Archives for April 2010

As theological interpreters write about the mutual interplay of doctrine and exegesis in connection with Christian living, their work can be divided into three branches.

One branch, Theological Hermeneutics, is concerned with how theology ought to govern hermeneutical theory. In this category fall hermeneutical discussions like those carried on by Werner Jeanrond, Kevin Vanhoozer, Francis Watson, Stephen Fowl, and others.

Another branch, Theological Commentary, allows theology a significant role the exegetical process. A theological commentary is also written so that that the text addresses key theological and life issues that Christians face in the contemporary world. This entails biblical, historical, and systematic theological reflection. The Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible and the Two Horizons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments are two series that are explicitly attempting to be theological commentaries. Though not part of the “movement” per se, O. Palmer Robertson’s contribution to NICOT and Ridderbos’ commentary on John are both theological commentaries.

The counterpart to Theological Commentary is a more exegetically focused dogmatics. Grudem’s Systematic Theology should count, but at least on practitioner of theological interpretation doesn’t like him.*

A third kind of theological interpretation is harder to label. It includes a theological approach to a wide variety of topics. For example, this kind of theological interpretation provides a theological evaluation of New Testament studies, a theological approach to canonics, a theological introduction to the Bible or one of the Testaments, or a theological study of issues like the body and soul. This kind of theological interpretation could be labeled Theological Interpretation in Biblical Studies and Theology. The books in Baker’s Studies in Theological Interpretation fall in this category.

*R. W. Moberly acknowledges that Wayne Grudem is practicing theological interpretation, but he classifies it as bad: “Most scholars recognize differences between bad and good in theological readers. The obvious examples of bad are what one may loosely, but conveniently, designate as ‘fundamentalist.’ Fundamentalist scholars are locked into a certain kind of reaction to aspects of modern thought, and indeed they regularly display the ‘noncritical’ approach that Barton targets. Although it is invidious to name names, one clear example is Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology, which offers a particular kind of ‘theological’ interpretation of Scripture. Grudem’s considerable erudition is consistently trammeled by his theological presuppositions in the kind of way that most of his reasoning is persuasive only to those who share the presuppositions; and there is a clear distancing from biblical criticism as generally practiced. . . . Yet Grudem’s work is a prime example of what Childs and other theological readers have been trying to escape from. The goal is to escape the ‘liberal vs. fundamentalist’ dance of death by rethinking the basic categories within which a theological approach to the Bible might best be understood.” R. W. Moberly, “Biblical Criticism and Religious Belief,” Journal of Theological Interpretation (Spring 2008): 79f.