Our Theological System Should Not Tell Us How to Exegete the Bible

A theological system ought to be the product of exegetical study of Scripture, not a preface to exegetical work. Hermeneutical principles are first observed in the Scriptures themselves, even in a cursory and casual reading. Those principles are then applied in actual study of the text in the exegetical process.

This important order of principles and process is one reason that it is a bit of a misnomer to refer to a “dispensational hermeneutic.” Dispensational thinkers claim that they (are at least attempting to) consistently apply a literal grammatical historical hermeneutic to the biblical text. In that hermeneutic approach, dispensational conclusions are just that—conclusions. If we claim to hold to a dispensational hermeneutic, then on the one hand we are asserting our lack of bias in consistently applying an objective hermeneutic, while on the other we are showing our bias by claiming a dispensational presupposition. One can’t have it both ways. Dispensationalists have struggled with this to some degree. Reformed theologians, on the other hand, have virtually dismissed this issue altogether, readily admitting that theology drives their hermeneutic.

For example, Kevin DeYoung suggests that our theological system should not only inform our exegesis, but that our theological system should tell us how to exegete. DeYoung’s definition of exegesis is a good one that both Reformed and Dispensational interlocutors would accept:

Exegesis is what you do when you look at a single text of Scripture and try to understand what the author–speaking in a specific culture, addressing to a specific audience, writing for a specific purpose–intended to communicate.

But how would one’s systematic theology effect one’s exegesis?

Part of the problem is in affirming a historical distinction between biblical scholarship and theology. I reject the independence of those two disciplines and affirm the dependence of one on the other. If one is not strong in the Scriptures, that one is not well equipped for making theological claims. Theological aptitude does not make for better exegesis, but it does make for better applications (which should follow strong exegesis).

I would go so far as to assert that not only should exegesis inform systematic theology, it should be the absolute governing principle in deriving systematic theology. L.S. Chafer once defined systematic theology as “the collecting, systematically arranging, comparing, exhibiting, and defending all facts concerning god and his works from any and every source.” That definition is in my humble estimation, far too broad. In Chafer’s (otherwise solid) approach, systematic theology is being derived from extra-biblical sources as well as biblical, and thus one cannot ultimately be certain that they have understood the data correctly—or even identified the data properly. If systematic theology is derived exclusively from Scripture, on the other hand, then the level of certainty regarding conclusions increases dramatically.

DeYoung suggests that “systematic theology looks at the whole Bible and tries to understand all that God says on a given subject …” While DeYoung’s definition here is stronger than Chafer’s (as DeYoung’s implies the Bible is the sole source of data), DeYoung’s application seems to contradict the initial definition, when he says that,

As a Christian I hope that my theology is open to correction, but as a minister I have to start somewhere. We all do. For me that means starting with Reformed theology and my confessional tradition and sticking with that unless I have really good reason not to.

DeYoung begins with Reformed Theology and the confessional tradition, and reads the Bible through that lens. That is, in effect, reading extra-biblical systematized theology into the text. The danger is twofold:

  1. If the systematic theology is not exclusively and comprehensively biblical (even the most conservative Reformed theologians would admit that there is some reading between the lines in Reformed doctrines and confessions), then extra-biblical data is read into the Bible;
  2. Reading broad contexts into more narrow ones can inhibit understanding of authorial intent. Certainly, we need to consider theological context in understanding a passage, but that theological context is drawn from the text itself, and in consideration of near biblical context first.

Allowing a theological system to help determine exegesis is not exegesis at all—it is eisegesis (at least insofar as the theology impacts the reading). By definition, exegesis is drawing out the meaning of the text, while eisegesis reads meaning into the text.

DeYoung asserts that we must have a systematic theology in order to understand specific contexts, suggesting that we cannot properly exegete the text without a pre-formed theological system. He asks rhetorically,

Without a systematic theology how can you begin to know what to do with the eschatology of Ezekiel or the sacramental language in John 6 or the psalmist’s insistence that he is righteous and blameless?

This is eisegesis. To read a theology or a tradition into a passage is not an appropriate way to understand authorial intent in the narrow context. The broader context (of a book, for example) is made up of smaller units of context (pericopes, etc.). One must understand what the smaller units are saying in order to correctly assess the broader units. Once the smaller units have been assessed, we can make assessments of the broader. This reflects the interplay of narrow and broad textual contexts – but that is very different from reading a theological system (which in DeYoung’s case is Reformed and confessional) into the text.

