Science and an Incarnational Approach to the Bible

An Incarnational Model

Mesopotamian Myths and “Genre Calibration”

A weekend seminar with DR. TREMPER LONGMAN III & DR. PETER  ENNS

• “How can we think of ancient mythology as the word of God?”
• “Isn’t the God of the Old Testament nasty & vengeful? He’s not like Jesus at all!”
• “The Old Testament simply can’t be trusted.”
• “Modern science has made the biblical creation stories hopelessly out-of-date.”
• “How can Christians make sense out of the Old Testament?”

Most of us have heard or said something along these lines. In this weekend seminar, Professors Tremper Longman and Peter Enns, two highly respected Old Testament scholars, will speak to some of the issues that surround reading the Hebrew Scriptures.

Designed for curious skeptics and for committed followers of Jesus—and everyone in between—this seminar is designed to give an honest and faithful look at the “problems” of the Old Testament.

Friday, October 9, 7:00 – 9:00 pm
Saturday, October 10, 9:00 am – 12 noon
Rye Free Reading Room
1061 Boston Post Road
on the village green in Rye, NY
Admission is free

Professor Tremper Longman III (BA, Ohio Wesleyan; MDiv, Westminster Seminary; PhD, Yale) is the Robert H. Gundry Professor of Biblical Studies at Westmont College in Santa Barbara, CA, and the author of over twenty books, including How to Read Genesis (InterVarsity) and Literary Approaches to Biblical Interpretation (Zondervan).

Professor Peter Enns (BA, Messiah; MDiv, Westminster; PhD, Harvard) is an in-demand scholar, writer, and speaker, who has taught for 20 years at both the graduate & undergraduate levels. His 2005 work, Inspiration & Incarnation (Baker Academic), was written to help those struggling with questions such as these.

Sponsored by TRINITY PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, Rye NY
For more information, contact Trinity Church at 914.967.6247 or administrator@trinitychurch.cc. Office: 15 Elm Place, Rye, NY 10580.

Download a reproducible flyer for this event (PDF)

Both Sparks and I have entered into the discussion in the comments. (My comments begin at #36.) Hint: In order to see the entire comment thread, you have to click the “Comments” link under the post.

It is no throwaway line when I relay, again, my appreciation to Waltke for being so candid in his views and for participating in this discussion. As readers of the previous posts have no doubt seen, Waltke and I have clear areas of disagreement on a number of important issues, and the sort of back-and-forth exhibited here is of the nature of academic discourse and vital for any progress.

As one can see in Waltke’s piece, he divides his comments into three sections: Introduction, The Old Testament and Theological Diversity, and The Old Testament Interpretation in the New Testament. I will reflect on each of these sections in turn. Waltke’s comments deserve a detailed response, so I think it is best to spread out my thoughts over numerous posts to appear over a couple of weeks or so. The first several posts will interact with Waltke’s comments in his Introduction.

Introduction

Waltke does well in laying out some of the overarching concerns he has both with I&I (Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005]) and with my previous interaction with him. I will list some of those concerns that strike me as most pertinent and offer some reflections of my own.

I&I and the Westminster Standards

I have already commented at some length on this website on how I&I relates to the Westminster Standards, but let me reinforce a point or two here.

I appreciate that Waltke does “not doubt” that I intend “to stay true to the Westminster Standards,” but this is not my goal. Neither the Westminster Standards nor any other ecclesiastical document is the lens through which we read Scripture, a point I learned as an M.Div. student at Westminster. My intention, rather, is to understand Scripture as the inspired yet historically conditioned document that it is, and to bring into that investigation not only previous theological formulations but true developments in biblical studies over the past several generations. In a word, my aim is synthesis.

I remain unpersuaded that either a 17^th century confession of faith or its defenders are in the position of chief adjudicator of the matters before us. This is not to relegate the Westminster Standards, or other ecclesiastical documents, to the trash heap, quaint relics of by-gone eras that can be dismissed without a second thought. Rather, it is to recognize that, despite their value, they are necessarily limited in scope and in need of ongoing critical discussion. The issues Waltke and I are debating are largely, if not exclusively, modern ones, and so cannot be left simply in the care of earlier thinkers, however much they are still worthy of serious attention and respect.

Truth is not determined by the degree to which one is faithful to a tradition. Rather, a tradition is evaluated by the degree to which it reflects the truth. And this, I continue to affirm, is an ongoing theological exercise. Hence, as I have argued elsewhere, the only model of confessional commitment that can maintain this conversation between the vital past and present challenges is one that maintains a self-conscious degree of flexibility, or better, an expectation of self-criticism, lest the confession become the church’s ultimate authority.

