Is there a distinctive Christadelphian method of interpretation? More broadly, is there a distinctive method of interpretation shared by groups that have a similar unitarian and Abrahamic centred faith? This second question partly answers the question: a unitarian and Abrahamic faith is a distinctive characterization of a method of interpretation. We should therefore expect different results to other methods of interpretation practised in the churches.
There are other aspects of such a method, such as a belief in inspiration and integrity of Scripture, and a harmonic approach to the resolving of apparent conflicts in and with the text. These aspects are shared by other churches, as is recognition of typological patterns and a dense intertextual weave. Is there anything else that is distinctive to Christadelphian interpretation?
The unitarian and Abrahamic faith produces (in some) an independent approach to the text. Because this faith is distinctive and isolated, shunned by the churches, its adherents often reciprocate and are open to independent thinking about Scripture, willing to support and develop original approaches to the text. But there is more to be said on what is distinctive about the method of interpretation within this faith.
The practice of reading should and has led to a perception of how Scripture interprets Scripture; this perception has thus issued in an expositional method that mirrors how Scripture interprets itself. This is best seen in the original exposition that the faith has produced; exposition that has no counterpart in the writings of the churches. If we follow the best practise of the faith, we may hold fast to the faith.
Fellowship with the Maker and Brethren