The following are three vignettes on Theological Exegesis or Theological Interpretation of Scripture (TIS) that I just posted today on Facebook. I think, in the main, so many Christians are so far removed from all things theological or actual, when it comes to excavating the reality of the faith once and for all delivered to the saints, that when some do 
attempt deep dives into such things they simply attempt to apply “common-sense” everyday linguistic and cultural reading theories onto the text of Scripture that Scripture itself resists. Scripture is Holy because its reality is in Jesus Christ. Scripture is Holy because it bears witness away from itself to its reality in Jesus Christ. Just as all of creation’s orientation is toward and from Christ’s reality, so is Scripture’s. Until evangelicals et al. come to recognize this, they will simply fall prey to reading Scripture from strategies that simply leave them in the theological lurch. With that said, I offer up the following vignettes on TIS:
There is an inner-logic to Scripture, and it is based on the analogy of the incarnation. If people, in their “biblical exegesis” don’t reason from there, they are failing to do Christian exegesis of the text. Just knowing Greek and Hebrew grammar, and the ANE and Second Temple Judaic background, isn’t enough to render genuinely Christian readings of the text of Holy Scripture. To say otherwise is to agree with the higher critics of Scripture, who reject Christ out of hand (and their approach to Scripture reflects this).
Theological exegesis or interpretation of Scripture (TIS) is done no matter how positivistically and critically objective someone thinks THEY are. It becomes a matter of what theology is being used as the background towards informing someone’s exegetical conclusions. There are theologies based on naturalistic premises, and not Christian ones, for example. People often mistake their piety towards the triune God for their actual theological premises. They haven’t done the work to disentangle or even begin to understand what in fact funds their preunderstandings as they bring those to the text of Scripture. Much work to be done in this unraveling process. I will say though: appealing to Merriam Webster’s dictionary as your “lexicon” for exegeting Holy Scripture reflects bad theology.
If someone affirms Chalcedonian (one person/two natures) and Nicene orthodoxy (God is three in one/one in three), and its exegetical conclusions about God in Christ, they can’t then turn around and simply exegete Scripture from some sort of abstract “natural” biblical hermeneutic. This is what many fail to understand: when you affirm said orthodoxy you are admitting that Scripture is primarily based in a theological order or matrix. As such, to presume some type of prima facie exegesis of Scripture becomes incoherent if in fact the exegete’s hermeneutical basis is funded by said prima facie approach. In other words, said orthodoxy operates from a commitment to a Christian and confessional approach to Scripture, such that Scripture’s depth dimension and fund in Christ must become its interpretive lens. Jesus said Scripture is all about Him, that He is its centraldogma and reality. Selah
Bobby, these are fine sounding principles but how do they look in practice? Take a passage in John and show us the difference between your TIS and one of the folks you are talking about (Carson? Bruce? Morris? Someone else?)
This is great Bobby. I agree that it’s good to show how this works its way out in exegesis but it is foundational and a must be our starting and ending point. Jesus is the Word made flesh and so his humanity and his being the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world is the ground and grammar for all things for us. Without this (Him) as our hermeneutic we have not means of interpreting Scripture which the Spirit provides as he reveals Jesus to us and as Jesus takes us, in himself, to the Father.
Every text is an opportunity to show this Way of interpreting Scripture.
My example has been the prodigal Son (although you could demonstrate this anywhere).
This parable is, on the surface, about a lost son and a jealous brother and the Father’s love. We make this about us first without considering the relationship between Gentiles (lost son) and Jews (jealous brother) BUT without the Son of God going into the far country and becoming sin for us and the Father receiving Jesus Christ back from the dead and bestowing upon him glory and honour. Now neither Jew nor Gentile would be able to experience this reality apart from Christ’s own entering in. If we fail to reach Christ in our interpretation we fail to understand or encounter the power or dynamic that enables us to enter into the reality of the Scripture.
Selah… and amen. May we take pause in ‘our’ worship and praise and glory, and lift up the goodness of God given to and for us alone in Jesus Christ. Thanks be to God for his indescribable gift!
Steve,
That’s a big question. I will write an entire blog post with an example from Scripture of how the type of theological exegesis I am thinking of looks. But RichardS is right, this has to do with a broad hermeneutical assumption: viz., that Christ Himself is the context of the canon (which He says Himself Jn 5.39). The next question might be in what way (which I have also addressed here https://growrag.wordpress.com/2011/07/20/the-men-the-method-barth-calvin/). But you interestingly bring up the Gospel of John; John 1:1 for example is a theological interpretation of Genesis 1:1, an interpretation in light of Jesus Christ and His primacy in and for the creation). So, as I often intimate, after TF Torrance mostly, the homoousion is the key. The commentators you mention have another key when they approach biblical exegesis: it is based on a speculative metaphysic and abstract (from the humanity of Christ) notion of humanity thinking their way into a knowledge of God. You see how this is a big hermeneutical issue then. I give concrete examples of this all the time in my many blog posts; usually the ones that are juxtaposing Evangelical Calvinism with Classical Calvinism. Anyway, I’ll give you an exegetical example via a blog post at some point (work is busy right now!)
