Inerrancy, Genesis and Terms of Endearment

OPENING

I've had a few recent shifts in thought about the topic of biblical inerrancy, spurred on by discussions with good friends, reading the Bible and perusing various literature about said holy book.

So, to begin this off on the proper foot, I'm going to create a phrase that I will attempt to defend in the ensuing post(s?) as the way I tend to approach the Bible. This definition is more of my own musings on the topic, as many within Christendom are arguing over it and I'm nothing if not needy for more controversy.

INERRANCY AS A BRICK WALL

I was raised with the idea of biblical inerrancy, and that was more or less defined by the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. Their "short statement" reads:

1. God, who is Himself Truth and speaks truth only, has inspired Holy Scripture in order thereby to reveal Himself to lost mankind through Jesus Christ as Creator and Lord, Redeemer and Judge. Holy Scripture is God's witness to Himself.
2. Holy Scripture, being God's own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by His Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches: it is to be believed, as God's instruction, in all that it affirms; obeyed, as God's command, in all that it requires; embraced, as God's pledge, in all that it promises.
3. The Holy Spirit, Scripture's divine Author, both authenticates it to us by His inward witness and opens our minds to understand its meaning.
4. Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God's acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God's saving grace in individual lives.
5. The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited or disregarded, or made relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible's own; and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the Church.

Presumably, this excludes interpolations within the text by stating implicitly that if it was not divinely inspired then it carries no authority. An example of an interpolation is a word or phrase that was not in the original manuscripts (further ex. 1 Corinthians 14:34-35; for a compelling conservative evangelical case for this, Philip Payne's "Man and Woman, One in Christ" pgs 217-67). But, upon reading this shorter statement, I don't find much that makes my toes curl or my scalp itch.

Interestingly, the writers also mention that inerrancy is not necessary for salvation (Article XIX), though they worry of the consequences.

A MOST LINGERING QUESTION

How do we honestly resolve apparent tension (historical, scientific, textual) in the bible without glossing over it?

DEFINITION

My view is one I will dub "flexible" or "open inerrancy." This means one can take into account various textual or historical errors by maintaining genre distinctions and personal witnesses. Various people viewing something from different angles resulting in various points of view on the same event does not nullify the actual event.

By this, I mean inerrancy (like evangelical) is a flexible definition and can include various options and ranges of influence. A big debate over this comes about by Mike Licona and Norm Geisler with Licona's view of Matthew 27 and the raised saints likely being not historical fact (one I agree with and support Mike). The question under the microscope is not the Bible's authority as most would suggest, but how to interpret such a strange little text within the confines of biblical authority.

An openness to expand the walls of inerrancy while maintaining biblical authority is what is necessary. We have to be personally critical to see if we can resolve issues within the text without a priori assuming that the bible is already perfect. I'm not willing to throw out the term "inerrancy" simply because other Christians claim ownership. In the same way Universalists don't get to claim Romans 5 or Calvinists get to claim Romans 9.

GENESIS AND THE "TEST CASE" FOR INERRANCY

I've heard it repeated that if one denies a "literal" interpretation (literal being used in an inflexibly flexible fashion, or rather, what makes sense to me is literal) of Genesis that one ceases being an inerrantist. I find this quite odd. So I'll muse a bit.

I think Genesis 1-11 aren't meant to be used or abused in a scientific fashion. Given the ANE culture and the prevalence of varying views of gods (an example being used that the gods flooded the earth because the puny humans were making too much noise) comes to mind.

Genesis personifies chaos, possibly utilizing the Babylonian god Tiamat (a primordial goddess of the sea; possible reference to Genesis 1:2 and the deep). This personification is used in a way to not only assert that YHWH is greater than their gods, but that YHWH is separate from creation (v.1). Though Church Father Origen was prone to over-allegorization, he never considered a "literal" view of 6 literal 24 hour days, citing the sequencing of the creation of night and day, sun and stars. The early church didn't seem to view Genesis in the same way, so I'm concerned why modern evangelicalism feels the need to draw the line at Genesis.

For a post-creation account exhibiting YHWH's subversive power, see Elijah's experience with the prophets of Baal. YHWH is bigger than your god (1 Kings 18).

Needless to say, Genesis cannot be read "literally" because it is not a literal account. Instead, from an ANE perspective, the greater principles are quite strong: YHWH is sovereign and creation came about because of a command. Genesis is intended to be a mythic, grandiose explanation as to the creator God's desire for community and his power to bring this about.

Another issue comes about when historical aspects are put in incorrect order, or technical difficulties like the spear/sword that King Saul is killed with in 1 and 2 Samuel. These would be technical errors, but they do not detract from the truth of the statement.

