Let me say another word about theological exegesis (I prefer that to theological interpretation of Scripture, as far as the language goes). I’m not sure I made myself as clear as I would like to have in my last post: everyone and anyone who attempts to interpret the Bible does so “theologically.” I don’t think this is appreciated enough, at all! In order for folks 
to appreciate this properly they might have to reorientate their thinking a bit. No matter what belief system, or belief reality someone is committed to, they bring this to the text of Scripture. So, if you’re a metaphysical naturalist/materialist, a secularist in other words, then you bring those categories to Scripture. This ‘secular’ person is doing “theological” exegesis of Scripture; it’s just that they are reading themselves into it, as they read the true and the living God out of it. This is a form of theological exegesis. I am unsure why I would bear any burden at all in regard to showing how theological exegesis looks. We already have those results, exhaustively presented, as we study the history of biblical interpretation; up to the present. Structuralism died along time ago, which means words, grammar, philology, lexicography etc. provide no inherent meaning for exegetical conclusions; only the greater context, or we might say along with John Webster, the ontology of Scripture does. Just because we might not be able to cognize this, or imagine how these things might be, does not mean they aren’t. If the triune God in Christ is the context not just for Holy Scripture, but for the greater creation which Scripture was presented within, then it must be Jesus Christ who is the ultimate meaning of the text of Holy Scripture. He becomes not the SYSTEM, but the personalist cornerstone of the text’s reality and meaning. As TFT says about Scripture: (paraphrase) Scripture is the signum (sign), Christ its res (reality). This seems abstract to some, but I don’t understand how that is. What seems abstract to me is to bring so-called “critical” categories to Scripture, categories that have been given breath by naturalist rather than supranaturalist lungs, and believe that reading the Bible non-Christologically amounts to a concrete reading of discovering meaning in Scripture. That is like doing math or something. Someone who is good at math feels a sense of control and order because they have a level of mastery in mathematics. But Scripture’s reality isn’t of this world, it is outwith this world and prior to it in the triune God. Scripture’s reality isn’t manageable, it contradicts and confronts us. There are no master’s of Holy Scripture, not if it is living and active. Scripture’s reality masters and sanctifies us, not vice versa. There are secondary tools that come to bear as we exegete Scripture, like language, literary realities, history so on and so forth, but none of those are Scripture’s context; Jesus is (cf. Jn 5.39). Jesus said it Himself, and proved it, that He is the living and active Word, and that the total canon of Holy Scripture has always already had its reality from the context of His life as the eternal Logos; or it only has the capacity to become an idol-factory of its so-called handlers’ craftiness.
In the end, anyone who has ever tried to interpret the Bible has done so theologically. Their “confessionalism” might be of a naturalist orientation (and sad to say that has shaped much if not all of so-called evangelical hermeneutics), nevertheless it ultimately is the confession that “they are Lord.” I hope this helps to clarify my last post even further. Pax Christi