The following are three vignettes on Theological Exegesis or Theological Interpretation of Scripture (TIS) that I just posted today on Facebook. I think, in the main, so many Christians are so far removed from all things theological or actual, when it comes to excavating the reality of the faith once and for all delivered to the saints, that when some do 
attempt deep dives into such things they simply attempt to apply “common-sense” everyday linguistic and cultural reading theories onto the text of Scripture that Scripture itself resists. Scripture is Holy because its reality is in Jesus Christ. Scripture is Holy because it bears witness away from itself to its reality in Jesus Christ. Just as all of creation’s orientation is toward and from Christ’s reality, so is Scripture’s. Until evangelicals et al. come to recognize this, they will simply fall prey to reading Scripture from strategies that simply leave them in the theological lurch. With that said, I offer up the following vignettes on TIS:
There is an inner-logic to Scripture, and it is based on the analogy of the incarnation. If people, in their “biblical exegesis” don’t reason from there, they are failing to do Christian exegesis of the text. Just knowing Greek and Hebrew grammar, and the ANE and Second Temple Judaic background, isn’t enough to render genuinely Christian readings of the text of Holy Scripture. To say otherwise is to agree with the higher critics of Scripture, who reject Christ out of hand (and their approach to Scripture reflects this).
Theological exegesis or interpretation of Scripture (TIS) is done no matter how positivistically and critically objective someone thinks THEY are. It becomes a matter of what theology is being used as the background towards informing someone’s exegetical conclusions. There are theologies based on naturalistic premises, and not Christian ones, for example. People often mistake their piety towards the triune God for their actual theological premises. They haven’t done the work to disentangle or even begin to understand what in fact funds their preunderstandings as they bring those to the text of Scripture. Much work to be done in this unraveling process. I will say though: appealing to Merriam Webster’s dictionary as your “lexicon” for exegeting Holy Scripture reflects bad theology.
If someone affirms Chalcedonian (one person/two natures) and Nicene orthodoxy (God is three in one/one in three), and its exegetical conclusions about God in Christ, they can’t then turn around and simply exegete Scripture from some sort of abstract “natural” biblical hermeneutic. This is what many fail to understand: when you affirm said orthodoxy you are admitting that Scripture is primarily based in a theological order or matrix. As such, to presume some type of prima facie exegesis of Scripture becomes incoherent if in fact the exegete’s hermeneutical basis is funded by said prima facie approach. In other words, said orthodoxy operates from a commitment to a Christian and confessional approach to Scripture, such that Scripture’s depth dimension and fund in Christ must become its interpretive lens. Jesus said Scripture is all about Him, that He is its centraldogma and reality. Selah