Ancient Wisdom Today » Peter Enns

Inerrancy: A Very Different, Divine Sort of Thing

Maer — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 12:34:47 +0000

One of the areas of theological reflection that I have been thinking about lately is the interface between what we think the Bible is and what it says it is. Evangelicals have come up with very clear formulations of what they think the Bible should be, or rather, what an inspired, authoritative book should look like. Inerrancy debates are looming up all over the place, and part of the debate is exactly about one’s presupposition of the nature of Scripture. Although “inerrancy battles” are mostly fought within evangelicalism, I have come to realize more and more that the assumptions that often fuel the epistemological, pre-suppositional and theological fire of these discussions are not privy to fundamentalists and a certain cross-section of evangelicals. The same question-begging assumptions come from the academia, and the presently raging debates are bringing these to light in more nuanced ways.

Genesis 1 and Shaping a Christian Worldview

Maer — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 15:39:56 +0000

Daniel Kirk, author of Unlocking Romans, shared a few thoughts on his blog about J. Richard Middleton’s book The Liberating Image: The Imago Dei in Genesis 1.
You can read his thoughts in Image as Function in Gen 1, Liberating Image: Imago Dei in ANE Context, and Liberating Image: Some concluding remarks. Although I have not read the book yet, it looks like the type of book I would enjoy reading.

Here is what Peter Enns has to say about it:

“The Liberating Image is a balanced yet challenging articulation of the Imago Dei in Genesis, its ancient Near Eastern context, and its present-day theological implications. By locating himself in his postmodern context, Middleton brings a refreshing hermeneutical self-consciousness to the scholarly task, which is aimed at providing a substantive and compelling argument without posing as the last word. His analysis of Imago Dei in Genesis in the context of ancient Near Eastern religions leads Middleton to the conclusion that the Israelite theological traditions of Genesis 1-11 are recontextualized in conscious opposition to ideological categories of Mesopotamia. That Israel’s story promotes the dignity of all humans, not just of the royal or priestly classes, should have vital ethical implications for today.”

The Seed: Four Theologians’ Quest to Understand Paul

Maer — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 21:57:03 +0000

One of the passages used to illustrate the NT use of the OT in Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament was Galatians 3 concerning Paul’s use of the word “seed.” I was especially interested in this passage because I remember being quite impressed with N. T. Wright’s treatment of it in The Climax of the Covenant a few years ago. In this post, I would like to do three things: 1) summarize each author’s understanding of this passage; 2) bring N. T. Wright into the conversation and explain, in broad strokes, his exegesis; and 3) ask which of the three views best reflects N. T. Wright’s approach.

Since Peter Enns chose the “seed” passage as one of his examples and elaborated on it in his essay, we get a fuller picture of Enns’ approach related to this particular issue. Kaiser and Bock merely responded to Enns so there will be some inevitable reading between the lines. But since I am only interested in the approach and not a full exegesis of the text, I believe each position can be fairly outlined (at least I will attempt to do that).

The Passage

Three Views on the NT Use of the OT

Maer — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 01:20:38 +0000

Berding, Kenneth, Stanley N. Gundry and Jonathan Lunde, eds. Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2007.

Issues surrounding the NT use of the OT have been of great interest to me for a long time, so it was with equally great delight that I read yet another contribution to this complicated and yet fascinating field of study.

The structure of Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament is very simple. It contains an introduction, closing remarks by one of the editors and three essays followed by a response by the two other opposing views. Although the length of the essays were adequate, I wish more space had been given for the responses.

Qohelet and the Human Experience

Maer — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 00:38:57 +0000

One of the crucial considerations when reading Qohelet is whether or not one thinks that the frame narrator is fundamentally criticizing Qohelet and rejecting his arguments. If this is true, then many would say that the bulk of Qohelet should be understood as “life under the sun” and that we, as Christians, should have a heavenly (i. e. above the sun) perspective of life. Ecclesiastes then, for the most part, becomes a how-not-to book. This way, we fail to do what Murphy says we should do, that is, allow for tensions that would have existed within the author himself, and attempt to explain the book as it stands (Murphy, Tree of Life, 52).

However, reading Ecclesiastes as one piece doesn’t seem to be only a matter of allowing for the tensions within the book but also allowing the book to interpret itself. Sometimes this will yield surprising and insightful results.