As a student of biblical studies, my ears suddenly shot straight up at this. What biblical studies are YOU learning? Source Criticism… Form Criticism… Redaction Criticism… so on and so forth, they all at one point or another say X cannot be true because of Y elsewhere–they all think a meaning may or may not be valid because it disagrees with their perceived methodological or “systematic” doctrine. There is no difference here between “Christian” or otherwise, “theology” or otherwise.

I agree we should not look for ways to make our theology fit a text, but rather look for how the text might influence and change our theology. But if you were indeed a realist you would know that this is more of a Utopian ideal than the actual reality our situation can or ever will achieve. If the very texts were are looking at were written in such a manner, they wouldn’t even exist for us to look at to begin with. And no one is a clean slate looking at the text. We all have a system, we all have a preference, we all have a bias. And that will more often than not, even when we are on guard against it, color what we see and how we see it.

The wonderful thing about scholarship is NOT that it gives us a way to come to conclusions that aren’t determined by our theology, but it allows us to be challenged to think differently and to come to new and different theologies. And that situation will exist to the same degree whether we are speaking of theology or biblical studies.

However, at the end of the day I don’t think that modern Biblical interpretation benefits from having theological systems thrust upon it. I understand and agree that no one is free from presuppositions, but we need to strive as much as possible to avoid allowing our theological systems to influence our interpretation of the text. Rather, we need our interpretation of the text to decide what our theological system is (and, in so doing, realize that the Bible is not a systematic text and therefore our system probably won’t be perfectly balanced and systematic).

I was speaking to someone recently that admitted that they had never read a commentary, or a theological treaty and said, “ultimately who cares what Calvin or Luther has to say about this passage or that passage”. I am only concerned with what the Bible says”. The problem is that this person has been influenced by Calvin and Luther in ways that he could never have imagined. The influence was indirect (being that he admitted to never reading either of these individuals), but an influence is there none-the-less. The influence comes from Western Culture, from being identified as a Protestant, and from Pastors who have read them. All of these outside sources have become apart of his worldview. The question is not if the influence is good or bad, but to what extent has the interpreter all ready have been effected by the influences.

My point is that we are ALL slaves to our presuppositions. Once we embrace that we will become better interpreters. (I sound pretty Post-Modern right now).

However, where I become concerned is when Christians begin saying “X cannot be true of this passage because Y was said in a different passage.” In other words, when Christians refuse to see certain avenues of interpretation/meaning in the text because it would violate what they feel to be foundational doctrines. At such a point the exegete has become the slave of a system.

In my opinion, someone who tries to understand the Bible, what it says, what it means, etc. must be willing to ask any question, and potentially come up with an answer that she does not like. This needs to include everything from who wrote the Torah (ie, not Moses) to God’s omnipresence.

At the end of the day, I think that theological systems do more harm to the interpretive process than good.

We are not a blank slate, every interpretive decision is shaded by our worldview that we carry into the text. This worldview includes our theology. You have made the claim that you think there are contradictions in scripture. That claim is now a theological presupposition that you carry into future texts and ultimately it alters how you interpret seemingly, or otherwise, contradictory texts. We all do this to some degree. There is not an exegete alive that hasn’t been altered by a theological system (or even by the lack of a system). Gordon Fee is a Pentecostal. His commentary on 1 Corinthians has been hailed by many as one of the best commentaries on 1 Corinthians in the English language. His commentary is written from a Pentecostal perspective, but because Fee is conversant with how different “systems” handle the text, he is able to navigate through the material in a way that is profitable for many. In my opinion, at least being aware of your theological biases makes you a better interpreter. We all have presuppositions and our presuppositions are not entirely bad, because they provide an entry point into the text.

The only problem that I have with systems is that often people who subscribe to them are unwilling to have them altered based on better evidence from outside of that held system.