This is a review of Abraham Kuruvilla’s “Chisticonic View” in Hermeneutics and Homiletics: Four Views of Preaching. Kuruvilla brings some important corrections to the Christocentric view, but he agrees with the Christocentric on some points. This review will highlight these differences.
1. Kuruvilla’s view of the typology of Christ.
In reference to Genesis 22, where Abraham is commanded by God to sacrifice his son, Isaac, Kuruvilla states, accurately, that the typology of Jesus in the OT should not be found unless the type is clearly verified in the NT.
There is no textual reason here to move to a typological interpretation of the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ. Neither vocabulary nor New Testament allusion supports such an operation. In any case, later layering of significance, if any, does not change the meaning of the older text, its delicate nuances, intricate detail, and carefully negotiated turns, which result in an incisive textual thrust that powerfully impacts the lives of both ancient and modern. Otherwise, there is the “strong danger of ultimate superficiality” when the ancient text is not allowed to speak for itself and express its primary message (Moberly, Bible, Theology, and Faith, 140). For more on the details of Gen. 22 that substantiate such a reading, see Abraham Kuruvilla, Privilege the Text! A Theological Hermeneutic for Preaching (Chicago: Moody, 2013), 211–38.[1] Bryan Chapell quotes Kuruvilla: “Now Abraham so loved God that he gave his only begotten son” Then Chapell states that what Kuruvilla does with this passage contradicts Kuruvilla’s warning about extreme typology: “Kuruvilla borrows the words of John 3:16 to explain the purpose of the narrative, I think he is doing precisely the right thing. He is showing how there is a grace on display that will culminate in a greater work of grace being signaled by the canonical Author “[2].
2. Kuruvilla calls his version of the Christological hermeneutic the Christiconic View.
He writes: “Each pericope of the Bible is actually portraying a characteristic of Christ (a facet of Christ’s image), showing us what it means to perfectly fulfill, as he did, the particular call of that pericope.[3]
Dr. Kuruvilla calls his approach "a christiconic hermeneutic" where each "text inspired by the Holy Spirit (2 Pet. 1:21) depicts Jesus Christ, the Son."[4] This is basically a Christocentric hermeneutic. Lest we miss this point, he says clearly that “Scripture is Christological!”[5] The Christocentric hermeneutic is not the same as Text-Driven preaching based exclusively on the historical/grammatical hermeneutic. You can read more on the Text-Driven approach (just click the link). I think Kenneth Langley's rebuttal was the best: I think “pericopal theology” fits the bill nicely. Granted, the preacher must ask, What is the author doing in this text and what does God want to do in the sermon on this text? I also have reservations about finding a facet of the image of Christ in each preaching portion. Could that search be misleading, and is it even necessary? It may be misleading if what a text asks of us is behavior that Christ never had to exemplify, namely repentance. Maybe the thrust of the text’s pericopal theology is not exemplary but, say, doxological. Maybe the thrust is exemplary, but it’s the Father we are urged to imitate (as in the Sermon on the Mount) [6].
3. Kuruvilla equates the goal of the Christian life, that is, to be conformed to the image of Christ (Romans 8:28) with the interpretation of each passage or pericope.
“After all, that is God’s ultimate goal for his children, to be “conformed to the image [εἰκών, eikōn] of his Son” in his humanity (Rom. 8:29). I have, therefore, labeled this model of reading Scripture for preaching christiconic.”[7]. Romans 8.28-29 says all the circumstances of life are used by God to conform us to the image of Christ. Romans 8.28-29 is not about preaching.
Jesus said the greatest commandment to be obeyed is to love God. Why is conformity to Christ's image more important than the greatest commandment?
4. Dr. Kuruvilla does not practice this hermeneutic in his commentary on Mark.
I used his commentary, Mark: A Theological Commentary for Preachers, in preaching through the Gospel of Mark. He used the historical/grammatical method of hermeneutics throughout the commentary. This is an excellent commentary that I would highly recommend.
5. Dr. Kuruvilla refutes the redemptive-historical view of exemplary preaching.
Kuruvilla refutes the advocates of the Christocentric view who reject what they call exemplary preaching. Tony Merida issues a more balanced warning against moralistic preaching: While moral instruction is important in preaching, we need to remember that we should show people how they are to obey God’s standards. Moralistic sermons are often sub-Christian. Oprah Winfrey could preach some of them [8]. Kuruvilla quotes others who are not so balanced: “Moralizing, according to Greidanus, “undercuts the Bible’s own purpose and replaces it with the preacher’s agenda.” So also Goldsworthy, who condemns such a sermon as “at worst demonic in its Christ-denying legalism.” [9].
Here is an exemplary element in preaching which the historical redemptive view calls "Moralistic preaching." For example, Hebrews 11 holds up the faith of OT believers.
Wisdom literature is also employed in the NT for instruction in godly living— the book of Proverbs, for instance: Prov 3: 7 (2 Cor 8: 12); Prov 3: 11– 12 (Heb 12: 5– 6); Prov 3: 34 (Jas 4: 5; 1 Pet 5: 5); Prov 11: 31 (1 Pet 4: 18); Prov 25: 21– 22 (Rom 12: 20); etc. In other words, Scripture is more than just a witness to the fulfillment of messianic promises; there are ethical demands therein as well that must be brought to bear upon the lives of God’s people. Christocentric preaching tends to undermine the ethical emphasis of individual texts. Thus, the use of exemplars in the NT counters the argument of RH interpreters against “moralizing,” the employment of biblical characters as examples for God’s children [10].
All of the four authors in Four Views begin with the historical/grammatical method but then add an extra step that is different from all the rest. I contend that the preacher should be text-driven not theology-driven. Theology is the result of the historical/grammatical method of interpretation. We don't come with a Christocentric, theocentric, etc. We interpret the text in its historical context. We discover the authorial intent or the author's one meaning of the text. Whatever theology this hermeneutic produces is what we preach.
[1] Scott M. Gibson and Kim D. Matthew. Homiletics and Hermeneutics (p. 70). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
[2] Ibid., 72.
[3] Ibid., 59
[4] Ibid., 62.
[5] Ibid., 59.
[6] Ibid., 72
[7] Ibid., 59.
[8] Tony Merida. Faithful Preaching (pp. 82-83). B&H Publishing. Kindle Edition.
[9] Kuruvilla, Abraham. Privilege the Text! (pp. 242-243). Moody Publishers. Kindle Edition.
[10] Abraham Kuruvilla. Privilege the Text! A Theological Hermeneutic for Preaching, 2013, (pp. 242-243). Moody Publishers. Kindle Edition).