The same holds, I feel, for the history of Reformed thought. However important earlier figures may be, surely we must allow as a very real option the possibility of their being fallible in their knowledge, without being accused of “abandoning” the Reformed faith in the process.

To be sure, others are free to disagree. I have no personal qualm about that. But if intention to remain “true” to a “tradition” (which already assumes its non-growth) drives an academic assessment of real evidence (most of which was wholly unavailable when the tradition’s trajectories were set), one runs the risk of adjusting evidence to what one already “knows” to be true.  We do not tolerate such sloppy thinking in any other area of human discourse, but when it comes to theological discourse in some circles, it seems to be the preferred method of interaction. When one’s position is by definition unfalsifiable, any meaningful exchange of ideas functionally ceases. Any tradition that aims to promote truth rather than obscure it must be eager to be open to critical evaluation.

Waltke, however, despite his opening comment, knows better and his subsequent comments reflect in my estimation an authentic attempt to listen to Scripture (even if certain assumptions continue to rear their head, as we will see is subsequent posts).

Next post: Nonsense and Logic

The Review of Biblical Literature has posted a review by Stephen Moyise of Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. This Zondervan volume was edited by Kenneth Berding and Jonathan Lunde, and featured Walter Kaiser, Darrell Bock, and me, each defending a different position on the often curious way that New Testament writers used Old Testament passages, ways that seem to have little to do with their (apparent) original meaning or context.

Much of Moyise’s review is focused on Kaiser, namely Moyise’s judgment that Kaiser is intent to impose doctrinally driven explanations onto phenomena that are not amenable to such explanations. For example, referring to Matthew’s use of Hosea 11:1, Moyise says, “In one sense, the debate is about hermeneutics, but one wonders if, more fundamentally, it is about one’s view of God. Kaiser’s God would not inspire Hosea to speak about the exodus and then inspire Matthew to find new meaning in the same words. Enns thinks this is precisely what the God who became incarnate in Jesus would do.”

Download the complete review here.

It is clear that, after initially being in warm support of the project represented in Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament (I&I) (see his blurb on the back of the book), Waltke has had a change of heart after a second reading. He and I discussed this matter at some length over the past year or two, and we both thought an exchange in WTJ would be fruitful. I appreciate Waltke’s candor in his views and the respectful tone with which he presents them.

I am posting these articles because I think they lay out clearly two very different approaches to dealing with some pressing matters of biblical interpretation and perhaps lay some groundwork for how those with training and interest in biblical studies can further this conversation.

Waltke and I clearly have sharp differences on a number of issues but this exchange is (I trust) free of rancor and condescension. What has struck me in the last several months is the considerable gap there is among some between the manner in which important matters are discussed and the basic ethic that Jesus promulgated, an ethic that even the most ardent secularists throughout history have taken note of and even admired. This is not to deflect the importance of debate and sharp disagreement, as I hope this exchange demonstrates, but neither Watlke nor I want to contribute to such dysfunction in the church. We hope, rather, that the complex and perennial academic points can rise to prominence, as they should. I hope readers enjoy and profit from this exchange.

Download Revisiting Inspiration & Incarnation by Bruce Waltke (PDF)

Download Response to Bruce Waltke by Peter Enns (PDF)

This is correct. It is also a rather unhelpful statement given that any attempt at meaningful communication suffers the same fate. Any attempt to address subjects like the Bible and the ANE, theological diversity, and the NT’s use of the OT, as I&I does, is by definition “a way” of looking at the issues. I have presented a hermeneutical and intellectual model for addressing these issues and have pitched it at a level at which non-specialists can access them.

The fact that, say, an incarnational approach is only “one way” does not constitute a criticism. It is simply a statement of fact. More importantly, it does not ipso facto, render a familiar position as more possible. It is a common logical error to think that one’s position is correct, and that all one has to do is cast some doubt (sufficient to the critic) on alternate models in order to maintain that preferred position. This fails to engage the arguments on the level required to adjudicate them on their own merit.

Continue reading….

It and all the future installments of this essay will be linked from the I&I page on this site, or click the title below to go directly to part:

The Authority of Scripture is a Function of Its Divine Origin, not Its Cultural Expression, Although the Bible that the Spirit Has Given the Church is a Thoroughly Encultured Product

More coming soon.