RichardS,
Exactly, you get it! Every text of Scripture is an opportunity for Christ to shine through. Not a metaphysical Christ, but the Christ we participate with. The One we speak with, and He with us, as we read and interpret Scripture even as we are dialoguing with its subject (so, dialogical theology). I like your prodigal son example. And of course, there are many more (I think of Galatians 2:20; it is the context of that passage that dictates whether the biblical translator translates the pistis Christou there as an objective or subjective genitive–when Christ is understood as the context of the canon, the subjective genitive makes the most contextual sense–i.e., the vicarious faith and/or faithfulness of Christ for us).
RichardB,
Amen! We pray as we exegete. That differentiates us, significantly, from the higher critical exegetes of Scripture.
Yes his is Lord of all ! Everything points to Jesus. Its just the way God has made the world. The Christis pistou “debate” is made moot when we understand that his humanity is the only means of communicating the life of God to us. If we translate the genetive there as, “from Christ” I think it is best. This allows for the faith being given in and through him and originating and being upheld by him as well and being his. Even if we rendered it, “faith of Christ” (and not “faith in Christ” as many have) I think it may not be sufficient to capture the depth and breadth of what is being communicated in this particular verse. Having said this I have never seen either of these renderings inside a consideration of f his vicarious humanity entering into the literature that i have read. The closest they get is, “the faithfulness of Christ”. Which is ok but i think inadequate. It’s sad as if its not even an option they consider when it is the first that one should consider.
Keep up the good work Bobby as the Lord gives you a voice, May the Lord grant listening ears.
I meant – “He is Lord of all ! ” of course. Fat excited fingers typing.
From what i have read, for TFT its the non-assumptus that stands as the key to his theological lens and given the Christ is the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world who is for us and for our salvation. The simplicity and profundity of these two things are impossible to overstate and have made a profound impact on my walk with the Lord and the understanding of how Scripture is unlocked inside of this reality. His humanity is the conduit for our knowledge of the Fatherly love of God. The exchange makes this possible. One can only hold one’s hand over one’s mouth as TFT i think also wrote or said somewhere.
RichardS, amen! Yes, the “wonderful exchange” along with the homoousios which includes of course the non-assumptus and the vicarious humanity of Christ, all mutually implicating themes, are of course key to TFT’s theology (and I think catholic theology rightly understood). And yes, TFT, even more than Barth, has had a massive life changing impact on my walk with the Lord; I can’t recover from it. It just seems to resonantly biblical, when I came across it everything in Scripture, and the impulses the Lord had been building into my heart over the years from there, finally had some place to click (with theological intelligibility).
Amen, you keep up the good work in your witness bearing to Christ too.
Bobby – I have had the very same experience. “Jesus the whole Jesus and nothing but Jesus so help me God.” In him all things cohere. Go for it brother. Everyone needs to know this and will eventually. Sooner than later would be good and may the Lord speed on his one work.
Amen, Richard! It seems to me that people who read their Bibles a lot, through lots of meditation etc., when exposed to the theology we have been, end up having this literal “coming to Jesus moment” where it all finally clicks. Seems to me, though, that this only happens to people who are of a certain disposition.
Amen Bobby, It all finally has clicked. Found its telos. Praise the Lord.
Even though I have loved the Lord for may years my walk with our Lord was revolutionized by this revelation of the mediation of Christ as the character and content of the Christian life. This reality must sink in more and more deeply into us all and your work is toward this purpose. That is why I pray for you and pray that I may participate in the same. Since there is only one work and all else is really hay and stubble.
I do agree it does seem to happen in people with a certain disposition. Those with a desire that the Lord works out in a persons life. I was never satisfied until I had this in my life and now it (he) is all I want. Its like having been given the keys to the kingdom and to everything finding its resting place. I believe that this is a kind of prophetic witness as well which is why your ministry is so important (and why the suffering has had to be great for you). This testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of prophecy (Rev 19:10) and this is, at its core, a revelation that God will bring to all people whether here in this world or the world to come. I am deeply grateful beyond words that the Lord has (also through much anguish) allowed me to see this before I meet Him face to face. I am so grateful that there are people like you out there who are working toward the same purpose. Just keep pressing on brother. It is the Lord ! (Jn 21:7 ).
Richard, amen, thank you for sharing all of that! Suffering isn’t the funnest thing to go through, but at least we know ours has redemptive purpose; and a final consummation to it. May we bear witness to this hope together as the body of Christ. Glad the Lord has worked similarly in you as He has me, it is encouraging to know the same Lord is doing the same works in His people all across the lands. Keep pressing on too, Richard! Maranatha