I know an Old Testament professor who is an exegete, but not a theologian. Let me put this better. I know an Old Testament professor who is so good at exegesis, he does not bother with theology.
Being a Hebrew exegete, this professor deals only with the Old Testament. When talking about particular issues in the Old Testament, he will almost never speak about the broader theological implications of the particular passage. He is so concerned with what the author was saying then, to his audience, that the now seems to have alluded his concern. Unfortunately, exegesis without theology is like a computer without an operating system. It cannot be used.
Exegesis is a term used to describe the process of taking meaning “out of†the text. When we exegete Scripture, the implication is that we are using a method of hermeneutic that values understanding the authorial intent of the passage in order to derive its true meaning (often called “authorial intent hermeneutic” or “historical-grammatical interpretation”). In other words, exegesis attempts to understand the meaning of the text on its own terms. To properly exegete Scripture we must understand many things about the individual book. Among other things, we must seek to understand the purpose for the writing (the occasion), the audience, the cultural and historic backgrounds, linguistic issues such as syntax, word usage, and contextual boundaries, type of literature (genre), and attitude and personality of the author. All of these factors come into play with a good exegete. There is nothing more important, as we will see, than having good exegesis. God does not speak to man outside of the vital role represented by the human author. As Kevin Vanhoozer states in The Dictionary of the Theological Interpretation of the Bible, “We may legitimately presume that the divine intention corresponds to the human intention unless there is good reason—given the nature of God or the broader canonical context—to think otherwise†(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2005, 329).
Having said that, it is important to realize that good exegesis does not automatically produce good theology. Exegesis deals primarily with temporal meaning; theology, on the other hand, deals with eternal implications. Exegesis provides what it meant then; theology provides what it means for all time. Exegesis shows what an individual author had to say in the context in which he was writing; theology synthesizes this with the rest of Scripture attempting to understand what God was saying in relation to the completed revelation. In other words, exegesis looks at the trees, theology looks at the forest.
Evangelicals believe in what is called the dual authorship of Scripture, believing that the Bible is the product of God (being theopneustos “God-breathed†2 Tim. 3:16) who fully utilized man in all ways to produce an inspired text. While this utilization of man makes solid exegesis indispensable for theology, we cannot get so caught up in temporal exegesis that we do not see this in relation to the coherent whole. If God is the ultimate author of Scripture, there must be an underlying coherent purpose in which the text lies. This assumption of coherence leads one to the next steps in interpretation.
The first is the discovery of the broader theological teaching in which the present passage fits in the progress of revelation. This is often described as the “canonical context.†It asks the question “How much did the individual author know at the time of his writing and how does this help to understand the teaching at hand?†This assumes that not all authors have complete revelation. In other words, some authors knew more about God’s ultimate purpose than others. God progressively revealed His plan through the ages. Â
No one would disagree that Paul had a greater understanding of, for example, the Gospel, the grace of God, nature of the Trinity, and the universal sinfulness of man than did Moses who wrote 2500 years earlier or Abraham who lived 4500 years earlier. This does no injustice to the teachings of Moses or Abraham, it simply recognizes that prophets, while inspired, were not omniscient. They simply had the information that was necessary for their part in the revelatory whole. As the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy states: “We affirm that inspiration, though not conferring omniscience, guaranteed true and trustworthy utterance on all matters of which the Biblical authors were moved to speak and write.†The Bible is true without conveying “omniscience†upon the individual authors. Therefore, when we exegete a particular author, we must understand that he can provide us with a teaching that is true and limited at the same time. Its truth adds to the fuller truth of that which is revealed elsewhere in the canon. This canonical approach to interpretation can be neglected by well intentioned exegetes who may have the tendency to focus only on the value of the immediate argument or teaching at hand, and thereby commit the coherence fallacy.
