Scripture involves applying it to particular situations. This is a part of interpretation or seeking its modern meaning. They stress that we must acknowledge God as the self-existent, original, and complete fact which makes sense of all other created facts. God is the starting point for understanding and argumentation.167 Though rather esoteric at first glance, these points are brought up in such practical contexts as the relationship between general and special revelation in interpretation and use of Scripture in evangelism.
Moisés Silva, in two outstanding essays concerning issues related to contemporary hermeneutics, cites Van Til in support of a number of significant points. First, in evaluating the debate over whether Scripture is essentially clear or obscure (and its effect on hermeneutical method) in the history of interpretation, Silva asserts that we must bring any hermeneutical approach “under the searching light of Scripture itself,” whether evangelical or not. No matter how scientific methods or tools appear, none are completely neutral with respect to faith commitment.168 He says this in the immediate context of the discussing the role of scholarship related to the historical gap between the time and culture of the biblical writers and that of the contemporary reader. Indeed, the bulk of the history of biblical interpretation could be described as an attempt to bridge this gap in terms of meaning.169 Silva explicitly mentions his influences here—namely, Kuyper and Van Til, both of whom insisted on the differing starting points of believing and unbelieving science.170 Though both types can appear to have the same general character, they actually move in different directions based on their assumed starting point.171 However one seeks to traverse the historical gap in biblical interpretation, it must be done in submission to Scripture, as it is being traversed.
In another essay, Silva argues that in order to apply linguistic principles to biblical hermeneutics, one must not only ask what the Bible says about language in general (e.g., its relation to creation, sin, and redemption), but also must submit to its authority.172 In other words, we need a meaningful framework shaped by God’s revelation in order to evaluate linguistic theories and methods appropriately.173 He cites both Kuyper and Van Til in support of this point, even quoting the latter with respect to facts being ultimately defined in the context or system in which they are found, either Christian or non-Christian. Both systems claim all the facts.174 Silva helpfully reminds us that a distinctively Christian hermeneutic should be in submission to Scripture even as it seeks to interpret it. A distinctively Christian hermeneutic should not rely on notions of ontology and epistemology in general, but rather on how they are defined in Scripture.
In another essay, Silva addresses the often maligned and fractured relationship between theology and exegesis.175 He stresses the close, mutually informing relationship between biblical interpretation and systematic theology. His appreciation for Calvin’s hermeneutics includes an awareness of common grace, which enabled him to draw from other branches of secular learning, such as philology and literary analysis, and put them to use in service of interpretation and theology.176 He specifically cites how the Dutch tradition helpfully worked out the implications of Calvin’s notions of common grace, epistemology, and sin. He mentions Van Til’s relevance for biblical hermeneutics in three ways. First, his emphasis on presuppositions and the denial of neutrality has obvious value in light of contemporary concerns. Second, Van Til stressed that man, far from being a detached neutral observer, actually suppresses the truth in unrighteousness (Rom 1:18–23) and that the fallen condition finds its characteristic expression in seeking to subvert the Creator-creature distinction. Third, unbelievers make true intellectual progress only on “borrowed capital,” taking advantage of the very truths which contradict their own unbelieving presuppositions.177
In light of these realities, Silva argues that “it is not feasible to separate biblical interpretation from theology . . . systematics should influence our exegesis.”178 Later he says plainly, “my theological system should tell me how to exegete.”179 There are three important implications stemming from these conclusions. First, the very nature of systematic theology is that of contextualization. In other words, theology involves seeking to formulate the teaching of Scripture in ways that apply that teaching to our present context, categories, and concerns.180 Hermeneutically, theology involves traversing the gap between what a text meant and what it means. Second, the evangelical presupposition concerning the unity of Scripture requires that the whole Bible be the ultimate context for any one part. This, of course, is based on the conviction that the whole of Scripture comes from one divine author. Lastly, whether explicitly stated or not, all interpret the Bible with theological presuppositions. Better to recognize and evaluate them in light of Scripture than to proceed in a naïve fashion, blind to the exegetical assumptions involved in the process.181
So we see that in Silva’s hermeneutical considerations, Van Til’s influence can be detected across a number of important issues, mirroring Van Til’s own use of systematic theology as the basis for his apologetic method and his primary critique of other rival methods.182 First, presuppositions are not only to be acknowledged and recognized, they are to be evaluated and used properly—according to Scripture. Also, we need biblical categories for understanding unbiblical presuppositions in relation to the doctrines of sin and common grace. Secondly, he stresses that whatever hermeneutical method is used to bridge the historical gap between the text and the interpreter, it must be evaluated in terms of its starting point (i.e., presuppositions related to ontological, epistemological, and ethical questions).183 Thirdly, whatever hermeneutical concepts we are dealing with, they must be defined according to the Christian system of truth. Lastly, systematic theology not only has significant influence on exegesis (whether one admits it or not), but it also should influence it.
Graeme Goldsworthy reiterates many of Silva’s observations and extends the application of Van Til’s ideas in the direction of biblical theology.184 In doing so, he explicitly makes the connection between the fields of apologetics and hermeneutics in terms of presuppositions and starting points.185 He rightly points out that the varying definitions of hermeneutics that scholars have offered over the years carry with them differing theological stances and presuppositions, which are not neutral in nature.186 Moreover, these assumptions regarding the key elements in communication (i.e., sender, message, receiver)187 “either directly or indirectly deal with the question of God.”188 Who God is affects one’s conception of the sender, the nature of the message, and the nature of the receiver—every important aspect of communication involved in interpretation. The Bible itself provides not only the proper presuppositions required for a full-orbed worldview, but it also supplies its own hermeneutical principles. He recognizes the challenge of maintaining evangelical presuppositions amidst potentially conflicting ones found in modern philosophical hermeneutics.189
