Grammatic-Historical vs Redemptive Historical

More and more factors are beginning to introduce themselves as my study for pastoral preparation continues. I have already voiced the concern that an approach to the text of scripture that assumes some kind of neutrality or even some kind of merely contextualized truth is a wrong approach that leads invariably to a critical mind concerning the Scriptures and will, at least at some level, evaluate the text with an external criterion for knowledge.

This will at first seem problematic to the process of hermeneutics. We are used to the popular approach to hermeneutics called "grammatic-historical". This process stresses the first way to read the text is as one in the original audience would. Then explore the grammar for its most basic and common meaning with in that context. However, this would seem to be importing the socio-or cultural context as the governing principle over the text, therefore the process should be abandoned for a better model. A model that allows for significant contribution to be made by such contexts - but not as an ultimate or primary principle.

Now, adherents to the grammatical-historic hermeneutic will not easily give in to such a paradigm shift. Especially, those who have used this process well for some years. Again, I must stress that we are not seeking to abandon historical context - but merely to put historical context in its proper place before we let it have sway over our understanding of revelation. In a sense you could say that historic context is contextualized by a greater principle itself - and that principle the Bible teaches is redemption. You might be thinking that this sounds just like "redemptive-historical" hermeneutics, and you'd be correct. But the problem as far as I can see, is that there is not a good codification of "Redemptive-Historical" process. Most often we learn about Biblical Theology, that it is an over arching organizing and evaluating principle applied to exegesis - or as BB Warfield would say 'Biblical theology is the final and complete result of exegesis', which would clearly put the science of RH hermeneutics after an exegetical attempt to understand the text. Exegeses itself seems to pose problems - at least if we use the definition: "The word exegesis can mean explanation, but as a technical term it means "to draw the meaning out of" a given text..." and "Traditional exegesis requires the following: analysis of significant words in the text in regard to translation; examination of the general historical and cultural context, confirmation of the limits of the passage, and lastly, examination of the context within the text" which puts the explanation grounded upon the grammatic-historic information. So, either "exegesis" should be redefined with a primary goal of finding the redemptive meaning both in broad and narrow contexts and then the grammatic-historic events that give playground to such revelation should be explored - almost a reverse definition, or the order of exegesis - biblical theology should itself be reversed. But how is this possible?