Christocentricity and Appropriation in Calvin's Exposition of Daniel1
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
TTJ 19.2 (2016): 223–254 ISSN 1598-7140 Christocentricity and Appropriation in Calvin’s Exposition of Daniel1 Willem A. VanGemeren Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, USA Introduction: The Occasion for this Paper A recent publication on Christocentricity2 led me to reflect some more on John Calvin’s approach to messianic prophecies. Several faculty members of Westminster Theological Seminary (Philadelphia), representing the classical theological areas (OT, NT, and ST), have outlined definitive hermeneutics that defines the Westminster approach to biblical interpretation, biblical theology, and systematic theology. Both the Board and Faculty are now unanimous as to the implications of Westminster’s historic mission, as President Lillback writes, “The seminary today continues to believe that the hermeneutical method identified in the Reformation tradition of Westminster is biblically sound and in fact essential for a high view of Scripture in an age of doubt, controversy, and compromise.” (6) Permit me to enter briefly into the fray of my alma mater. I matriculated at Westminster nearly fifty years ago. It was a critical time in her history, because the theologian, John Murray, had recently retired (1966) and the Old Testament scholar, Edward J. Young, had passed away (1968). Of the founding fathers, Cornelius Van Til (1895-1987) was still teaching apologetics. It was also a joy to be introduced to biblical theology by Edmund Clowney, Meredith G. Kline, and Richard Gaffin. 1. I thank the faculty and students at Chongshin Theological Seminary and Torch Trinity (Seoul, South Korea) for their engagement with different forms of this paper. I also thank Dr. Cristian G. Rata for the partial editing of the paper. 2. Peter A. Lillback, ed., Seeing Christ in all of Scripture: Hermeneutics at Westminster Theological Seminary, (Philadelphia: Westminster Seminary Press, 2016). For other approaches to Christocentricity, see Dane C. Ortlund, “Christocentrism: An Asymmetrical Trinitarianism?” Themelios 34.3 (2009): 309–21. He argues that the proponents of Christocentrism of whatever form are unified in “a conviction that the Bible will be properly understood, faithfully preached, and rightly applied only if the enfleshed second person of the Trinity is seen as the integrative North Star to Christian doctrine and practice” (312). 224 Torch Trinity Journal 19 (2016) They helped to connect the two testaments. But I do not remember a distinct Christocentric hermeneutic at Westminster during my studies. Fast forward some fifty years later, and we find a Westminster that has had to deal with several faculty members in the OT department. The Board decided that they placed an undue stress on the human authorship of Scripture and on the Ancient Near Eastern context to the virtual exclusion of the divine authorship. These faculty members held to a Christotelic approach, rather than a Christocentric hermeneutic. They connected the Old with the New Testament in the “end” (telos) but they also raised questions regarding the focus of the OT Scriptures and the organic unity of the two testaments. They assumed that on a first read Christ was hardly present, and on a second read the gospel was found in the Old Testament. The seminary Board objected to their position and drew up a set of “Affirmations and Denials,”3 by which they clarified their expectations of Westminster faculty members.4 As an alumnus, I thank the Lord for Westminster’s legacy. When I read the vision statement of J. Gresham Machen, my heart skipped a beat, because I caught a broad vision that is rooted in the truth of God’s Word and in the Westminster Standards, while perpetuating “the noble tradition of Princeton.”5 However, as I read the essays of my friends at WTS, I entered a theological arena that has been affected by internal conflicts and projects itself defensively. I have little problem with the general thrust of the essays. Vern A. Poythress (NT) views the unity of God’s revelation centered “on the divine purpose of redemption and re-creation.”6 Iain M. Duguid (OT) defines his task of interpreting the Old Testament in connection with Christ and the gospel.7 G. K. Beale (NT) defines the presuppositions that control the interpretation of the OT in the light of the use by Jesus and his apostles. The reading of the OT in full awareness of Christ’s coming throws light on the meaning of the text, but without contradiction.8 R. B. Gaffin (ST, emeritus) defines 3. Seeing Christ, 63–78. 4. By 2008 the Old Testament scholar, Peter Erick Enns, was dismissed and six years later Doug Green was forcibly retired. 5. Peter A. Lillback, ed., Seeing Christ in All of Scripture: Hermeneutics at Westminster Theological Seminary (Philadelphia: Westminster Seminary Press, 2016), 62. 6. Vern Poythress, “Biblical Hermeneutics,” in Seeing Christ in All of Scripture: Hermeneutics at Westminster Theological Seminary, ed. Peter A. Lillback (Philadelphia: Westminster Seminary Press, 2016), 15. 