In my previous blog article, I considered George Ladd’s claim that “the new redemptive events” of Jesus Christ’s crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension compelled the apostles and New Testament writers to “reinterpret” the Old Testament prophets. He argued that sometimes they engaged in “radical reinterpretation” so that Christ’s fulfillment of the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms are significantly different from what might have been expected. Though I found Ladd agreed with Geerhardus Vos that Christ’s coming accomplished prophetic fulfillments already but has not yet exhausted the Old Testament prophecies, his talk of “reinterpretation” and “radical reinterpretation” was unconvincing. Plainly stated, it seemed rather radical, even excessive. So, I continued pursuing a more convincing explanation.
Initially, I thought Richard Longenecker’s Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period resolved the difficulties I found in some passages where New Testament writers seemed to make claims concerning Old Testament passages that my young mind was yet untrained to apprehend. Two New Testament passages caused no small perplexing: (1) the use of Hosea 11:1 in Matthew 2:15—“This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, ‘Out of Egypt I called my son’”—and (2) Paul’s alleged “allegorical interpretation” of the Abraham narrative in Genesis (Galatians 4:21-31). I observed an overlap between Longenecker’s and Ladd’s claims. Where Ladd spoke of “radical reinterpretation,” Longenecker explained some difficult New Testament uses of the Old as occasions when the New Testament writers engaged in creative interpretation from a “revelatory stance” of “privileged apostolic insight” unique to them, which we cannot reproduce. Though his claim had an appeal, Longenecker’s proposal seemed rather radical and unconvincing.
Corrections Required by Teaching and Preaching
Eventually, regular preaching and teaching compelled me to resolve the unsettled tension with which Ladd’s and Longenecker’s proposals left me. I needed clarity. Teaching the Apostle Paul’s argument in Galatians constrained me to come to terms with his so-called allegorical interpretation of the Abraham narrative of Genesis. Several factors convinced me against Longenecker’s explanation of Galatians 4:21-31—(1) Why does Paul feature Scripture as the ground of his argument, unless he believes the Abraham narrative itself, as written, entails allegory? (2) Unless allegorical features are embedded within the Old Testament narrative itself and were there to be recognized all along to authorize the apostle’s use of the story, then what warrants his argument in Gal 4:21-31 other than “privileged apostolic insight” or interpretive adroitness to spin an allegory to controvert his opponents and to convince his converts to remain loyal to his gospel? (3) If the allegory is not present in the Genesis narrative as written, how can the apostle avoid justified accusations of exploiting interpretive sleight of hand? (4) If Paul engages in “creative interpretation” from a “revelatory stance” of “privileged apostolic insight” unique to the apostles and unreproducible by his readers, how does he not leave his converts in a fideistic lurch, looking to his interpretive dexterity rather than to Scripture to ground their faith? (5) Where, in all his letters, does the apostle Paul assert raw apostolic authority instead of reasoned appeal to Scripture as an authorization on which his converts and readers should hang their trust and receive his gospel as true? Eventually, I became convinced that Paul’s argument in Galatians 4:21-31 is that the Abraham narrative of Genesis was orchestrated by God as an allegory and written down as an allegory for our instruction (See “Covenant Lineage Allegorically Prefigured“).
Begging the Question and Confirmation Bias
Wrestling with the proposals by Ladd and Longenecker convinced me that they were both “begging the question” by asserting conclusions based on assumptions needing proof as much as their conclusions. Further reflection on the paradigm-shifting ideas advanced by Ladd and Longenecker, especially the latter, prompted me to recognize that they both make room for “confirmation bias” to play a role in the apostles’ interpretation of the Old Testament concerning the Messiah. “Confirmation bias” refers to the inclination to interpret information favorable to, consistent with, and confirming one’s prior beliefs.
Thus, when I read Barnabas Lindars’s New Testament Apologetic: The Doctrinal Significance of the Old Testament Quotations, I realized that Ladd’s and Longenecker’s claims were aspects of Lindars’s argument. He claims that because the New Testament writers were convinced that the crucified and risen Jesus was the Messiah, they ransacked the Old Testament to prove the legitimacy of their faith. Hence, in their efforts to provide a “New Testament apologetic” for their Christian faith, they appealed to the Old Testament to find “proof texts.” For them, how they remembered Jesus defined Messiah’s mission and became the source of their interpretation of Scripture. Thus, they engaged in truly radical reinterpretation of the Old Testament, pulling passages out of their contexts, altering their meanings, and creatively twisting them to support their new-found faith. Recently, Peter Enns has made a similar statement: “[New Testament writers] go back and read their scripture in such a way to support what they already know to be true by faith” (Reading the Bible Christotelicly).
