Theological exegesis goes hand in hand with what some have called ‘participatory exegesis,’ alongside of what others have called ‘self-interpretation.’ In regard to the latter, it is important to ground ‘self’ in the reality that there is an ecstatic source to the self who presents us with the knowledge to more accurately engage in this sort of self-interpretation; of the sort that Calvin is famously known 
for in regard to his so called duplex cognitio Dei (twofold knowledge of God). David Congdon, once again, gives us some insight on Bultmann, and from Bultmann, in regard to the way that Bultmann conceived of theological exegesis:
Bultmann, “Das Problem einer theologischen Exegese des Neuen Testaments,” 55 (21). This early essay situates existential interpretation within the specific context of a theological interpretation of Scripture. Participatory exegesis is uniquely demanded by the Bible. According to Bultmann, the biblical text is marked by an “existential liveliness” (existentielle Lebendigkeit), and thus the interpreter must be “inwardly alive” (innerlich lebendig), that is to say, “ready to let the text speak as an authority. . . .” In this early writing Bultmann describes a genuinely participatory exegesis as one in which an existentially concerned interpreter encounters the existential vitality and power of the text. This encounter occurs when the exegete confronts the claim of the text upon her, that is, when the text is no longer a historical object but becomes the occasion for her “self-interpretation.” Self-interpretation occurs when the exegete “hears the word of the text as a word” that demands a decision within her concrete situation: “The word, which enters anew into her situation, confronts the exegete with a decision, and thereby the word becomes for her an event. . . .” The question of self-interpretation, of self-understanding, is finally a question of our obedience to the authority of the biblical word.[1]
Even for non-Bultmannians (such as myself) this ought to be a good word for any Christian to hear. The ancient Christians approached Holy Scripture in the way, at least in spirit, that Bultmann underscores. The text isn’t a modern specimen ready to be analyzed, but a living Word presenting itself as gift to be interacted with and submitted to in filial attachment. This is the sense I draw from Bultmann’s teaching; i.e. that when we, personally, or collectively as a people engage with the text in the fellowship of the Spirit of Christ, we are being confronted with a knowledge of ourselves that requires an action. We are being confronted with the Word who requires holiness, and a transformative motion of singular movement into the depths of God’s bosom in Christ. The Word, as we are confronted with it, afresh and anew, requires an ‘obedience’ that the Word Himself has accomplished for us in His vicarious humanity. It is this Word who we are confronted with in the text. As such, we are invited into the banqueting table of His effervescent life, and commanded to be holy as He is Holy. The text, as we participatorily interact with it, doesn’t present us with Law, but with the Evangel of Hope that since we can never really obey to the level that God requires, that He has provided that elevated level of obedience for us in His own assumption of flesh.
The Word will never leave or forsake us. We might forsake Him, but He will never forsake us. One way to ensure that we don’t forsake Him is to be enmeshed in the text of Holy Scripture; allowing its Wordly reality to transform us from our worldly structured lives, and into the strangeness of His other-worldly life of renewal, power, hope, and eternal Life. Being in the ‘biblical word’ allows for these times of refreshment to confront us over and again, daily as we take up our crosses and follow Christ. As we lose our lives we will find them in the Word, but we won’t have the fresh capacity to lose our lives unless we are confronted with the lively Word of God as disclosed in Holy Scripture. It is in this existential complex that we come to have a genuine knowledge of ourselves; that is, as we are interpreted by the living Word through the fire of the Holy Spirit’s breath as that is pressed into our lives as we sit in and under the written Word of the living God.
[1] David W. Congdon, The Mission Of Demythologizing: Rudolf Bultmann’s Dialectical Theology (Minneapolis: Fortess Press, 2015), 756-57, n.150.
Bobby,
In disputing whether we can have assurance of salvation in Christ, my Orthodox friends in our discussion group would strongly agree with your statement: “The Word will never leave or forsake us. We might forsake Him, but He will never forsake us.” I reply, how is it ever possible for the one who will never leave us or forsake us to allow us to forsake him? Can we not have total assurance that once we are his, he will hold us tight, through good and bad? They reply: “free will.” Me: .
Bill, to use western language; Orthodox are synergist. Torrance would respond: the inscrutable nature of sin. I would respond: simul justus et pecattor.
Well, I will read your chapter on assurance in volume 2 of “Evangelical Calvinism” for more, but with this hope: since my assurance flows from the faithfulness of Jesus Christ, and the crucified life we now live we live within that faithfulness, I do not believe it is possible for that bond to be broken, in spite of the inscrutability of sin, or simul justus et peculator. And this is my response to the Orthodox priest in our discussion group.
And that would be my response too.
Therefore, once and forever bonded in this way, it is not possible for us to forsake him, and simul justus et peculator does not apply here.
I don’t really understand what you’re responding to, Bill. Have I said anything that makes you think I disagree? My first comment should have made clear that I reject outright the Orthodox on this. And the simul does apply here, insofar as it reflects on how while even justified we can still be disobedient and even unbelieving in many ways. But our justification isn’t grounded in our belief, but Christ’s for us.