Recommendations for a good exegetical text book

[FCC]

I am hoping that someone can lead me to a really strong reformed book on exegetical processes. I am working with several Arminians and have never really looked at this topic, but now I see the need! Thanks in advance!

 

[Andres]

Let the Reader Understand: A Guide to Interpreting and Applying the Bible by Dan McCartney and Charles Clayton

 

[CharlieJ]

There isn't just one. That is, you can't buy a book that's going to give you a magical hermeneutical rule that refutes all non-Reformed theology. You can, however, train yourself to read and understand Scripture more carefully. It's a reciprocal process. By reading Scripture, we are able to reflect upon how we interpret that; we can take the fruit of that reflection, and read the Scripture more carefully. The process continues indefinitely.

This is a good one, but designed more for seminarians: http://www.amazon.com/Interpreting-Pauline-Epistles-Testament-Exegesis/dp/0801083028

 

[elnwood]

Ditto Charlie. There isn't such thing as "Reformed exegesis," nor is exegesis something that Reformed Christians have cornered the market on. The most widely used introductory text to New Testament exegesis is by a Pentecostal, Gordon Fee. The book doesn't teach "Pentecostal exegesis," but rather exegesis. The process of exegesis itself is (or ought to be) devoid of theological presuppositions.

D. A. Carson's Exegetical Fallacies is extremely helpful for pointing out exegetical flaws. You'll need to know Greek to get the most out of it.

 

[steadfast7]

True, Don, but wouldn't you agree that everyone interprets from within (or out of) a particular hermeneutic that is largely shaped by their tradition? Therefore, when reading commentaries, it's important to know who's writing it and where he's coming from. I. Howard Marshall and Tom Schreiner are two accomplished NT scholars, but from the Arminian and Reformed Baptist camps respectively. Their interpretation on Pauline texts indeed reflect that.

However, David, in terms of text books that simply teach the process of the science of evangelical interpretation, Don's right, there isn't technically a Reformed approach to exegesis that vastly distinct from other legitimate approaches; mostly everyone employs conventional historico-grammatical method.

 

[FCC]

Thanks gentlemen for the input. I do understand that there isn't a book that just teaches the science of evangelical interpretation from a Reformed perspective, however finding a really good book is sometimes difficult to do! I appreciate the help and will look up the two referenced here.

I will try to write some more later on right now I am pressed for time but the problem is a deep one and we are praying very hard for the young lady involved! Have a great day all.

 

[Reformation Monk]

Amazon.com: Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics: Foundations and Principles of Evangelical Biblical Interpretation (9780830828395): Graeme Goldsworthy: Books

Amazon.com: Knowing Scripture (9780830837236): R. C. Sproul: Books

I'm not sure if this is what your looking for but take a look at these two books. They might help.

p.s.... Goldsworthy writes an excellent book called "According to Plan" that is basically a dumbed down version of Geerhardus Vos' "Biblical Theology."

This really helped me understand God's Redemptive Plan and History from Genesis to Revelation, which does help to have a good basic understanding of the whole Bible.

 

[elnwood]

True, Don, but wouldn't you agree that everyone interprets from within (or out of) a particular hermeneutic that is largely shaped by their tradition? Therefore, when reading commentaries, it's important to know who's writing it and where he's coming from. I. Howard Marshall and Tom Schreiner are two accomplished NT scholars, but from the Arminian and Reformed Baptist camps respectively. Their interpretation on Pauline texts indeed reflect that.

Hermeneutics is shaped by a scholar's particular context such as a denominational tradition. As you described, though, the basic tools and method of exegesis is generally the same. Exegesis is distinct from hermeneutics. Perhaps the original poster was more interested in hermeneutics than exegesis?

A basic hermeneutical principle is that Scripture interprets Scripture. The "clearer" texts inform the less clear texts. A lot of the dividing lines in theology are drawn based what is believed to be the clearer text, emphasizing that, and interpreting the rest of Scripture through that lens.

The egalitarian emphasizes Galatians 3:28, the complementarian 1 Timothy 2:12. The dispensational will emphasize the Old Testament promises to Israel in their OT context being "clearly" about national Israel, and interpret the New Testament based on that presupposition. The Arminian emphasizes John 3:16, the Calvinist emphasizes Romans 9. The covenant theologian will emphasize the continuities between the Abrahamic covenant and the New Covenant, and will interpret New Testament baptism through that lens. The Reformed Baptist balances the continuity of the covenant with discontinuity of administration of the ordinances.

Forming one's theological convictions is the lifelong task of striking the best balance of the teaching of the totality of Scripture. Fortunately for us, the creeds and confessions give us a good starting point for doing this.