There is a prima facie or straightforward reading of Scripture that finds its context from the context of the whole of Scripture, and its reality in Jesus Christ. But just because we 
might want to say that we have a Christocentric method of interpreting Scripture, this does not allow for the interpreter to simply read Christ into the text in ways that He never intended. In other words, we still must pay attention to the plain grammatical and historical markers of the text insofar that these bare witness to Christ and His teaching throughout. I am only suggesting that often times people will claim to be doing a Christocentric reading of Scripture, when in fact what they are really engaging in is an allegorical reading of Scripture informed by their own theological imaginations.
Athanasian Reformed
πππππ’π π·ππ πππππ‘ ππ πππ‘ππππ’π. ππ‘π ππ¨π«π π¨π ππ¨π π°π’π₯π₯ π₯ππ¬π ππ¨π«ππ―ππ«.
And our “own theological imaginations” must therefore come face to face with the supreme revelation of God in Christ, particularly with regard to the cruciform love of God in Christ’s death on the cross. And yet even this revelation cannot be seen as it is for mankind apart from the having the “eyes of faith” enlightened by the Spirit’s mediation; and as the testimony of Scripture bears out, even this supreme event of God’s divine revelation came to be understood by the apostles only after the factβas a kind of “indirect revelation,” if you will, in which the revelation of the aspect of Jesus’ ministry that Jesus Christ is God incarnate requires the unique perception of faith by the Spirit to understand.
And yet once we embrace this “indirect revelation” (as I’ve described it here), that which Jesus reveals about God through the surface meaning of his teachings and works/acts and example can all be directly understood (yet in the fulness of truth, only in light of the indirect revelation that Jesus is God incarnate).
Moreover, as the various systems of faith demonstrate, a principal question for the claims of any particular system/hermaneutic of direct revelation remains: To what extent and with what qualifications do we apply the principle and use of analogy in connection with concrete objects and substantive realities to which the text of Scripture testifies (which we must then determine how to apply as a principle of interpretation)?
Richard, yes, it is the dialogical reality, or the con-versational reality ought to condition our reading of Scripture and all else. And as you describe it, it isn’t simply a naked history as we approach Scripture. The Gospels, for example, are presented in the apostolic kerygmatic frame in light of the resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ. So we read the text in that light, but by way of illumination not inspiration as the Apostles did. And of course it is our relationship with Christ, our encounter with Him by the Holy Spirit, that constitutes the entailments of illumination. And yet is within this frame, the illuminating one, that it is good to keep in mind that the text has all the contingencies and messiness of history in tow, such that we shouldn’t simply let a “Christological reading” flatten the riches found in the nooks an crannies of the messy and scandalous parts of the text.
And yes, the analogy of faith, a la Luther, contra the Catholic rule of faith, is indeed how we ought to interpret Scripture from Scripture, and of course within a Christ concentrated frame. Again though, we would want to avoid flattening the historical contingencies of Scripture as if they are simply accidents that can be discarded in favor of finding some sort of “kernel” of truth (a la Lessing’s ditch of history). Lots of complexities going on when we engage with the text of Scripture, but I still think we abandon the grammatical/historical aspects at our own exegetical peril.
Indeed, Bobby.