This is a review of Abraham Kuruvilla’s “Christiconic View” in Hermeneutics and Homiletics: Four Views of Preaching. Kuruvilla brings some crucial corrections to the Christocentric view, but he also agrees with it on other points. This review will highlight these differences.
1. Kuruvilla refutes the Christocentric hermeneutic
Kuruvilla quotes Edmond Clowney, who would find Christ in every text, especially a text like Genesis 22:
Typical of modern-day interpreters who focus on OT typology is Clowney. When God provided the ram, he not only spared Isaac (and Abraham!) but showed Abraham that the price of redemption was greater than he could pay. The Lord himself must provide the offering that brings salvation. … The One descended from Abraham must come, in whom all the families of the earth will be blessed. “The Lord Will Provide” promises the coming of Christ. … Not Isaac but the Lamb of God was the Sacrifice that the Father would provide.[1]
After quoting Clowney, Kuruvilla refutes Clowney’s Christocentric view. Kuruvilla, in his refutation of Christocentric hermeneutics, quotes R. W. L. Moberly and John Calvin to defend his view that a text like Genesis 22 is not a type of Christ:
Moberly makes it clear that (seh), translated “lamb” in Gen 22:7, is “a generic term for an animal from a flock.” Indeed, even the LXX of Gen 22:7 has πρóβατον (probaton, and not the christological “lamb [ἀµνòς, amnos]” of John 1:29 that one might expect); the precise Hebrew word for lamb is (kebes, as in the “lamb” of the “continuous” offering, Ex 29:38), and not hf,. Thus, there appears to be little basis for drawing out any ovine typology from Gen 22.21. Calvin is honest about these conjectures: “I am not ignorant that more subtle allegories may be elicited; but I do not see on what foundation they rest” (Calvin’s Commentary on Genesis, on 22:13).[2]
Kuruvilla agrees with Moberly and Calvin in not finding Christ in every text, especially a text like Genesis 22: Yet there appears to be no evidence that the earliest Christians viewed Gen 22 as christologically significant. Even though Paul uses a phrase in Rom 8:32 (τοδίου υἱο οὐκ ἐфείσατο, tou idiou huiou ouk epheisato) that is perhaps an allusion to Genesis 22:12 and 16 (οὐκ ἐфεισω το υἱοσουἀγαπητο, ouk epheisō tou huiou sou agapētou), “he makes little theological capital of it,” neither is there any obvious portrayal of Isaac as a type of Christ elsewhere in Paul.[2]
2. Kuruvilla agrees with the Christocentric hermeneutic
Kuruvilla 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]
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 makes it clear that “Scripture is Christological!”[5] The Christocentric or Christiconic 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 believe 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 states that God uses all the circumstances of life 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. 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.
Very seldom does Kuruvilla mention “the image of Christ” in his commentary on Mark for preachers. For example, in Pericope 1 (Mark 1:1-20), Kuruvilla does not include “the image of Christ” in the Theological Focus, nor the Theological Forus on Pericope 1 for Preaching, nor in the Possible Preaching Outlines for Pericope 1. This is an excellent commentary that I highly recommend; however, Kuruvilla did not apply the Christoconic hermeneutic in his commentary for preachers. He consistently employed the historical/grammatical method of hermeneutics throughout the commentary.
All four authors in Four Views begin with the historical-grammatical method, but then add an extra step that differs from the rest. They all refute each other’s additional layer of hermeneutics. 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 to the text with a Christocentric, theocentric, etc, hermeneutic. We interpret the text in its historical context. We discover the author's intent or the author's one meaning of the text for his original audience. Whatever theology this hermeneutic produces is what we preach.
[1] Kuruvilla, Abraham. Privilege the Text! A Theological Hermeneutic for Preaching (218-219). (Function). Kindle Edition.
[2] Ibid., 219.
[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.