Introduction

This thesis will evaluate the views of two scholars, namely Christopher Peppler and
Kevin Smith in relation to their understanding of the Christocentric Principle. The thesis
will provide a summary of the two views, and will further relate their similarities in their
understandings.

To conclude, the thesis will provide a summary of the authors view of the Christocentric
Principle in relation to the scholars, as well as provide an explanation in terms of its
implications within the authors theology and ministry as a whole.

1. Evaluation of Peppler and Smiths views of the Christocentric Principle

Peppler begins his thesis with an explanation of the interpretation of scripture, in that it
should be views primarily from the perspective of Christ in regards to “His character,
values, principle and as revealed directly or indirectly by the biblical revelation of what
he said and did” (2012:117)

However, Peppler states that many hold to differing ideas of what Christocentricity is.
From this point, Peppler goes on to flesh out his understanding of the principle in
relation to other scholars (2012:118).

Peppler states that his view of the Christocentric Principle is “interpreting scripture
primarily from the perspective of what Jesus taught and modelled, and from what he
revealed concerning the nature, character, values, principles, and priorities of the
Godhead.” (2012:120) Smith is in agreement in that he states that the entire view of the
canon should be Christ-centered and what its relationship is in regards to the “major
corpi” of the canon, (2012:160).

2. Implementation of the Christocentric Principle within the authors theology and

personal ministry

While our understanding of scripture is heavily influenced by our current situations and
understandings, I am in agreement with Peppler whereby he states that it is Christ that
is our lens in which we interpret the Bible (2012:122). Peppler goes on to state that
should Christ be the primary subject of all Scripture, it logically follows that He too
should be the interpreter (Pg. 123). One such example of this was written by the author
to the Hebrews “In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many
times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom
he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. The Son is the
radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things
by his powerful word (Heb. 1:1–3).

It is upon this perspective that I personally have learnt to base my theology. It is Christ
alone that is the underlining theme within Scripture, and through Him, we are able to
take a position of what is read throughout the canon.

In personal ministry, we are to use Christ as our example in all areas, especially in
matters whereby we are placed in a position that requires council and “daily living”.
Supplementing Christ for man-made traditions is dangerous and futile. It is only through
the Christocentric Principle, as explained by Peppler and Smith, that we are able to
stand on ground that is not our own, but from the Divine.

Conclusion

This essay has summarized the two views of the Christocentric Principle as laid out by
both Dr Christopher Peppler and Dr Kevin Smith. It then provided an overview of the
effects these views have on the author, and his inclusion of the view within personal
ministry, as well as his theology. With Christ as the center, and the lens of the Christian,
it provides an understanding of the major corpi of the canon of Scripture, without
eisegeting one’s own ideals into a text.

Works cited

Peppler, C. L., 2012. The Christocentric Principle: A Jesus-Centred

Hermeneutic. Conspectus 13(1):117–135

Smith, K. G., 2012. The Christocentric Principle: Promise, Pitfalls, and

Proposal. Conspectus 13(1):157–170