Rather than begin with any tradition or theology, why not simply read the passages, assess them in light of normal hermeneutic principles (literal grammatical historical), and allow the passages to speak for themselves? Why not then simply apply the narrow context to the broader context?

Reformed theology cannot do this in some cases, because the theological results would contradict the system. This is illustrated vividly in DeYoung’s handling of the 144,000 in Revelation 7. DeYoung asserts that these are stylized and allegorical references that cannot logically refer to an actual number of ethnically Jewish people. If these references were to be understood literally, then there would have to be an admission of a future physical and spiritual restoration of ethnic Israel – an insurmountable obstacle in Covenant/Reformed eschatology. Likewise, if the eschatology of Ezekiel is taken at face value and interpreted in a straightforward manner, then the interpreter is faced with the same conundrum: there is a future in God’s covenant plan for ethnic Israel in the land which He promised to the nation. These cases illustrate how imperative it is for Covenant/Reformed theology to read its system into the text, for without doing so, the system is rendered incoherent by the exegetical data.

The bottom line is a simple one: we either submit to authorial intent regardless of the theological outcomes (recognizing that theology is an outcome, not a starting place), or we pursue an affirmation of a predetermined theological system with which we can be content. One is submissive to the Writer, the other is not. At times, both Reformed and Dispensational thinkers have found themselves in various places between these two points. The challenge for both groups is to be consistent in their pursuit of submission to the divine Author.

Christopher Cone 2016


Dr. Christopher Cone serves as President of Calvary University, and is the author or general editor of several books including: Integrating Exegesis and Exposition: Biblical Communication for Transformative Learning, Gifted: Understanding the Holy Spirit and Unwrapping Spiritual Gifts, and Dispensationalism Tomorrow and Beyond: A Theological Collection in Honor of Charles C. Ryrie. Dr. Cone previously served in executive and faculty roles at Southern California Seminary and Tyndale Theological Seminary and Biblical Institute, and in pastoral roles at Tyndale Bible Church and San Diego Fellowship of the Bible.

1212 reads
6153 reads

There are 9 Comments

Aaron Blumer's picture

EditorAdmin

I'm half way with Cone and have way with DeYoung on this one.

There is not really any such thing as objective exegesis. We all bring some assumptions and prior conclusions to the text. So the role of systematic theology is to ensure that what we bring to the text is in harmony with the whole of Scripture... rather than a set of random and chaotic ideas lacking that discipline.

Much flows from the doctrines of plenary inspiration and inerrancy. If it's all inspired, then it all has to agree with itself, and if it all agrees with itself, we understand each part better by fitting that into the whole.

On the other hand, it's important to question whether we've got "the whole" right when we encounter passages that don't seem to fit. So there's a happy medium where we intentionally work to let the text say what it says, and allow some tension with the systematic theology.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

JNoël's picture

Aaron Blumer wrote:

We all bring some assumptions and prior conclusions to the text.

Of course, we should never rest on our prior conclusions as being the final word on any subject, no matter the degree of study. One could write a doctoral thesis on a particular issue and find himself rightly challenged on his conclusions - and must then be humble enough to agree.

 

Aaron Blumer wrote:

If it's all inspired, then it all has to agree with itself, and if it all agrees with itself, we understand each part better by fitting that into the whole.

Isn't that why there are those who call themselves Dispensational or Reformed? What I mean by that is this - without interpreting certain passages in light of one or the other, it is difficult, perhaps even impossible, to interpret some passages at all. I'm not saying I believe the right answer then is to bring those positions into the text, but without doing so, we are left with the reality of passages that simply do not fit with each other - within the limitations of our human intellect. Once our eyes are opened, when we no longer know only in part, so much more will be clear to us, not entirely unlike how so much doctrine was veiled to OT Jews of which we now have a more complete understanding. The Bible has all we need for life and godliness, but God obviously did not reveal everything in every way: he revealed what we need right now. There is so much more to come!

Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)

Bert Perry's picture

Thanks for something to think about as I read the Word and contemplate, for fun and hopefully edification, how I might approach the Scriptures if I'd come off a desert island and learned that this Book was there, and what people had done to compile and preserve it.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

TylerR's picture

Editor

Cone wrote this:

Dispensational thinkers claim that they (are at least attempting to) consistently apply a literal grammatical historical hermeneutic to the biblical text. In that hermeneutic approach, dispensational conclusions are just that—conclusions. If we claim to hold to a dispensational hermeneutic, then on the one hand we are asserting our lack of bias in consistently applying an objective hermeneutic, while on the other we are showing our bias by claiming a dispensational presupposition. One can’t have it both ways. Dispensationalists have struggled with this to some degree. Reformed theologians, on the other hand, have virtually dismissed this issue altogether, readily admitting that theology drives their hermeneutic.

I know this is a trap many people fall into. You have a system, and you view and interpret Scripture through the system by default. You unconsciously (or consciously) look for what you want, and minimize or explain away contrary evidence. In the end (surprise!), you get the result which matches your theological system. Who whaddya thought?

I see this all the time with criminal and regulatory investigations. People have a tendency to see what they want. I see this all the time with theological writings, from all sorts of different spectrums. It's always fun for me to re-evaluate some of my own "system" as I read through the Bible. For example, I have tentatively shifted my position and believe Jesus has been crowned as King already, but hasn't yet assumed the throne. That is not what I was taught. But, after going through Luke for the past nine months for family devotions, I feel it is the best position.

It's hard for people to overlook their preconceived systems. But, it's fun. It's illuminating. People should do it more often. Think about the NT use of the OT. How should a dispensationalist handle the quotations from 2 Cor 6:16-18, and the original context of Paul's quotations? Is Paul importing the same context, or is he just quoting Scripture that is analgous in a general way to his unrelated point? Tough; it goes against the standard dispensationalist answer. Doesn't mean dispensationalists don't have a good answer; it just means it should give the honest dispensationalist pause for a moment or two . . .   

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and an Investigations Manager with a Washington State agency. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?

WallyMorris's picture

Dr. Custer at BJU used to teach a class called "Theological Systems" - he covered covenant, dispensational, and even the cults. Good class.

Wally Morris

Charity Baptist Church

Huntington, IN

amomentofcharity.blogspot.com

Ed Vasicek's picture

This is a very important subject, and I always appreciated Dr. Cone's work.  On this one, I find myself agreeing with Aaron (I half-way agree with Cone, half-way with DeYoung).

We can all agree that our theology needs to be corrected, honed, and nuanced by Scripture.

I think we can all agree that some in both Covenant and Dispensational camps force Scripture into their respective systems.  I do think that Covenant/Reformed interpreters tend to be more "patriotic" about their identity and less open to correction. But that is my observation, so this is a completely subjective opinion.

I think we need to make a distinction here between the INDUCTIVE and the DEDUCTIVE.  Even the Reformers started out with a deductive approach. They assumed the Bible to be true, the Trinity to accurately represent the Nature of God, for example.  They embraced a variation on Anselm's theory of the atonement.

None of us has the time or energy to develop our theology INDUCTIVELY.  It took the church nearly three centuries to formulate the doctrine of the Trinity.  Rather than replicate their work independently, we CHECK their work and see if it stands the test of Scripture.

Through inductive study, we may develop conclusions that correct what we have accepted deductively, and we hone our views.

But there is one more consideration: harmonization.  Some verses can be easily understood to say that we can lose our salvation, others just the opposite.  Some verses seem to teach salvation by keeping the commandments or by baptism, others by grace through faith apart from works.  Some verses could easily be understood to say if you have faith, God will give you exactly what you ask for, others suggest God only answers prayers according to His will.  

So do we preach salvation by works when we preach on the rich young ruler, but salvaton by grace when we preach on Romans?

Systematic theology keeps us from flip-flopping and camping out on one verse and will dictate the manner in which we harmonize Scripture.  But that theolgy needs to be correctable.

"The Midrash Detective"

Ed Vasicek's picture

Tyler R said:

It's hard for people to overlook their preconceived systems. But, it's fun. It's illuminating. People should do it more often. Think about the NT use of the OT. How should a dispensationalist handle the quotations from 2 Cor 6:16-18, and the original context of Paul's quotations?

That's why I am so big on understanding Midrash.  When you do, these passages fall in line.  That understanding is missing (as a rule) in both Covenant and Dispensational camps, although some do pick up on it.

"The Midrash Detective"

CAWatson's picture

Peter Enns is correct that literalism is a hermeneutical decision that needs defended. 

Help keep SI’s server humming. A few bucks makes a difference.