Another important hermeneutical concept that can be neglected by exegetes is called the analogy of Scripture. Simply put the analogy of Scripture means “the Scripture interprets Scripture.†It is often used synonymously with the canonical approach concept, but is distinct in that it is a way in which the canonical approach is accomplished. The canonical approach deals with a hermeneutical philosophy that the different books of Scripture fall somewhere within a coherent whole that creates a theological system, while the analogy of Scripture seeks to interpret the part based upon the whole. For example, we read of the curse upon the snake in Eden:
“And I will put hostility between you and the woman and between your offspring and her offspring; her offspring will attack your head, and you will attack her offspring’s heel.†(Gen 3:15)
Concerning this passage a good exegete would tell you that the text does not tell us, based upon authorial intent hermeneutics, who the snake was or what the full extent of the curse truly meant. Moses himself probably had no idea of the full implications of this passage. To the Israelites residing in the land of Canaan who initially received this account, having no other revelation to compare this event to, it probably amounted to an obscure hope – albeit a true hope. This understanding would be necessary for our understanding of the situation of the time and is vital to proper exegesis of the passage. But we cannot stop there. With the assumption that this passage is a part of a canonical whole superintended by God, we would take the next step in our interpretive process and seek to find if there is further revelation about this curse throughout the rest of Scripture that helps clarify and advance what, if left alone, is obscurity. Later in Scripture we are told that the snake was Satan (Rev. 12:7-9 and the overriding theme of the consistent enmity that Satan enacts with humanity) and his defeat, being “attacked on the head,†was enacted at the cross and will be fully realized in the eschaton (Lk. 10:18; Rom. 16:20; Heb. 2:14; 1 Jn. 3:8).
It is an unfortunate thing when we get so bogged down in the meaning of the text, trying to understand what the text meant, and lose sight of the big picture question “What does it mean?†Often, we can become such good exegetes that we forget to put the pieces of the puzzle together to form a coherent whole. Vanhoozer continues concerning this, “Recognizing Scripture’s divine authorship ultimately requires us to the read the biblical text as one book. As with any action, we can adequately identify what has been done in Scripture only by considering its action as a whole. The divine intention must come to light when God’s communicative acts are described in canonical context†(ibid.).
Tomorrow I will illustrate this failure further with a more significant problem concerning James’ “justification by works” and Paul’s justification “apart from the works of the law.”
21 replies to "Good Exegesis Does not Always Produce Good Theology"
Michael, I think part of the problem is that those who make the best exegetes are not the same as those who are the best theologians. In the area of history, where I have spent a great deal of time, there are two areas of the discipline. Some insist that history should just gather the facts accurately, to the extent possible. Historians are are just collectors of data. Others insist that the data without analysis, and development of concepts and themes and cause/effect analysis, etc, is worthless. Yet, the latter can err on the side of allowing agendas and biases control their conclusions without being grounded in the data itself.
The problem is that those historians who are good at one are not always good at the other. So, we end up having great data-miners who are horrible when it comes to bigger picture thinking. And those who are big picture thinkers often go off half-cocked because they have not done the down and dirty work to get their data right or have just hand-picked the data that best fits their historical constructs and preconceptions.
I think that same may be possible here. Too many theologians out there making the text fit their theological constructs when it really does not, and too many exegetes out there giving good data analysis, but then are weak when it comes to working it all out in a bigger picture.
I tend to think that both sides can do equal damage when left to their own devices!
Oh, and I wanted to add that sometimes new and improved exegesis, based on a better understanding of the history and culture, linguistics, etc, could challenge some theological “sacred cows”.
When that happens we have to determine which is more likely to be in error, the exegesis or the theological construct. Both are based on human fallibility, so both are subject to error, but which is more likely? I think that depends on the situation. We have seen cases where very long-standing theological constructs have been correctly upset by new and better exegesis. But I am sure that the opposite has happened as well.
Michael I agree with you on this post, yeah, I know, it was hard for me to write as well.
I do have a question though, it seems pretty clear from the post that you are saying or at least implying that the Israelites didn’t know who the serpent was, and from the verses you’ve used in the new testament it seems you are saying that the serpent wasn’t known until after Christ’s resurrection. Is it really likely that the Jews did not no the serpent was Satan, and if so, do Jews today still not know who the serpent was? That just seems hard to believe.
Michael,
Great post!
