Which Method of Biblical Exposition Is More Loving?

Abstract

John C. Baumann’s essay critically compares the historical-critical and historical-grammatical methods of biblical exposition, arguing that the latter is more faithful and loving in its approach to Scripture. Baumann defines “loving” exposition as one that proclaims God’s Word clearly for the salvation of souls. He outlines the historical-critical method’s tenets—such as source, form, and redaction criticism—and exposes its underlying presuppositions, including skepticism toward inspiration, miracles, and biblical unity. Baumann warns that these attitudes subtly undermine faith and could infiltrate confessional Lutheran circles. In contrast, the historical-grammatical method is rooted in the presupposition of Scripture’s divine inspiration, clarity, and unity, allowing the Word to speak for itself. The essay concludes with a hermeneutical addendum addressing gender roles, emphasizing contextual fidelity and doctrinal consistency. Baumann ultimately affirms that true love in exposition is grounded in trust in God’s Word, not scholarly doubt. Abstract generated by Microsoft Copilot (GPT-4)