The case against Calvinistic hermeneutics, or, two cheers for Moises Silva

The title of this paper is a direct counterpoint to chapter 14 of Walter Kaiser\u27s and Moises Silva\u27s excellent new book, An Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics (Zondervan, 1994).1 That chapter, written by Silva, is entitled The Case for Calvinistic Hermeneutics (251). My essay\u27s subtitle, a poor attempt at humor, indicates a partial support for Silva\u27s position while refusing to embrace it totally. The fact that I give Silva two cheers is not something I anticipated when I first saw the title of chapter 14 and did a quick read of its contents. My perspectives on hermeneutics have been most significantly influenced by Daniel Fuller and Oscar Cullmann, who eschew the sort of theological exegesis Silva proposes (as opposed to Silva\u27s co-author Walter Kaiser, who states that exegesis is prior to any system of doctrine [192] and is thus firmly in the Cullmann-Fuller camp) . Yet as I read Silva more carefully, I found him persuasive at some points I had originally intended to criticize. It was not so much that his arguments changed my mind, however. Something else happened: As I read Silva, I realized that over the past two or three years I had gradually changed my mind without being aware of it. In fact, I had changed my mind so much that at the close of this paper I will conclude that in one respect Silva\u27s call for theological exegesis is too conservative; i.e. it does not go far enough. But more on that later, for now, I shall first briefly state how Silva defines what he calls Calvinistic hermeneutics as well as summarize his three arguments in defense of Calvinistic hermeneutics. Next, I shall give my two cheers along with a few caveats and one raspberry, if you will. Finally, I shall set forth an alternative proposal which attempts to establish some common ground with Silva\u27s Case for Calvinistic Hermeneutics. Before I begin, perhaps a brief personal comment is in order. Like Silva, I am a Calvinist. And like Silva, I was not raised in this tradition, but gradually moved from other perspectives to my present Calvinist convictions. From my point of view, then, this debate is not about theology. It is about methodology (which does not exclude theology, but must be distinguished from theology, in my judgment)