The Need for Metacritical Analysis in Modern Evangelical Biblical Commentary
tldr
Modern evangelical biblical commentaries often present themselves as objective engagements with the biblical text while, at the same time, often operating within deeply embedded epistemological and theological frameworks.
These frameworks, which are frequently unacknowledged, depend upon assumed categories such as “authorial intent,” “plain meaning,” “historical-grammatical exegesis,” and “application.” This article argues that such categories, when left unexamined, constitute a hermeneutic of assumption that both limits interpretive imagination and constrains theological inquiry.
By calling for greater metacritical reflection (that is, critical awareness of the presuppositions, methodological commitments, and ideological conditions underlying interpretation) this attempts to highlight an urgent need for evangelical commentary writing to engage not only with the biblical text but also about its own interpretive processes.
Drawing on insights from hermeneutical philosophy, critical theory, and reception history, this will attempt to advocates for a renewed meta-hermeneutical consciousness that situates evangelical exegesis within the wider discursive field of interpretive theory.
Commentary as Theological Act
Biblical commentary is not a neutral enterprise. It is a theological act that interprets Scripture within particular epistemological, cultural, and ecclesial contexts. Yet within much of modern evangelicalism, commentary writing continues to be framed as a technical rather than a theological exercise, guided by the assumption that meaning can be extracted through faithful adherence to method. Broadly evangelical commentaries frequently operate under the claim of fidelity (to the text, to authorial intent, and to doctrinal orthodoxy) while largely avoiding reflection on the interpretive conditions that shape those very claims.
This lack of metacritical engagement (reflection on the interpretive act itself) has resulted in the conviction that interpretive method guarantees theological truth. I’d like to suggest that evangelical commentaries, while often rigorous in philological and historical terms, have insufficiently interrogated their own categories of understanding.
Evangelical exegesis tends to rely on a cluster of foundational categories that function as interpretive axioms. These assumptions are so deeply embedded that they are rarely subjected to scrutiny. These categories operate not only at the level of method but at the level of theological imagination, shaping what counts as legitimate meaning before the exegetical process even begins. Among the most prominent are the following:
Authorial Intent. The belief that meaning is singular, recoverable, and located in the conscious intentions of the human author. This assumption presupposes a stable subjectivity behind the text and treats divine inspiration as harmoniously aligned with human intentionality.
Plain Meaning. The conviction that Scripture communicates an accessible, self-evident message to any faithful reader. This tends to marginalise interpretive complexity and historical distance, often reducing hermeneutics to moral or doctrinal paraphrase.
istorical-Grammatical Method. The principle that meaning resides within the text’s historical and linguistic context, retrievable through disciplined analysis. Yet this often masks an implicit positivism that treats history and grammar as neutral arbiters rather than interpretive constructs.
Application. An expectation that every passage yields transferable moral or theological “principles” for contemporary life. This instrumentalises Scripture, collapsing its strangeness into didactic utility.
Beyond these methodological axioms, evangelical commentary is also shaped by several metahermeneutical assumptions that govern its interpretive logic more deeply:Canonical Coherency. The conviction that the Bible forms a single, unified discourse whose parts harmonise without contradiction. While coherence may be theologically desirable, when assumed a priori it can override textual dissonance, rhetorical tension, and diachronic diversity, effectively domesticating the Bible’s polyphony.
Translation Tradition. The inheritance of meaning through dominant translation lineages, such as the Vulgate, KJV, or modern English evangelical versions (NIV, ESV, etc). These translations do not merely render the text but encode interpretive traditions including lexical choices and theological inflections that shape exegesis before it begins. Commentators rarely interrogate the hermeneutical weight of inherited translation frameworks.
Credal Expectation. The tendency to read Scripture through the lens of pre-formed doctrinal orthodoxy. This is not merely a matter of “reading within tradition,” but of beginning with certain theological conclusions and expecting the text to conform to those shapes. While confessional commitments are not inherently problematic, when unexamined they collapse exegesis into apologetics, leaving little room for the text to disturb received categories of theology.
Together, these construct what might be termed the hermeneutical architecture of evangelical commentary. That is a system of assumptions that determines what is allowed to count as faithful interpretation. Metacritical analysis is thus required not only to evaluate the tools of interpretation but to interrogate the worldview that renders those tools intelligible.
