I know I have beaten this drum over and over again; so I am sure you won’t mind me beating it at least one more time now. It continues to amaze me that many Evangelicals hold to the belief that when they study the 
Bible they simply engage in exegesis; Literal, Grammatic, Historical kind. This is the kind of exegetical approach I was trained in, in both Bible College and Seminary. And it is common belief that if we simply squeeze the words enough, do more syntactical analyses, and read it in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic; that out pops the answers to all of our theological questions.
Don’t get me wrong, I do think that there is a legitimate place in our hermeneutical systems for engaing in observational interpretation of the text of Scripture. But what is so often missing in this equation, for my solo scriptura brethren, is that we all assume certain theological axioms handed down to us from our theological forefathers. In other words, as Christians, when we read the words LORD, Lord, or God in the Old Testament; we do so with the assumption that this “LORD” is triune (one God, three persons who are this one God) in nature. And this theological assumption heavily guides and shapes many (if not all) of our exegetical decisions when we are interpreting sacred text. What amazes me though, is that while this unconscious assumption (usually) is present in my LGH ‘solo scriptura’ brethren’s approach; these same folk continue to argue for a Literal, Grammatical, Historical method of interpretation. And this in contrast to what some, me included, would call theological exegesis. This rather bothers me! Bible exegetes who reject theological exegesis for biblical exegesis, either are really naive or really arrogant; or both. We all do theological exegesis; even if you say you follow the LGH. So why not be honest, and admit this up front? That way we won’t have one group saying that they follow the Bible, while they say the other group is just following their theology instead.
A perfect example of this is N. T. Wright. There are many many people out there who seem to think that Wright is simply doing biblical exegesis; i.e. no theology. And yet this couldn’t be further from the truth for Wright. I have heard and read Wright say multiple times that he can see no other way to read Scripture than from a Covenantal vantage point (which I am on board with as well, in qualified ways). And yet the Covenantal way of reading Scripture is a thoroughly theological way to read the text; a way that was primarily developed (in Protestant form) in the post-Reformed orthodox era. So even the poster-boy for Biblical Studies admittedly does theological exegesis. If this is so, then this begs the question; is someone’s theology good or bad? Enter theologian stage left . . . π
Bobby,
No argument here! The problem with most of us (myself included) is that we think too highly of ourselves to ever admit that we’ve been influenced from day one – especially if our influencers may be wrong in some things. That, and the fact that once we buy into a position we like to think it so rock solid that all others of a differing view are either ignorant, blind, foolish, or dangerous. After all, if only they understood things as I/we do, then they too would be “right.” Though to some extent, that’s the nature of holding a position: Why hold to what you don’t really believe or are convinced of? Unless, of course, you hold lightly (which I do in many things; non-essential, that is). In any case, honesty preculdes us to admit to theological exegesis as an ever present aspect of our hermeneutic.
Which leads me to a question: Would you comment on the theological exegesis involved in the translation of the Scriptures? It seems that many don’t realize that in translating from ancient manuscript to the English language (or, any language), there are theological assumptions and decisions being made. Given the multitude number (and ever-increasing) of English translations available, I’d love to hear your take on this. By the way, I’m not baiting you to pick any one translation; just would appreciate hearing what you know about this. π
Blessings,
Daniel
Hey Pastor Daniel,
And this post of mine could’ve been much clearer. I had a former prof of mine from Multnomah comment on it on Facebook (my posts feed through to there); he made a good point about my usage of the LGH in this post. I should’ve just stuck with “solo scriptura” (scripture all by itself vs. sola scriptura); since that’s what was in my thinking. I agree with you, once we adopt a position it becomes increasingly hard to let Scripture read us so to speak (that said, I don’t think positions are a bad thing but a good thing!).
Funny you bring up the translation issue; since this is what really turned my lights onto the reality of theological exegesis for all. As you may know the ESV is the “Reformed” translation, the NIV is the non-denominational translation, the NASB/NKJV is the Dispensational translation, the HCSB is the Southern Baptist translation, the NRSV is the scholarly translation, and the New World Translation is the heretics translation π etc etc ad infinitum. I think your question here, to do any justice at all will require a post; I’ll try to put something together on that soon π .