1) Resonant Narrative Parallels which Overtake Method and Interpretation
We have seen that Kuruvilla uses both John 3:16 and Rom. 8:32 in his exegesis and sermon, and yet he has argued that it is likely that these texts do not allude to Genesis 22. However, by using them he effectively assumes the often seen classic interpretational position that claims Genesis 22 as a forerunner to Golgotha via parallel narrative resonance. Certainly the way Kuruvilla utilises these texts means that his listeners will hear this as such. This position is one that often seems to be almost impossible for the Christian to avoid, and von Rad has been suggested as a good example of this with his suggestion that, for Abraham the Akedah has something to do with ‘the road out into God-forsakenness.’ If an OT scholar such as von Rad can make such an allusionary ‘lapse’ (so called), within his own discipline, it should perhaps be of no surprise that Kuruvilla might also do so from within his hermeneutic/homiletic discipline. Yet like von Rad, this arguably moves Kuruvilla outside of his methodological approach and beyond its concerns and its findings.
Greidanus of course does utilise specific NT verses and allusions. However, we find that he also breaks free from his hermeneutical moorings. Having set out an argument for the ram as type he too cannot avoid defaulting to alternative NT allusions that suggests a typology of Isaac as a type of Christ and Abraham of God the Father, as he closes his sermon by using John 3:16.
Therefore, this gives rise to questions concerning parallel narrative allusions. Two possibilities here might be suggested: a) each scholar could return to their individual hermeneutics and rework their findings/sermons more strictly in accordance to their methodologies (thus avoiding John 3:16, Romans 8:32 and the associated typology), or b) if they do not see the laying aside of these verses as ultimately appropriate for interpretation, it might be suggested that, as both scholars default to incorporating this strong narrative parallel/resonance (with its relevant typology), this facet of interpretation, at least on occasion, should indeed be considered hermeneutically apt.
113 Sanctification or justification, or both?
Ultimately Greidanus’ and Kuruvilla’s differing hermeneutics emanate from different presuppositions.
Greidanus assumes that, a) The canon is a work that presents to the Christian what God has done, and is doing, b) ‘The Gospel’ is evident in every pericope, c) The preacher’s task is to determine ‘the Gospel’ from the text and HR movement, and present this to the congregant using relevant and evidential links to Christ.
In essence Greidanus’ hermeneutic is therefore one that presupposes that the canon is primarily always concerned with justification, and therefore the conveyance of this is the preacher’s task. In the case of Genesis 22 this is preached evangelistically for a first response in conversion, rather than applied in an ongoing justificatory way to the believer.
Kuruvilla on the other hand assumes that, a) The canon is a work that primarily presents what the human should do in response to God, b) ‘Divine demand’ is evident in every pericope, c) It is the preacher’s task to determine ‘divine demand’ from the text and ask their hearers to apply it to themselves in obedience to become more like Christ, who they already know.
In essence Kuruvilla’s hermeneutic is therefore one that presupposes that the canon is primarily concerned with sanctification, and that therefore for him the conveyance of ‘divine demand’ is the preacher’s task.
Each scholar’s assumptions are of course supported with biblical persuasion as both positions can be biblically argued for with ease as the Scriptures are concerned with both salvation and holiness. Because both scholars argue their position biblically, it might be suggested that a position which holds both views simultaneously may well be considered well-reasoned.7 Therefore, here an
amalgamation of both scholars’ assumptive positions could be deemed as important because: 1) The canon is concerned with salvation and justification and therefore not every pericope
should necessarily be read through the hermeneutical approaches of Greidanus and Kuruvilla, for both methods steer interpretation toward a given end which may not be in keeping with the given text that is to be preached.
2) The canon is concerned with what God has done/is doing in relationship with humanity, as well as what the believer should do in response to this.
7 For example, see biblical arguments/references in Greidanus’ section Jesus Christ Is the Link between the Two
Testaments (Greidanus (1999: 49-50)). Kuruvilla’s main ‘go-to’ verse/s, outside of his argument for a
114 3) One can never tell the salvific state positioning of the congregant/hearer. Therefore, it would seem wise to present challenge and application to both those that might appear to be saved as well as those that might appear to be lost.
I have suggested that Kuruvilla may well have considered/utilised Genesis 22 when forming his hermeneutic. Indeed, it can be argued that the three above points can be found within the passage to some considerable degree. Justification (faith) contends with sanctification (human obedience) as God’s directive as the Author of the test reiterates and adds to blessing and promise through Abraham’s free and faithful response – faith that is given is faith that responds obediently.
Interpretively one might say that Genesis 22 seems to almost demand a meshing of the hermeneutics of Greidanus and Kuruvilla. Thus, one might well be drawn to ask either, “Do both hermeneutics only find relevance when being applied to texts that require the individual specific concerns of each method” or, “Is it really possible to combine such opposing works, and to combine them well?” However, the answer to this last question seems to be that a hermeneutic approach that seeks to combine all of both approaches will be found both impossible and wanting.
Perhaps the hermeneutic that combines justification with sanctification and that utilises parallel narrative resonance to do so is the only reading that can do full interpretive justice to Genesis 22. Perhaps James’ commentary on Genesis 22 is the foundation for the beginnings of such an amalgamation (James 2: 21-22),
Was not our ancestor Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with works, and faith was brought to completion in works.