To view this in the oppose way is to miss the point of the text. At this point, the issue isn't the authority of Scripture, but of interpretive method. The method I have in mind can easily account for scientific formulation while maintaining the authority of the Bible.

A FALLIBLE DOXOLOGY

Maintain the bible's authority while keeping a critical eye is no easy task. In fact, I doubt I've done much to assuage the issues within the text. What about the "all or nothing" bit? Besides it being a fallacy, I don't see much of an issue. One needn't run away in fear unless they are committed to a specific view of Scripture that crumbles when challenged.

Hopefully this conversation helps. 

--Nick

(postscript) re-editing this post. Things may change.

Jars of Clay and Outgrowing Evangelicalism

Enns:

In July, Dan Haseltine of Jars of Clay, posted on his website his experience of being a Christian, a  musician, and why he finds it hard–maybe more than just “hard”–to do that within the world of evangelicalism.

The band’s in a studio trying to finish their latest record–music is down, lyrics are getting polished–and Haseltine has this nagging thought, and stop me if you’ve heard this one before:

What he really wants to say probably won’t be accepted by the evangelical community because his faith experience is moving him beyond mainstream evangelical views. Yet, those outside of the evangelical mainstream, who might actually like what his band is doing, don’t know who they are because of their long connection with the evangelical subculture. This leaves him in a “middle space,” as he calls it, a socio-religious no-man’s land.

Haseltine isn’t worried about what his evangelical audience might think. In fact, he’s relieved not to feel he has to bend his spirit to conform to an ideal he does not embrace. But he’s not angry. He’s just plain tired.

I am pretty weary from years of pretending to be more of something than I am.  I am tired of carrying evangelical expectations on my shoulders.  I have never been so sure of my faith that I was able to find a true home in the church communities where we played most of our shows.  Our particular style of writing and the perspective that we have written from has not been an easy fit into an artistic community that has such a massive agenda and only a single idea of how that agenda gets accomplished.  I don’t fit there.  I may have at one point.  I did grow up as a youth group kid wearing a t-shirt with a picture of Jesus on it.  I did drive a car with a “Christian” bumper sticker on it.  And at one point, I was sure of who God was, and how God operated.  But I am not that way now.  And so it is impossible to write from that old version of myself. I am in the middle space.

Honestly, this makes me wonder what is going on behind the scenes within evangelicalism. I've heard these types of stories before, with Derek Webb being a prime example.

For the rest, enjoy it here.

--Nick

Peter Enns, "Ken Ham and the clubbing of Baby Seals"

This made me laugh as well.

The title is a riff off Peter's original post. I'm not *that* incendiary. Even if I did laugh once I understood.

Peter Enns:

I recently posted some thoughts on reading Genesis like an adult. Ken Ham disagreed, and so posted a response, “Peter Enns Wants Children to Reject Genesis.”

Ham’s well-known chosen method of settling differences with Christians seems to be: attack first and ask questions, well, never. This is especially true when in comes to reading the creation story in Genesis as a literal depiction of historical events.

For Ham, the gospel hangs in the balance, and any disagreement with him is de facto a disagreement with the Bible and God himself. You are, therefore, “the enemy.” Gray is not a color on his rhetorical palette.

Given his well-publicized track record, I think it is fair to ask whether in Ham’s universe it is possible, (1) to be Christian, and (2) disagree with him on Genesis. Sadly, I suspect not.

But if in Ham’s mind is it actually possible to be a follower of Jesus AND disagree with him on Genesis, I would suggest that his engagement of his Christian opponents be more shaped by his acknowledgment of their shared Christians bond.

Now, of course, all Christians (at least that I’ve ever come across) in tense moments will fall off the wagon, so to speak, and forget themselves and say something they regret later. But, normally (hopefully) that doesn’t go on for long, and Christians will recommit themselves to acting like Christ once they realize it. Ham, however, has made those regrettable behaviors into a deliberate “ministry” strategy–and, what is far worse, encouraging his followers to do likewise.

One need only read the title of his recent post to see the problem, “Peter Enns Wants Children to Reject Genesis.” What I say in my post is that adults should not read Genesis like children do. That, I think, is a rather different point, not a subtle difference. But Ham’s “Enns wants to harm your children as he clubs baby seals” approach aids his ultimate goal–to score points by discrediting those who fall on the wrong side of his all-or-nothing ideology.

For the original article/s, enjoy them here.

--Nick

Peter Enns, "John Piper & Canaanite Genocide"

Enns:

Pro and con, to my post on John Piper and his view on Canaanite genocide and his view that, “It’s right for God to slaughter women and children anytime he pleases.” 

