Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Theological Exegesis
Author(s): Floyd V. Filson
Source: Journal of Bible and Religion, Vol. 16, No. 4 (Oct., 1948), pp. 212-215
Published by: Oxford University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1456547
Accessed: 19-04-2015 17:16 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Oxford University Press and American Academy of Religion are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Journal of Bible and Religion.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 216.236.244.97 on Sun, 19 Apr 2015 17:16:23 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Theological Exegesis
FLOYD V. FILSON*
212
This content downloaded from 216.236.244.97 on Sun, 19 Apr 2015 17:16:23 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THEOLOGICAL EXEGESIS
the inclusion of the focal factor indicated by
the expression "theological exegesis."
By this term "theologicalexegesis" I do not
mean an interpretationof Scripturecontrolled
by church creed or confession. To bring the
interpretation under the domination of any
church confession can easily force the writing
to say what it did not originally say. Our
purpose is to find out what the writing meant;
we intend to let it say what its author wanted
us to hear. Conformity to a post-biblical
creed cannot be the standard and test of true
exegesis.
Nor does "theologicalexegesis" refer simply
to an interpretationwhich is given by a sensitive and congenial spirit. To be sure, this
sensitive spirit is required. We know that
the student of poetry and drama must have
sympathy and imagination in order to interpret what he reads. In the realm of religion,
where the vastness and mystery of the field
and the inescapably personal nature of the
theme are at a maximum, the need of personal
awareness of the religious issues should be
clear. We cannot expect a spiritually dull or
cynical person to prove competent as an
interpreter of the Bible. Factual knowledge
and technical competence in historical study
must be coupled with alert and responsive
sympathy. The need of a congenial spirit,
however, is not the subject of the present
article.
What, then, do I mean by "theological
exegesis"? Two things. In the first place,
since the Bible deals with religious truth so
crucial in importance and so urgent in challenge, and since there is no objective canon
by which to judge the validity of Scriptural
content, the interpreter is left without objective criteria to use in grasping and presenting
the meaning of these writings in fair and accurate perspective, and therefore he must
consciously or unconsciously bring into play
his personal attitude in these matters. He
should do so consciously and thoughtfully.
When he does so, he is a theologian, and his
interpretation is theological exegesis. The
biblical message speaks concerning the ul-
213
This content downloaded from 216.236.244.97 on Sun, 19 Apr 2015 17:16:23 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
214
FLOYD V. FILSON
This content downloaded from 216.236.244.97 on Sun, 19 Apr 2015 17:16:23 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THEOLOGICAL EXEGESIS
Holy Spirit. Certainly such a gift is not to
be expected of any human being. In other
words, Mark forces us to recognize that he
holds a high Christology; whether or not the
words "Son of God" are part of the original
text of v. 1 (the manuscript evidence makes
this doubtful), they correctly represent the
position of Mark, who elsewhere includes
references to Jesus as God's "beloved Son"
(1:11) and as "the Holy One of God" (1:27),
and reaches a climax in the witness of the
centurion: "Truly this man was God's Son"
(15:39).
It may be said, and often is said, that Mark
holds only an adoptionist Christology: God
adopted a good man and appointed him or
made him his Son. This is not sound exegesis.
It is forced to interpret Mk. 1:11 to mean:
"You never beforewere my Son, but beginning
now you are." Moreover, the adoptionist
view contradictsthe exegeticalresult of a study
of v. 3. Here the word "Lord," which in the
Greek O. T. is the translation of "Yahweh,"
is used with obvious referenceto Jesus. Now
one may argue that Mark here takes an O. T.
verse referringto God and applies it to a mere
man, but this is not convincing. The use of
Is. 40:3 with reference to Jesus is rather a
clear indicationthat Mark links Jesus with God
in a unique way. The quotation of Isaiah
40:3 is a barrierto the adoptionist interpretation of the opening paragraphsof Mark.
Furthermore, the reference to the baptism
with the Holy Spirit (v. 8) is a forwardlook to
the apostolic age, in which the Spirit plays a
prominent r6le. This implies the resurrection
and the ongoing power and work of the living
215
This content downloaded from 216.236.244.97 on Sun, 19 Apr 2015 17:16:23 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions