality of Christ. Instead of a Christo-centric hermeneutic that finds Jesus everywhere, I want to propose a Christo-telic hermeneutic that recognises how all Scripture finds its ultimate goal and fulfilment in Christ.

Edit: Credit where it's due: the term Christo-telic comes from Dr Andrew Reid, former Lecturer in Old Testament, Hebrew and Hermeneutics at Ridley College. I first encountered it in his hermeneutics course during my undergraduate studies and have been putting it to good use ever since.

The difference matters more than you might think.

The Emmaus Road Text

The go-to passage for those who argue for a Chisto-centric reading of Old Testament (that its all about Jesus) comes from from Luke's account of the risen Christ walking with two disciples, Cleopas and an unnamed companion, on the road to Emmaus:

And [Jesus] said to them, "O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?" And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.
— Luke 24:25–27

The crucial phrase for this debate is Luke's explanatory comment: "[Jesus] interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself." This statement, advocates argue, warrants the view that Jesus saw the Old Testament as being about himself—that "all the Scriptures" are "things concerning himself."

Setting aside questions about whether "all the Scriptures" here refers to the entire collection of writings Christians call the Old Testament—it may refer specifically to "Moses and all the Prophets" (the Pentateuch and the Nevi'im), there are significant interpretive challenges to this argument.

To understand Luke's comment and Jesus's teaching here, it's vital that we correctly assess the relationship between the two key phrases: "all the Scriptures" and "things concerning himself."

Two Ways to Read the Text

Viewed in isolation, verse 27 presents two possible relationships between these clauses:

1. The Demonstrative Reading: In all the Scriptures, Jesus showed that they are "the things concerning himself." Every passage is, in some way, Christological, such that "all the Scriptures" are about Jesus. This reading supports a whole-Bible Christo-centric hermeneutic.

2. The Selective Reading: In all the Scriptures, Jesus selected and explained those things which concerned himself. Not every passage is directly about Jesus; rather, from the Scriptures as a whole, Jesus provided the disciples with a guided tour of where Old Testament typologies and prophecies find their fulfilment or telos in him. This supports a Christo-telic hermeneutic where not every verse is about Jesus, but God's promises find their fulfilment in Jesus.

But we don't have to wonder about which reading provides the clearest meaning because, like many challenges in biblical scholarship, context provides the intended meaning.

Context Clarifies Everything

In verse 26, Jesus strongly reprimands the two disciples. What error have they made to warrant such correction? They have failed to "believe all that the prophets have spoken." What have the prophets spoken that the disciples failed to believe? That it was "necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory."

This immediate context provides the additional material needed to correctly understand the relationship between the two clauses. The disciples' failure to locate and believe what "all the prophets" foretold about the Christ's suffering and glory places their future mission in jeopardy—how can they communicate the whole gospel to the whole world if they don't understand how Christ's death and resurrection fulfil the prophetic promises?

Jesus intervenes with this guided Bible study, and soon he will open their eyes and enable them to believe with the breaking of bread (see Luke 24:30–35).

The Emmaus road conversation isn't about a hermeneutical method for finding Jesus in every verse. It's about showing the disciples how the grand storyline of prophetic promise reaches its climax in Christ's suffering and glory.

The Advantage of Christo-telic Reading

Another benefit of the Christo-telic hermeneutic is that it can be applied to all of Scripture. Clearly, not all Old Testament prophecies have reached their fulfilment—the lion doesn't yet lie down with the lamb, swords haven't been turned into ploughshares. Nor have all New Testament prophecies found their fulfilment—we still see tears and death. But these promises will all find their fulfilment through Jesus at the consummation of all things.

This approach maintains Christ's centrality without hermeneutical gymnastics. It recognises that the entire biblical narrative moves towards Christ and finds its resolution in him, even when individual passages aren't directly predictive of specific details about Jesus's life and ministry.