I will say, however, that, although some pushback comments were very insightful and brought to the table issues of importance, a number of them were implicitly working from a false, though common, dichotomy: pitting against each other (1) engagement of Scripture informed by what we know of ancient context, and (2) any notion of biblical authority, inspiration, etc.

Such a posture is a lamentable innovation of recent generations of Fundamentalist influence on how Christians think about the Bible, prompted by some uncomfortable developments in biblical studies over the last two centuries. But in truth, the church has a long track record, going back to the 2nd century, of grappling with, let’s call it, the problem of history in the Bible, i.e., what it means for a transcendent God to speak within the humble and limiting circumstances of the human drama.
Of particular interest at the outset was how God’s actions in the Old Testament, especially his violence, can be squared with the not only the ethics of the gospel but common reason and decency. One early solution that stuck was to read these passages of violence allegorically. At the end of the day, I don’t think that solution works, but let’s not lose sight of the motivating factor:

God does things in the Old Testament that cause theological problems for Christians, and so we have to think about what to do about them.

We today are latecomers to this conversation, although some, apparently, do not seem to be aware that it is even an issue.

For the rest, click HERE.

--Nick

Peter Enns, "The Most Important Chapter in the Entire Bible"

Enns:

Don’t you hate blog posts that start like this, with such an exaggerated claim? So do I.
Oh well.

I could have said this post will make you rich and famous, but I’m holding back. Still, there is one chapter, in the New Testament, that I think is majorly huge–without it Christianity as we know does not exist. And here’s the chapter. Ready?

Acts 10.

Bet you didn’t see that coming. Bet you thought I was going to pick something about Jesus’ birth, crucifixion, or resurrection. But I didn’t, did I?

Without Acts 10, you don’t go to church on Sunday, have summer youth missions trips, hymnals, cathedrals, Vacation Bible School, or Contemporary Christian Music. Heck, since so much of western culture reflects nearly 2000 years of Christian influence (and dominance, for ill and good), you could say that without Acts 10, the west as we know it doesn’t exist.

How is t[h]at? Before Acts 10, followers of Jesus were almost exclusively (maybe entirely) Jewish. From Acts 10 on, Gentiles come pouring in as equal members. So, it’s a big deal.

In Acts 10, the Apostle Peter has a vision of a large sheet being lowered from heaven by its four corners. On that sheet were all sorts of animals considered unclean in Judaism. A voice told Peter to “kill and eat.” Even though Peter was hungry, he said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is profane or unclean.” Peter was a good Jew who stuck to ancient Jewish law about not eating “unclean” animals.

Peter was also a bit clueless at first about what this vision meant, but he would quickly understand that the ritually unclean animals in the vision symbolized Gentiles. At a time when maintaining ritual purity was a major concern (to distance Judaism from Roman culture), a vision like this was bound to signal a major transition.

No wonder Peter was confused. Why, after all, would God cancel out a law that God himself had commanded the ancient Israelites to keep?

For myself, I don't disagree. I think Peter's realization of the spreading and influence of the resurrection of the crucified God indeed provides a massive paradigm shift. Let's not forget, Peter is concerned about Jewish identify. For the option of salvation to be offered to a gentile, gifted by the Holy Spirit, must've been a massive shock.

Let's not forget, Paul took Peter down a notch in Galatians 2, having "opposed him to his face" and that in spite of this, Peter called all of Paul's letter's "scripture"  in 2 Peter 3 (which I've heard may not have been written by Peter; will investigate). Either way, Peter calling Paul's letters "scripture" seems quite invigorating, considering Paul's letters likely included Galatians.

It seems that Paul gets all the credit for spreading the Gospel to the Gentiles, but Peter's conformation of Cornelius strikes me as something Paul would've loved.

For the rest, click HERE.

--Nick

Peter Enns Interview, "Young Evangelicals"

The Christian Post:

Theologian Peter Enns believes that some – mostly young, evangelical Christians today – want to rethink what it means to be evangelical but the movement's leaders are resistant to talking about the issues for fear of repercussions.

"People within evangelicalism desperately want to question the very foundations that made evangelicalism what it is, which is, basically, defending the faith, defending the Bible against the bad guys," Enns told The Christian Post in an interview at the Pastorum Live Conference hosted by Logos Bible Software earlier this month.

The Bible raises some difficult issues that these young evangelicals want to talk about, he said. But some "old guard" evangelicals make it difficult to have those conversations. These younger evangelicals don't want to leave evangelicalism, but they want to maintain their evangelical identity while transforming it.

"What they're saying is what some of the bad guys say about the Bible makes sense, whether its evolution, whether it's Canaanite genocide, whether it's human sexuality, whatever. They're saying they want to rethink some of those issues, but they're doing it from the point of view of having a deep connection with the tradition they were raised in. They don't want to just leave it. ... They want to transform and continue the evangelical journey," Enns said.

