Greidanus: Strengths
Greidanus’ hermeneutic brings an approach to preaching/teaching that has great strength in terms of a style of communication that can be considered holistic with regards to the preaching of the canon within the church. When applied well, the HR/RHP move has a considerable breadth of ability within a single sermon to engage congregants with: a) the OT text, b) biblical theology, c) doctrine, d) the NT, and e) the Gospel as applicable to believer and non-believer alike. In this Greidanus makes no assumption as to his audience’s salvific state.
2 However, Kuruvilla’s Christiconic hermeneutic has much in common with Childs’ and Moberly’s canonical
110 Greidanus: Weaknesses
We have seen that Greidanus sets out in his general hermeneutic move to look at the OT text in relative canonical isolation to determine the concerns of the specific text, before moving from this point to Christ. However, in reality he does not establish the concerns of the specific OT text on its own terms without regard to the RHP and the NT. It is clear that as he is making decisions on the OT text’s concerns he has one eye on the move forward, and one on the text to be preached. This point is not a criticism; rather it acknowledges that often the HR move itself will determine what is to be heightened in the OT text that is to be preached, rather than the text itself fully dictating its own primary concerns. In this Greidanus could be said to privilege HR with the whole canon (OT and NT), as much as he does the specific text to be preached. Of course, this broad ‘privileging’ also means that some primary concerns of the text to be preached may be lost along the way. This has been shown regarding Genesis 22 when Greidanus does not use the text’s own claims, regarding the test as concerning the ‘fear of God’ (22: 12), but moves to focusing on Isaac (rather than Abraham) who is then substituted by the ram, by God who provides (‘provided’ being his key word/theme), as he combines his ‘longitudinal theme’ of substitutionary atonement with his RHP move to Passover typology.3
A further possible weakness in Greidanus’ method is that he is not strong on application for the believer within his Genesis 22 sermon. He effectively teaches the passage and the RHP within the canon and makes a final challenge /application as a Gospel message. Greidanus’ final application is ‘the Lord provides his Son for you… Don’t miss out on the meaning of Christmas this year: The Lord provides the lamb.’4 His alternative ending remains evangelistic, though is differently emphasised.
He states, ‘All He requires is that you show yourself to be a true son and daughter of Abraham by believing in Him.’5 Clearly Greidanus is strong on Gospel, and yet not as strong regarding its
application to the believer (in this instance).6
3 It can also be seen as he rejects ‘faith’ as a central theme to be preached, stating that Heb. 11:17-19 and
James 2:21-22 ‘do not form a direct link to Christ.’ For he sees ‘faith’ as a theme that should not be preached as a central concern of the text because no HR progression forward is evident for him. See Greidanus (2007: 204).
4 Greidanus (1976: 7). 5 Greidanus (1976: 8).
6 For example, this might perhaps be applied to the believer in terms of one of the following: a)
confession, b) ongoing repentance, c) salvation in the continual present tense, or d) as concerning God’s grace as available in human failure. This would align with his hermeneutic/Gospel purpose.
111 Kuruvilla: Strengths
Unsurprisingly Kuruvilla’s strengths are more-or-less the exact opposite of Greidanus’ weaknesses. Kuruvilla has clearly demonstrated just how committed he is to remaining with the OT text at all times, even to the point where he is interpreting textual omissions - which he has argued are the concern of the text. His general hermeneutic approach is excellent in terms of full interaction with: a) the text, b) the co-text, c) wordplay, d) word choices, and e) words repeated.
With Kuruvilla’s movement to ‘Christ-likeness’ combining application with ‘the rule of centrality’ his method can only be strong on both sanctification and application to the believer.
Kuruvilla: Weaknesses
We have seen that Kuruvilla does not intend to preach: a) evangelistically, b) biblically- theologically, or c) doctrinally. This cannot be seen as a weakness in terms of methodology for he does what he sets out to do in not wanting to define preaching in these ways. In so doing he therefore defines ‘preaching’ in a different way to many. However, Kuruvilla’s definition of preaching, as concerning ‘obedience to the divine demand of the text’, does result in the need for alternative teaching forums for these vital facets of church life (which he fully admits are needed). His definition of preaching may therefore make it difficult to easily incorporate these within specific church’s programmes, liturgies and traditions. Therefore, such a hermeneutic may well run the risk of being the cause of the omission of some aspects of teaching and evangelism.
Kuruvilla’s method requires his hearers to listen with established knowledge of the NT and Christ (to understand and apply Christ-likeness). If they do not possess this then in reality they have little possibility to obtain a correct understanding of the sermon preached in its Christ- like move to application because their context places them outside of the grasp of the preacher’s methodology.
Further to this, Kuruvilla’s assumption, that all canonical pericopes have a theology which presents divine demand, is likely to produce teaching within the church that perhaps leans too strongly towards sanctification and the believer ‘doing’ (it could certainly be heard this way). However, the canon contains multiple genres and mixings of genres. Some texts are historical and informative in nature (as we have seen regarding 1 Chronicles 1-9). Some are theological in nature, and some are both (Genesis 22). Some concern what God has done (e.g. Genesis 1- 2) and therefore may simply be taught as material to inspire the believer to worship. Other texts concern what humans should do (e.g. the Decalogue). There is little doubt that all such
112 texts can in some sense fit into the pattern of divine demand. Yet it might be suggested that, in its quest for a one-size-fits-all approach that is easy to apply and reproduce, Kuruvilla’s hermeneutic may well have overreached its bounds if applied to all genres, for not all Scripture is concerned with human obedience.
Kuruvilla’s method certainly has a very high regard for the biblical text, but at times it does seem capable of paying less attention to: a) how a text is to be received by a hearer, b) genre, and c) the text’s tone (e.g. encouraging, affirming, worshipful, prayerful). These should be seen as important for they too are the concerns of the text that needs to be privileged.