I haven’t written on biblical hermeneutics and theological exegesis for quite some time. I used to write on this matter frequently because of its impact on evangelical hermeneutics in particular (but of course, it affects all of biblical hermeneutics, no matter what one’s socio-ecclesial situation might be). Below is something I just popped off on my X/Twitter account. Nothing groundbreaking, but certainly something that needs to be continuously reflected upon and revisited over and again for those Christians who would more accurately hope to actually encounter the face of Jesus Christ in all of their engagements with Holy Writ.

All biblical exegesis is theological exegesis. The question is what or who regulates the exegesis? Is it trinitarian christological reality—i.e., supranatural—or is it supposed text critical verities governed by anti-supranaturalist and historicist premises? It seems like many folks have never critically reflected on this. And if they have, particularly as Christians, in what way is the higher text critical way commensurate with the Christian trinitarian reception of Holy Scripture? It’s one thing to use some of the “tools” of historicist textual criticism—usually only in a reduced way—and another altogether to whole-hog swallow the historicist text critical apparatus as one’s biblical hermeneutic and methodology, and claim that its conclusions somehow serve the Church.

I think it’s possible to utilize historicist textual criticism, but only in a negative way that demonstrates its woeful limitations to actually accessing the text and reality of Holy Scripture. A flatlander approach to Holy Scripture simply will not do, at least unless it is the flatland occupied by the Son of Man, Jesus Christ. But then this represents an elevated flatland infused deeply with the supranatural reality, miraculous even, of the triune life of the God of the Bible.