When Good Intentions Go Too Far: Assessing Keller's Approach

One of the most popular examples of Christo-centric interpretation comes from the late Tim Keller (1950–2023). Edmund Clowney's "Preaching Christ in All of Scripture" represents another significant example of this perspective. Keller and Clowney collaborated on a Doctor of Ministry course, "Preaching Christ in a Postmodern World," which taught preachers to focus sermons on Christ rather than mere moral lessons or emotional responses.

Keller helpfully moved Old Testament preaching and teaching away from what Tim Mackie of BibleProject.com calls "Old Testament Coping Strategies"—ways that people often misread the meaning of the Old Testament as Christian Scripture. These strategies include the Hero-Example model (be like David!), the Theology-Answer-Book model (Noah's ark and post-Christian culture), and the Inspiration-Heart-Warming model (how does this encourage us?).

While Keller's corrective was necessary and his desire to preach Christ from the Old Testament was admirable, his attempt to locate Jesus in every passage often lacks hermeneutical warrant.

Testing Keller's Claims

In a short video clip that is representative of Keller's method, he expounds a series of claims in the form of "Jesus is the true and better..." His phrasing clearly borrows from the Letter to the Hebrews, which does indeed present Christ as superior to Old Testament figures and institutions.

A Side Note on Hebrews: One of the more challenging aspects of biblical scholarship is how the Letter to the Hebrews makes use of Old Testament passages, motifs, and meanings. Whatever we may say about the author's method and intentions, we can affirm that Hebrews makes a vital contribution to New Testament theology. Its recognition by the early church as authoritative warrants us to consider its content carefully. It remains a treasury for those who take all of Scripture as the very words of God delivered through human authors.

But not every connection Keller makes has the same level of New Testament support. I want to assess his claims using a simple confidence scale:

• High: A claim draws from explicit New Testament references
• Neutral: A claim draws from possible references in the New Testament
• Low: A claim draws from no supporting references in the New Testament

The Assessment

Jesus is the true and better Adam

• Claim: Passed the test in the garden; his obedience is imputed to us
• New Testament support: Romans 5:12–21; 1 Corinthians 15:21–22, 45–49 (Jesus as the "last Adam" whose obedience brings life)
• Confidence level: High

Jesus is the true and better Abel

• Claim: Innocently slain, but his blood cries out for acquittal, not condemnation
• New Testament support: Hebrews 12:24 (Jesus's blood speaks a better word than Abel's)
• Confidence level: High

Jesus is the true and better Abraham

• Claim: Answered the call, left the familiar to create a new people of God
• New Testament support: Multiple passages link Abraham and Jesus (John 8:56—Abraham rejoiced to see Christ's day; Galatians 3:7–9, 16—the promises to Abraham fulfilled in Christ), but none link the Incarnation with Abraham's sojourning
• Confidence level: Low

Jesus is the true and better Isaac

• Claim: Truly sacrificed by his Father, proving God's love
• New Testament support: Romans 8:32 (God did not spare his own Son); Hebrews 11:17–19 (Isaac's near-sacrifice as a type)
• Confidence level: High

Jesus is the true and better Jacob

• Claim: Wrestled and took the blow of justice so we only receive wounds of grace
• New Testament support: The New Testament does not explicitly tie Jesus to Jacob's wrestling (John 1:51 cf. Genesis 28:12 offers a possible but different connection)
• Confidence level: Low

Jesus is the true and better Joseph

• Claim: At the right hand of the king, forgives betrayers, uses power to save them
• New Testament support: Acts 7:9–14 includes Joseph's betrayal/deliverance as part of salvation history; echoes in Genesis 50:20 align typologically with Christ, but the connection remains implicit
• Confidence level: Neutral

Jesus is the true and better Moses

• Claim: Mediates a new covenant, stands in the gap for the people
• New Testament support: Hebrews 3:1–6 (Jesus greater than Moses); John 1:17; Acts 3:22–23 (Jesus the prophet like Moses)
• Confidence level: High