While I disagree with you that the promise recorded in Genesis 3:15 would not have been understood as referring to the tempter, Satan, and a Redeemer, at the time it was delivered (i.e. to Adam and Eve), I agree that one of the biggest disconnects in biblical scholarship today is between exegesis and theology. We have forgotten that the eternal Being also authored the Scripture.
Jay
I don’t think we can underestimate the role that perspective/agenda has in persuading our reading of the text. That is why we have to be all the more mindful and diligent to set ours aside. Otherwise, the interpretation of scripture gets distorted quickly and produces the pendulum extremes exegesis w/o theology and theology w/o exegesis.
I Peter 2:2 – Like newborn babes desire the sincere milk of the word so that you may grow by it with respect to salvation.
Sincere = agenda free and honest. And to be honest with the text, it must be weighed against the whole revelation of God as transcribed in scripture.
Jay,
I agree that both aspects of exegesis have to be kept in balance, the God and human authorship. I actually see the problem with exegesis too often erring in the other direction, though: that this is just God speaking to us directly, in our modern language and modern sensibilities and preconceptions.
I think there are a few culprits for this:
First, since we have bound up this anthology of texts into one “bonded leather” volume, translated into fairly uniform language and style, we very easily forget that it was written (regardless of inspiration) over 1500 years by many different authors to many different audiences, all in the style of writing of that day. I would be like taking a text written today, one written by Ben Franklin, another written by Shakespeare, another written by Chaucer and another written by an ancient Celt, then translating them all into modern English and treating them as if they WERE written yesterday in that modern English.
Second, our society has is woefully “unhistorical”. We don’t have any perspective of the scope of time and the movement of history through various cultures. Yet that doesn’t stop them from interpreting ancient texts as if they were written as we would write them today, and then developing doctrine on that interpretation.
God inspired all of the texts to be written in a way that speaks the basic truths to all generations, yet he allowed the authors to use their own words and literary genres and scientific understandings and approaches to writing, and I think God expects us to know and accept this and read the texts accordingly.
Michael, I appreciated the article (did have some interesting insights).
I think theology (“what God said”) is unattainable without proper exegesis (how would one learn “truth” [or ever properly apply it] without being able to “read” and “understand” what saith the Scripture [Eph. 3:3-4]?).
Given the use of “en tachei” in practically EVERY case of it in Scripture as:
shortly, 4
Act_25:4, Rom_16:20, Rev_1:1, Rev_22:6
quickly, 2
Act_12:6-7 (2), Act_22:18
speedily, 1
Luk_18:8
Would not one correctly deduce (from the evidence induced) that the Spirit by the pen of Paul in Romans 16:20 was speaking of the AD 70 judgment upon the Jewish nation (which was “shortly” from Paul’s perspective)?
The Judaizing infection of Christianity (Acts 15:1-5; Rom. 3-7; 9-11; 14; esp. 15:31; 16:17-19) was evident throughout the epistle, thus, when God destroyed it (the Jewish nation), it “solved the problem”/”bruise Satan under your (saints) feet”.
actually theology would be “knowledge of God”
Exegesis would be “determining what God meant when he spoke”
Vance,
I agree with you on your two ‘culprits’. (Though I admit, I’m not as “historical” as I probably should be, which partly why I’m in TTP 😀 ).
In fact, I have a friend who places more of an emphasis on personal interpretation of Scripture (as led by the Spirit) over and above exegesis (although she does admit that exegesis is somewhat important, but not as important as you or I would say it is). I’ve found it difficult to discuss doctrinal differences with her because I would appeal to historical-grammatical interpretation of Scripture for part of my case, but she refuses to recognize its importance; in such cases, we get stuck at an apparent impasse.
Good posts all.
Lover, I am not biting. It is probably best that this does not go down the preterist road.
Ed, yes, I think that it is possible that the Jewish people did not know the representation of the serpant, but I don’t know how long this lasted. I don’t know what they believe about the serpant in the garden today.