7. Iain M. Duguid, “Old Testament Hermeneutics,” in Seeing Christ in All of Scripture: Hermeneutics at Westminster Theological Seminary, ed. Peter A. Lillback (Philadelphia: Westminster Seminary Press, 2016), 19. 8. G. K. Beale, “New Testament Hermeneutics,” in Seeing Christ in All of the distinction between biblical and systematic theology, He views BT as “the indispensable servant” of ST,9 when it contributes to the unified view of what the Bible teaches. The reciprocal relationship is such that BT operates within the broad understanding of ST (plot, constants), while apprehending the historical Christocentricity and Appropriation in Calvin’s Exposition of Daniel 225 progression of divine revelation.10 He observes, “God, then, is not merely back of the Bible and its origin in a general, loosely providential or indirect way.”11 For him interpretation aims at the search for “a single pervasive meaning.”12 Hence, biblical theology has a supportive role in keeping with the larger world of systematic theology, in the words of Gaffin, “the biblical theologian ought not to operate indifferently to the assessment of the Bible as a whole that systematic theology provides.”13 In summary, “The substance of the Bible as a whole is Christ as the consummate saving revelation of the triune God.”14 In general, I agree with Gaffin and his colleagues at Westminster.15 I still wonder whether this kind of a biblical theology can be patient with exegetical conundrums, with tensions within Scripture, and with the inherent humanness of biblical authors (1 Pet 1:10–12). Will this hermeneutic allow for potential interpretations of texts? Does it favor the divine by settling the meaning of the biblical texts on the ground that our Lord and his apostles interpret or appropriate an OT text a certain way? Is it possible that the divine-human authorship and intentionality favor the divine so as to virtually void the reality of the human authorship and intentionality? Is it a confessional mistake to read an OT text within its canonical boundaries and to revisit it in the light of the whole of Scripture? Is it possible to create a canon (NT) within the canon? Every OT text, whether cited in the NT or not, requires careful exegesis within the bounds of the book, the corpus (Law, Prophets, Writ- Scripture: Hermeneutics at Westminster Theological Seminary, ed. Peter A. Lillback (Philadelphia: Westminster Seminary Press, 2016), 28–30, 32–34. 9. R. B. Gaffin, “Systematic Theology and Hermenutics,” in Seeing Christ in All of Scripture: Hermeneutics at Westminster Theological Seminary, ed. Peter A. Lillback (Philadelphia: Westminster Seminary Press, 2016), 49. 10. Gaffin, “Systematic,” 50. 11. Gaffin, “Systematic,” 41. 12. Gaffin, “Systematic,” 41. 13. Gaffin, “Systematic,” 50. 14. Gaffin, “Systematic,” 48. 15. President Lillback and the Board have gone on record that the Westminster hermeneutics is entailed by the Westminster Standards. The discussions of the Board and Westminster Faculty brought about an extensive set of affirmations and denials. ings), and the whole canon of Scripture.16 William B. Evans, a Westminster alumnus teaching at Erskine Seminary, wonders, “The insistence that the OT writers must have had NT Christological meanings in mind when they wrote smacks of bibliological Eutychianism, i.e., an overemphasis on the divine to the virtual exclusion of the human.” He concludes, “By staking their case on a curious and speculative argument about what must have been in the minds of the biblical writers, they have not only placed themselves at odds with a significant portion of the Reformed tradition, but they have also painted themselves into a corner from which there is no easy exit.”17 226 Torch Trinity Journal 19 (2016) I am concerned that the “hermeneutic” stance not be a reason for WTS to dissociate herself from the larger body of Reformed seminaries. J. Gresham Machen clearly set forth the theological distinctiveness of Westminster’s mission. He states that her mission is broadly Reformed and in continuity with the heritage of Augustine, Calvin, the Westminster Standards, and the Princeton tradition. He says, “Glorious is the heritage of the Reformed faith. God grant that it may go forth to new triumphs even in the present setting of unbelief!”18 Machen’s vision of Reformed theology is broad, ecumenical, and historic. Machen is also ecumenical when he invites others to join in the venture, saying that the Westminster community rejoices in “the approximations to that body of truth which other systems of theology contain; we rejoice in our Christian fellowship with other evangelical churches.”19 I understand the Board’s desire to perpetuate a heritage that has come about because of certain faculty members who have shaped the narrative of WTS. Over time the Machen vision has become more refined and insistent on particular approaches to theology and biblical studies. I am grateful for this heritage and support the Board’s intent to maintain the cumulative heritage.