Jesus is the true and better Rock of Moses

• Claim: Struck with God's rod of justice to give life-giving water
• New Testament support: 1 Corinthians 10:3–4 ("the Rock was Christ")
• Confidence level: High

Jesus is the true and better Job

• Claim: Innocent sufferer who intercedes for foolish friends
• New Testament support: While parallels exist (suffering, intercession), no New Testament passage explicitly connects Jesus to Job
• Confidence level: Low

Jesus is the true and better David

• Claim: His victory becomes ours, though we did nothing
• New Testament support: Luke 1:32–33 (Jesus inherits David's throne); Acts 13:22–23; Hebrews 1:5–13 (Messiah as Davidic king); 1 Corinthians 15:57 (victory credited to believers)
• Confidence level: High

Jesus is the true and better Esther

• Claim: Gave up the ultimate palace and his life to save his people
• New Testament support: No direct New Testament connection to Esther. The pattern is typological, not explicit
• Confidence level: Low

Jesus is the true and better Jonah

• Claim: Cast into the storm so we could be saved
• New Testament support: Matthew 12:40–41 connects Jesus's time in the tomb with Jonah's period in the fish; Luke 11:29–32 presents Jesus as greater than Jonah
• Confidence level: Neutral

Jesus as the true fulfillment of Israel's motifs

• Claim: True Rock, Passover Lamb, Temple, Prophet, Priest, King, Sacrifice, Light, Bread
• New Testament support: Extensive—1 Corinthians 10:3–4 (Rock); 1 Corinthians 5:7, John 1:29 (Passover Lamb); John 2:19–21 (Temple); Acts 3:22–23 (Prophet); Hebrews 4:14–16, 7:23–28 (Priest); Matthew 27:11, Revelation 19:16 (King); Hebrews 9:26, 10:12 (Sacrifice); John 8:12 (Light); John 6:35, 51 (Bread)
• Confidence level: High

The Pattern Emerges

The pattern is revealing. When Keller connects Jesus to Old Testament figures that the New Testament explicitly develops—Adam, David, Moses, the sacrificial system—his connections are strong and warranted. But when he extends the pattern to figures like Jacob, Job, or Esther, the New Testament offers little to no support.

This doesn't make Keller a poor interpreter, but it does suggest the limitations of a Christo-centric approach that feels compelled to find Jesus in every passage.

The Problem of Unauthorised Analogies

This raises a deeper question about analogical reading that deserves careful consideration. This approach draws comparisons between Old Testament figures or events and Jesus based on perceived similarities rather than explicit New Testament connections. We can rely with confidence on the New Testament's use of the Old Testament as inspired Scripture given by God. The biblical authors, writing under the Spirit's guidance, make connections between Old Testament figures and Christ that we should embrace and celebrate.

But what about analogical approaches not found in Scripture itself? When we encounter claims like "Jesus is the true and better Jacob" or "Jesus is the true and better Esther"—connections the New Testament doesn't make—what gives them any special merit in understanding Jesus?

I would argue they have no greater merit than comparing Jesus analogically to a chair, a football team, or a long summer's day.

These analogical interpretations may sound like biblically sound exposition, but they're not exposition at all—they're non-biblical pictures. They might be helpful in some contexts, but they're not exegetically reliable or relevant to the Old Testament texts they seek to connect to Jesus. Moreover, they may mislead others into seeing them as God's intended meaning in a given passage and therefore authoritative, rather than contemporary creative explanations. Helpful, perhaps—authoritative, definitely not.

This distinction matters because it affects how we handle Scripture. When Paul tells us that "the Rock was Christ" (1 Corinthians 10:4), we're on solid ground—that's biblical interpretation. When we imagine our own "Jesus is the true and better..." formulations without New Testament warrant, we've moved from exegesis to creative analogy. There's nothing inherently wrong with analogy, but we should be clear before others about what we are doing. We should not confuse it with biblical interpretation.

