Book Review: Peter Enns, Inspiration & Incarnation

In his book Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the problem of the Old Testament, Peter Enns addresses three primary questions that evangelical circles concern themselves with: the historicity of the primeval account, the concern of biblical contradiction, and the New Testament author’s use of the Old. From the outset, Enns states, “I want to contribute to a growing opinion that what is needed is to move beyond both sides by thinking of better ways to account for some of the data, while at the same time having a vibrant, positive view of Scripture as God’s word.” An effort that I feel he accomplishes. The problem I face is critically interacting with what Enns says, without repeating everything the way he says it. Thus I will employ the critique provided by G.K. Beale, and explain why this approach to raising objections is misguided. However, since this paper is being written for a class concerned with the Pentateuch and given the lack of space I am afforded, I will limit my observations to Enns’ first chapter on the historicity of the Old Testament.

Enns is ultimately concerned with helping evangelicals understand some of the difficulties that come with reading the Old Testament. The book is divided into three sections dealing with three primary questions. First, Enns explains why so much of the Old Testament, especially the Pentateuch, looks so similar to other documents that come from the Ancient Near East. His concern in digging deeper on this issue is that many evangelicals understand that for Scripture to be Holy or inspired, it must be unique. Enns argues that what the Old Testament is saying is closely linked to how it is being said. Second, Enns labels as diversity, what look like contradictions to others. Claiming the way these various occurrences operate cannot be pigeon holed or merely swept under the rug, Enns argues that in those cases where the Bible seems to be saying two opposing things, one must understand that, “the question is not whether they are correct, but when.”# The author points out that two opposing statements can both be correct, perhaps not in the same sense at the same time, but there are various times when either could be true. Third, the author focuses on how the New Testament writers sometimes seem as though they are misrepresenting the Old Testament. It sometimes seems out of place for the New Testament writers to take the Old Testament so far out of context. However, Enns argues that what many of the writers are doing here is utilizing the ambiguity of language to draw out profound theological statements about what God has done. Doing such a thing with the Old Testament witness does not mean that the interpretation now stands on weak ground, rather the referred passage now has a deeper more profound meaning.

Enns is offering us responses to common contemporary questions that have more often than not been answered by brash drastic arguments or dismissal. Many of these alternative responses that Enns provides appear to be fuller arguments than what have been commonly offered. Rather than the Hodgian hermeneutic of plain text reading which assumes the necessity of historical veracity of the text and leads many to immature understandings of the Scriptural witness, Enns offers us an incarnational hermeneutic that is biblically consistent with the incarnation of Christ. The Hodgian explanation of such issues that Enns addresses look like this: there must have been an historical Adam because the Bible is true, there are no inconsistencies in Scripture because God’s revelation is perfect, the New Testament interpretation of the Old Testament is sometimes different than what we would expect because they were inspired and we are sinful. In the end, these are not really answers at all but ways of shirking the responsibility of ripened exegesis.

    Enns’ underlying argument is that reading the Old Testament through an incarnational lens is more attune with who we know God to be. Since God chose to save us through human means, it would be safe to say that Christ would also choose to relay the news of that salvation to us through human means as well. While it is impossible to read the Bible free of objective opinion, it is important to make sure we are not shoe-horning Scripture into a 21st century modern interpretation. We often take the limited witness of Scripture and derive modern day answers for modern day questions, which is a desperately poor way of reading Scripture. It is as though we expect a microwave to keep our food cold, or a bricklayer to install our cabinets.
    I am much more willing to accept Enns’ thesis, if only because I came to the table with a broad understanding of these types of arguments. Some of the things He said are bold and tricky points to make, especially in Peter Enns’ position at a neo-conservative school such as Westminster Theological Seminary, where he taught at the time of the book’s publication. Since then Enns has been suspended and fired for the content in this book. Such action is perhaps an indication of what is at stake, or of some people’s reaction, regardless of how over dramatized said action is, when people feel backed into an intellectual corner. Although, this is not a paper on Peter Enns but on his book. Since I would be in agreement with what he says already, I will solicit the help of Enns’ critics in understanding the implications of what Enns is saying for the neo-conservative G.K. Beale.

Following the publication of the book, the response of the evangelical academic community was drastic, pop criticism was ruthlessly biased and scholarly reaction was concerning. One such example of the latter is voiced in G.K. Beale’s article Myth, History, and Inspiration: A review article of Inspiration and Incarnation by Peter Enns. In his article, Beale makes it quite quite clear that he is concerned with whether or not Enns believes that the biblical witness refers to historical events. In a sense, Beale circumvents what Enns is trying to say by forcing Enns to answer what he is not trying to answer. Enns is not concerned with the question, is it true? But, rather how is it true? Despite the fact that Beale recognizes what Enns is saying, Beale continues to force Enns’ response onto uncovered ground.

It appears fairly clear that the distinction between the ANE mythical accounts of creation and the flood and those of the Genesis accounts is not in the former containing non-history and the latter representing reliable historical events, but the difference is to highlight the biblical God as true in contrast to the false ANE gods.#

This is precisely why I agree with Enns. Our concern in biblical scholarship is not to force theological propositions onto the text, molesting it for our own purposes, rather it is to stand in what the text is stating and respond theologically as honestly as we can. Beale seems to be more concerned with upholding evangelical doctrine and reading Scripture through the lens of established man made assumptions about the text, than he is about what Scripture is trying to say and why.
    I am far more concerned with understanding what the Old Testament has to say than I am concerned with understanding it through the lens of evangelicalism. Enns is offering us a hermeneutic that does just this. While Beale’s concern of what the implications of Enns’ argument has on important questions regarding such things as the resurrection, this seems to me to be a distracted concern. If I were to be having a conversation with a friend about my fiance but my friend was more concerned about whether the colour of a particular bicycle was blue or red, this would be not only frustrating but puzzling. What relationship does my view of my fiance have on the colour of a bicycle? This is the confusing reality of what Beale is saying. Enns makes no comment on the historical veracity of the resurrection, in the same sense that I am implying no concern for the colour of the bike.
    In the same way, if I make a statement about my fiance regarding whether she is beautiful like the sun rise, it would not be fair to my statement if the argument derived from me was that the sun rises. This is why I am convinced by Enns’ argument regarding what questions the Pentateuch is attempting to answer. Furthermore, I find Enns’ argument to be convincing because when we as Christians believe through faith that the resurrection was a historical event, we affirm the truth of what Genesis is saying, because we find that the way in which God has continued to act in history through Christ is consistent with the knowledge we derive from the creation account. That is if we accept that knowledge from the basis of what Enns is saying.
    God is different than how the surrounding ANE cultures understand him, which when we see in the incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection of Christ is true. If our concern of the primeval Genesis account is whether or not it depicts historical accounts, what does this tell us about Christ? Or even, what does Christ tell us about the historicity of Adam? Nothing.
    Perhaps what is most disconcerting about the reaction of the evangelical community to Enns’ book is that it reveals just how immature and scared many in the evangelical community are of honest readings of Scripture. It is unfortunate that people like Enns fall subject to the fear of evangelical institutions such as Westminster Theological Seminary. Regardless of how some people react, it doesn’t change reality, a reality that Enns reminds us of, that the beauty of the Scriptural witness is that it speaks to humanity in a way that we can understand. It speaks to us in a way that is incarnational, just as Christ became incarnate by becoming human, so too does God’s revelation come to us in human ways.

Opere Citato

Beale, Gregory K. "Myth, history, and inspiration: a review article of Inspiration and Incarnation by Peter Enns." Journal Of The Evangelical Theological Society 49, no. 2 (June 1, 2006): 287-312.