If renowned biblical scholars are subject to engaging logical fallacies in their arguments, I wondered, “Am I guilty of doing the same?” I recognized missteps Ladd and Longenecker took, but what mistakes have I committed unwittingly? Teaching and preaching tend to expose one’s faults at many levels, especially how one handles the Scriptures. Throughout the ensuing years, a cluster of interrelated faults emerged that I uncritically inherited from theological forebears and many I have addressed in published essays. One is the issue of “allegory” mentioned above. Another I have only touched on previously is how uncritically we pass on to our hearers and readers the ease with which we are inclined to confuse our interpretation of Scripture with Scripture itself, a danger we all must avoid.
Theological Systems and Hermeneutical Grids
Pastoring prepared me in innumerable ways for university classroom teaching. Thus, from the beginning of my academic career, wanting my students to be convinced of truths from the Scriptures for themselves, I purposely avoided announcing my own theological system, only because I wanted them to grapple with being convinced from the Bible. I learned that students appreciated my approach. They told me so with numerous personal notes testifying to the effectiveness of my teaching method.
Of course, we all function from a framework of thought. This is inescapable. I entered seminary as a dispensationalist by inheritance. Numerous questions incited thoughtful reflection and prompted me to reflect on my own heritage shaped by Dispensationalism. Three years later, I graduated as a non-dispensationalist by conviction. I respected my professors and still do. I cherish the years of study under the guidance of godly men. Yes, with few exceptions, they taught from a theological system, “dispensational hermeneutics.” Nevertheless, they never obligated students to subscribe to their system. My reading of the Scriptures led me increasingly away from that school of thought.
By reading widely, I discovered Geerhardus Vos, Herman Ridderbos, and Richard Gaffin. They convinced me and several fellow students of the “redemptive-historical character of Scripture.” The triumvirate of Vos, Ridderbos, and Gaffin became hermeneutical guides for many concerning Scripture’s “redemptive-historical character.” During theological conversations with fellow students, without realizing it, we tended to shift domains from the “redemptive-historical” nature of God’s revealing his redemptive deeds and words to speak of “redemptive-historical hermeneutics” or a “salvation-historical interpretative framework.” Eventually, I came to realize that we, like our professors, tended to merge our interpretation of Scripture with Scripture itself. Some students quickly abandoned Dispensationalism and embraced a whole theological system, Covenant Theology. The speed with which this occurred for some cautioned me against haste. Relinquishing one school of thought for another was more gradual for me. In fact, I found myself embracing a third option, one without a designation. Some fellow students transferred to Reformed seminaries. Later, I learned that faculty members were observing, expecting me to transfer also. I did not. I remained and applied for the Th.M. program and was accepted. When I completed the Th.M. I was still content not to have my belief system labeled.
Conclusion
None of us can boast that we are independent thinkers because we all have been deeply influenced and shaped by those who have gone before us. I am grateful for preachers, teachers, and scholars who have all touched me, though most have no knowledge of me. Gratitude fills my heart for the patience of all who either taught me or sat under my teaching of the Scriptures. Each is worthy of mentioning: I was (1) reared in a Christian home, (2) educated by Christian professors throughout my college years, (3) taught by wonderful, godly men of character throughout five years of seminary who rewarded me with the M.Div. and Th.M. from Grace Theological Seminary, (4) experienced various levels of church ministry for nine years, teaching and preaching, (5) instructed by world-class scholars of renown at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School who rewarded me with the Ph.D. in Theological Studies with an emphasis in New Testament, (6) blessed beyond measure with the opportunity to teach students at University of Northwestern—St. Paul, since 1992, including second-generation students, and (7) informed greatly by hundreds, if not thousands of insightful biblical thinkers, few of whom I have met, but whose published works have immensely enriched my understanding of the Holy Scriptures.
Though I have come to believe differently concerning the non-core elements of the Christian faith, especially how the New Testament writers cite and expound the Old Testament, from many of my forebears, including my parents, this rich heritage has shaped me by God’s grace to become the man I am today. I am convinced that B. B. Warfield was correct when he spoke of the progress of Christian doctrine. As God’s revelation progressively expanded in keeping with his redemptive deeds, our collective understanding of God’s Word progressively expands as each subsequent generation builds on the knowledge of those who have gone before.
I respectfully disagree with George Ladd and Richard Longenecker concerning how they explain certain difficult-to-understand New Testament uses of the Old Testament. Ladd’s appeal to the apostles’ “reinterpretation” of the Old Testament is unconvincing, and even more so is Longenecker’s appeal to “privileged apostolic insight” that we cannot reproduce. Thus, I humbly present this article to suggest that we can improve on the proposals of these renowned Christian thinkers who have preceded us.
The next blog article will bring this short series to a conclusion.