The Trinitarian Concern

There's another theological issue lurking beneath Christo-centric hermeneutics that deserves attention: the risk of blurring the distinct persons and works of the Trinity.

When we read every divine action in the Old Testament as essentially a presentation of Jesus, we may inadvertently undermine the distinct personhood and dignity of each member of the Godhead.

The Father who creates, the Spirit who hovers over the waters, the Word through whom all things were made—these aren't just different appearances of Jesus, but distinct persons within the Trinity working in perfect unity towards redemption. When we collapse every divine action into a Christ-appearance, we risk obscuring the beautiful complexity of how the triune God works throughout salvation history.

This doesn't mean the Son wasn't active in Old Testament history—John's Gospel clearly teaches that the Word was with God in the beginning and that all things were made through him (John 1:1–3). But recognising the Son's eternal activity is different from claiming that every Old Testament narrative is secretly about Jesus. We can affirm the eternal Son's involvement in creation and redemption without flattening the distinct roles each person of the Trinity plays in the drama of salvation.

The Retreat from Strong Claims

Here's something I've noticed in conversations about this topic: people who initially embrace statements like "The Gospel of Jesus in Every Passage" often begin to hedge when pressed on the details. "Well, of course he's not in every passage..." they'll say, backing away from the very claim they were defending moments before.

This retreat reveals something important: even advocates of Christo-centric readings don't consistently hold to their own teaching. The inconsistency should give us pause. If those who promote this hermeneutic don't actually believe Jesus appears in every single verse, why present it that way?

This points to a deeper responsibility for those of us who teach, preach, and lead Bible studies. Words matter—and since divine literature is wholly made of words, they matter especially when we're handling Scripture. When we present teaching material in a classroom, Bible study, or from the pulpit, we have a responsibility to pay closer attention to how these words will be understood.

We can't simply arrange words and expect that others will know what we really "mean." We're called to communicate with clarity, honesty, and conviction, especially when our words convey theology and attempt to bring clarity and confidence about the Scriptures to the body of Christ.

We're all imperfect, and words sometimes fail us. But this doesn't mean we can't learn, reflect, and improve when we get things wrong. In fact, it means we should be more careful, not less, about the theological claims we make and how we present them.

A More Patient Way of Reading

What if we don't need to see Jesus everywhere to maintain his centrality? What if the biblical story is rich enough, complex enough, and beautiful enough that it doesn't need our hermeneutical creativity to prove Christ's importance?

A Christo-telic approach offers this kind of patience. It recognises that the genealogies in Chronicles aren't "about Jesus" in any direct sense, but they preserve the Davidic line through which the Messiah comes. The wisdom literature doesn't predict Christ, but it explores how God's people should live in creation—a question fully answered in the life of Jesus. The laments in the Psalms don't all need to be secretly about Jesus—they can be real prayers expressing the human heart's cry to God while also preparing us to recognise the one who prays them perfectly.

This approach respects the text's original meaning while maintaining the grand narrative that reaches its climax in Christ. It honours the New Testament's actual use of the Old Testament rather than inventing connections the biblical authors themselves don't make. And it works for the entire biblical storyline, including unfulfilled prophecies that await their completion in Christ's return.

Maybe what we need isn't more creativity in finding Jesus everywhere, but more trust that the story Scripture actually tells us is more beautiful and compelling than any story we might construct by reading between the lines. The real story of how God prepared the world for his Son and accomplished our redemption through him is better than any story we could invent.

Sometimes the best way to honour Christ's centrality is to let him be central—not by force, but by the weight of his own glory drawing all things to himself.

This piece grows out of my ongoing engagement with hermeneutical questions I've been wrestling with in my reading. If you're interested in these kinds of questions about how we read Scripture faithfully, I'd love to continue the conversation. You can reach me at bryanjhickey.com/booking.