This is the third of several posts continuing the exchange between Bruce Waltke and me, posted earlier on this site, that first appeared in the Westminster Theological Journal. Posted here is Waltke’s follow-up to that exchange (PDF), which has already appeared in the latest issue of WTJ (and is also posted here with permission.)

Read Part One of my response here.
Read Part Two of my response here.

Here is the third part of my response to Waltke’s follow-up piece:

Tensions and Paradox

It is the clear presence of “tensions and paradoxes” in the Bible (as Waltke puts it) that brought me to a recognition that Biblical Theology is a preferred reading strategy, embracing as it does the dramatic, narrative content of Scripture, and so is quite suited to address the theological diversity and contextual rootedness of Scripture.

I am glad Waltke acknowledges the presence of real tensions and paradoxes in the Bible, as I always knew he did. He clarifies, however, that this acknowledgment extends only to the point were no sorts of “foibles”(i.e., errors or other infelicities) result.

Apart from the problem we have already mentioned, that of determining the nature of “foible,” another issues is raised here. It is important to ask whether Waltke’s caveat does justice to his own principle that the Bible is “truth itself” (quoting WCF [Westminster Confession of Faith] 1.4). If Scripture is God’s revealed truth, consistent in all its parts, profitable for all sorts of correction, reproof, etc., is there really room for tensions and paradoxes of any sort at all? What purpose do these tensions and paradoxes have in a Bible that is, according to Waltke’s own standard, “consistent in all its parts?”

My answer is that they reflect the variegated human settings that the portions of the Bible were written in, and I have no further need to reconcile this fact with what is happening “in the mind of God” other than saying, “If we believe that the Bible is God’s word, then, quite obviously, God is OK with all of this.” The question now becomes “what do we learn about God from how he himself, in his wisdom, speaks?”

But Waltke’s principle, as outlined in WCF, does not allow that option. At best, it admits to the “tensions and paradoxes” somewhat begrudgingly, relegating them to the realm of mystery, and that are somehow reconcilable in “God’s mind.” In other words, their presence has no positive theological value. They are more unfortunate marks of Scripture that run afoul of confessional commitments but, as we all know, are “ultimately” reconcilable.

The assumption is that the reconciling of these tensions is what is required of a text that is of divine origin. And if they cannot be reconciled here and now, we “know” they can be reconciled eventually, and, presumably, God will one day show us all how the pieces all fit together. In the meantime, our task to make sure these marks of Scripture do not distract us from assessing Scripture’s nature. Waltke does not lay out this line of thinking explicitly, but it is there nonetheless.

For me, the tensions, etc., of the Bible are not there for us to see how clever we can be at reconciling them, nor how patient and faithful we can be to expect some future reconciliation. Rather, they are marks of God’s accommodation and so should be addressed deliberately with a view toward gaining positive theological information from them.

On a related point, Waltke points out that I do not address his statements that I&I imputes “foibles” to God. Perhaps, but I think the point of my previous response was to question the basis upon which Waltke determines what is or is not a “foible.” Again, this is no clever word game I am playing, nor is it a disingenuous stall tactic. Rather, this matter is central to the under discussion. And there is sufficient diversity in the church, both now and throughout history, to justify such a query.

For some, it is a “foible” to say that Genesis 1 reflects anything other than a literal, historical, even scientific account of things, since, otherwise, Scripture could not be “truth itself.” Others define “truth itself” in such a way that the mythic content and tempo of Genesis 1 are not a foible but part of what it means for God to speak in any meaningful sense in antiquity. Waltke is certainly more in the latter camp (although not as far as I am), but the more important issue is to determine on what basis such decisions should be made. This is very much on the table among conservatives and evangelicals, in my opinion—at least it should be.

Similarly, Waltke takes issue with the use of Pesher in the NT, which he dubs “unaccredited exegesis.” I am not sure exactly what that means, but it begs the question “accredited by whom and on what basis?” In a nutshell, this type of question lies at the heart of my previously published response, but I do not seem to have persuaded Waltke of its importance.

Tags: Uncategorized // Comments Off