While each of these categories has heuristic value, their uncritical adoption transforms them from interpretive tools into hermeneutical dogmas. They cease to serve the text and begin to define what the text is permitted to mean. In this sense, evangelical commentary often operates within a pre-constructed hermeneutical enclosure, where questions of meaning, theology, and ethics are predetermined by methodological orthodoxy.
Hermeneutics after Gadamer and Ricoeur
Philosophical hermeneutics since Gadamer and Ricoeur has demonstrated that understanding is never a neutral retrieval of meaning but a dialogical encounter shaped by the interpreter’s historical situation. Gadamer’s notion of wirkungsgeschichte (effective history) reminds us that interpreters always stand within a tradition of understanding that both enables and constrains their interpretations. Ricoeur’s emphasis on the “surplus of meaning” further destabilises the notion of a single, recoverable sense.
From a metacritical standpoint, evangelical commentary frequently neglects this hermeneutical insight. Its self-presentation as a bridge between the ancient text and the modern reader obscures the fact that both “ancient” and “modern” are themselves interpretive constructs. A truly metacritical commentary would thus not only expound Scripture but also interrogate the interpretive scaffolding upon which its exposition depends.
Evangelical hermeneutics often positions itself as counter-cultural, upholding scriptural authority against the relativism of postmodern thought. Yet in doing so, it frequently reproduces the very ideological structures it claims to resist: certainty, control, and closure. By disavowing interpretive contingency, evangelical commentaries inadvertently transform theology into a form of epistemic security.
This resistance to interpretive plurality often conceals deeper ideological commitments such as privileging of Western epistemologies under the guise of “objectivity,” conflating historical-critical certainty with theological orthodoxy, and ultimately subordinating ambiguity to propositional clarity.
A metacritical hermeneutic would expose these tendencies not to dismantle evangelical theology, but to purify it by acknowledging that all reading is situated, provisional, and theologically charged.
Metacriticism as Theological Discipline
To engage in metacriticism is not to abandon faith but to deepen it. Theological interpretation demands self-knowledge and an awareness of how one’s own doctrinal, cultural, and affective commitments inform the reading of Scripture. In this sense, metacriticism becomes a form of theological repentance: a turning from interpretive presumption toward hermeneutical humility.
Such a practice would entail an explicit articulation of interpretive presuppositions as well as ongoing reflection on the commentator’s ecclesial and cultural standpoint. This would also need direct engagement with alternative hermeneutical traditions (patristic, feminist, postcolonial, etc.) as well as a general willingness to acknowledge the limits of textual certainty.
Contrary to modern fears, metacriticism does not relativise Scripture’s authority; rather, it relativises our interpretive control over it. This is essential to realise and in doing so, it reopens the possibility of wonder, fear, and transformation in the encounter with the biblical text.
A metacritical evangelical commentary would differ markedly from existing models. It would integrate critical self-reflection into the very structure of the commentary writing itself. I’m unsure as to exactly what model this would take, but perhaps at least through metatextual footnotes, reflexive prefaces, or dialogical engagement with interpretive alternatives. Rather than merely explaining Scripture, it would theologise about the act of explanation.
Such commentaries would not seek to dissolve the theological commitments of evangelicalism but to render them transparent and accountable. In so doing, they would fulfil a deeper evangelical mandate to bring every thought, including interpretation itself, into captivity to Christ (2 Cor. 10:5).
The Future of Evangelical Hermeneutics
The challenge before evangelical scholarship is not simply to produce more commentaries, but to produce more self-aware commentaries. The call for metacritical analysis is an invitation to move beyond the security of assumed categories toward a hermeneutic of humility, complexity, and theological integrity. If evangelicalism is to remain intellectually and spiritually vital, it must cultivate a reflective consciousness about its own interpretive practices. Only by turning the lens inward can it begin to articulate a truly faithful hermeneutic: one that reads the Bible not as a mirror of our assumptions, but as the living Word that continually interrogates them.
References
Gadamer, H.-G. Truth and Method. London: Bloomsbury, 2013.
Ricoeur, P. Interpretation Theory: Discourse and the Surplus of Meaning. Fort Worth: Texas Christian University Press, 1976.
Thiselton, A. C. The Two Horizons: New Testament Hermeneutics and Philosophical Description. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980.
Vanhoozer, K. J. Is There a Meaning in This Text? Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998.
Smith, J. K. A. The Fall of Interpretation. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2000.
Wright, N. T. Scripture and the Authority of God. London: SPCK, 2013.
Green, J. B. (ed.). Hearing the New Testament: Strategies for Interpretation. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010.