Vance,
You said: “Second, our society has is woefully “unhistoricalâ€. We don’t have any perspective of the scope of time and the movement of history through various cultures. Yet that doesn’t stop them from interpreting ancient texts as if they were written as we would write them today, and then developing doctrine on that interpretation.”
I heartily agree. I’ve often lamented over the way in which modern Western culture (with an emphasis on American fundamentalism) treats the Bible as if it is amenable to our society. We are of course a separatist society and a low context culture — we need to be spoon fed information always asking: who, what, where, when, and why (and sometimes how) — never realizing that the groups we read about in Scripture were collectivist societies living in high context cultures. They shared assumptions and common knowledge which didn’t require that everything be explicitly spelled out for them.
This is a huge factor in exegesis because if we apply a hermeneutic that doesn’t account for this then we will ultimately err. To apply a proper historical-grammatical hermeneutic we must ultimately look outside of Scripture itself and sadly many Americans shudder at the idea of using extra-biblical sources to interpret the Bible.
Nick,
I remember a story about how some monks responded to Galileo when he asked them to look in his telescope. They refused to even look, saying that if it contradicted Scripture (meaning their understanding of Scripture) then whatever they saw would be a lie. If it agreed with Scripture, then there was no reason to look at it anyway, since they could just read Scripture. Sounds eerily familiar at times.
Michael,
I don’t know that there is any one Jewish view about the serpant. Some interpret it to have been the yetzer hara (evil inclination), some a literal beast of the field who at one point had legs (see Rashi), but I haven’t come across a source that interpreted the serpant to be Satan. Doesn’t mean it isn’t out there, just means I haven’t seen it.
Vance,
Reminds me of this movie I saw called Time Changer — The main character is a professor and says to his students, “remember, when science contradicts the Bible it means that the science is wrong” — sounds an awful lot like Ken Ham and his cohorts. I do realize that this was not on point with the post… sorry 🙁
I think it depends on how one defines exegesis. When I studied Old Testament exegesis under Doug Stuart at Gordon-Conwell, Stuart included theological considerations as part of the exegetical process. Here are some of the questions he recommended answering as part of one’s exegesis of a passage:
“To what theological doctrines does the passage add light? What are its theological concerns? . . . Where does the passage seem to fit within the full system of truth contained in Christian theology? How is the passage to be harmonized with the greater theological whole?” (Stuart; Old Testament Exegesis, 2nd ed.; p. 82)
Vance, I agree. I have not seen any evidence to suggest such. I wonder what orthodox Jews would think today about the serpant.
My main point of this blog so far has been to encourage people to not only do good exegesis (without which, we are lost in a sea of subjectivity) but also good theology.
I have read many arguments for open theism which takes particular passages and the “what it meant then” and “how they understood it then” and form a theology based on this. This is called biblical theology, not systematic theology. As well, I have seen advocates of soul sleep deny an intermediate state because those in the Old Testament, believers did not have understanding of the intermediate state (which I think is correct).
If you don’t do good theology, then your are taking only a peice of the puzzle and your beliefs will be ill-informed at best and, in many cases, very heretical.
Michael,
You might find this interesting:
The Chumash Travel-Size Edition – With Complete Sabbath Prayers. Nosson Scherman, et al., eds. (New York: Mesorah, 2001), 15, n. 1-14. [bold and italics theirs]
This didn’t post the first time so I’ll try again…
Michael,
You might find this interesting:
The Chumash Travel-Size Edition – With Complete Sabbath Prayers. Nosson Scherman, et al., eds. (New York: Mesorah, 2001), 15, n. 1-14. [bold and italics theirs]
Michael, what about the “Christological” hermenuetic. Seeing the OT as types and shadows of later fulfillment in the NT. Similar to how Christ spoke of all Scripture being filled in him and speaking about him.
Is that a valid hermenuetic?
Chad, I believe it is. It is a step in the systematic theology process and is a valid hermeneutic. While I think that we must begin with authorial intent hermeneutics, we must move beyond that. The ananlogy of Scripture or analogy of faith (analogia fidei) causes us to move to this next step. Therefore, not only to I think it is valid, I believe it is a necessary step that people often fail to take and are introduced to many pains.