The biblical studies professor at Eastern University in Philadelphia, Pa., said he has spoken to many fellow theologians who wanted to also address some of the issues that are presenting challenges to evangelical thought, but did not for fear of losing their job.

"I should keep a list of the people I've talked to over the years who were like, 'I'd like to talk about X, but I can't because I'd be in trouble,' because it's all about protecting the system and it's not about saying, 'hey, that's a good point, let's talk about it,'" Enns said.

For the rest, click HERE.

--Nick

Christian Smith, "The Narcissism of Small Differences"

Christian Smith:

There is something very strange about the Reformed Protestant world in which I grew up and which I have since left. By “Reformed Protestant world” here I mean circles of conservative Presbyterianism represented by institutions such as Westminster Theological Seminary, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC), the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), the “neo-Reformed” movement, and so on.

I am sure that these dynamics apply in many non-Reformed and non-Presbyterian circles, but I limit what I say here to them, since I know them best.

Almost all of the people that I know in this world are really good folk. I owe a great deal to them. But for some odd reason, they do love to make huge controversies out of minor issues. The smallest points of doctrine become major subjects of storm and battle. Endless attention and energy gets spent on matters that, with a bit of distance, are clearly tempests in teapots.

Doctrinal controversy seems almost to function as a form of community entertainment, something to prevent things from getting too boring. So, various of them continually “bringing charges against” others of them in their congregations or presbyteries within the denominational “court systems,” which seems to be a never-ending source of interest.

I have always chalked up these pervasive making-mountains-out-of-molehills tendencies to a kind of subcultural trauma suffered during the early-twentieth-century modernist-fundamentalist battles, in which the conservative Presbyterians were trounced in the 1920s—and in particular to losing Princeton Theological Seminary to the liberals (which gave rise to Westminster Seminary).
A kind of post-traumatic-stress syndrome beset the conservative Presbyterian subculture from that trauma, it seems to me, which gave rise to the kind of nervous “doctrinal legalism” that continues today. (Limiting “leadership” to [de facto] white males—the homogeneity of the composition of annual General Assembly photos published in denominational magazines is astounding!— cannot help either, seeing how that tends to skew discussion more toward “principles” than relationships, but that is another story.)

Recently, however, I came across a concept in psychology that I think sheds illuminating light on the tendencies described above: the narcissism of small differences. Now, I am no advocate of allowing psychology to colonize Christian truth—far too much of that has already happened in both mainline and evangelical Christianity. But the narcissism of small differences is too revealing to be ignored.

The term was coined by Sigmund Freud (which unfortunately means that those who most need to understand it will be the least willing to take it seriously). The basic idea is this: groups of people are often most sensitive and snotty toward those who they are most socially alike.  

Human groups do not have their fiercest conflicts with those who are quite different from them. Instead, they display the greatest pettiness and viciousness in fighting those who they look the most like.

For the rest, click HERE. 

--Nick

Peter Enns, "Did Paul have a High View of Scripture?"

As always, I tip my hat to Peter Enns.

Yes, of course he did. He was a Jew trained in the traditions of his people. In fact, he had such a high view of scripture, for a while there he was trying to put to death those annoying Christ-followers who undermined it.

That high view of scripture was not abandoned when Paul became a follower of Jesus himself. It was just transformed and utterly refocused.

Paul had a high view of scripture. It’s just doesn’t look like what conservative Evangelicals insist on when they talk about a high view of scripture.

For Paul, his scripture–the story of Israel–come to its conclusion in the death and resurrection of Jesus and the creation of a new people of God made up of Jew and Gentile on equal footing. But that conclusion could only be seen in hindsight. It wasn’t obvious. That’s why Paul had to argue his case, and, as I mentioned in my previous post, Paul had to make some deft moves to bring Israel’s story into the story of Jesus.

What we’ve got here is, for modern Evangelicals, a bit of a paradox: Paul no doubt deeply respected Israel’s story as God’s Word, but that Word now had to be re-read, because of what God did in and through Jesus did not follow the playbook.

A messiah who died and then rose from the dead. Two problems here:

1. The messianic hope of Judaism was basically (it’s a more complicated than this) of a king like the good old days; a military leader who would rid the land of its current squatters, the Romans, so the people of God could get their independence back.

2. This messiah would set an example for God’s people by living according to God’s Law, thus ushering in a new age of peace and communion with God.

Land and Law. These were connected. Israel lost the land to the Babylonians in the 6th century BC because of their failure to be faithful to God’s Law. Hence, to get it back–I mean actually get it back fully, not just be guests of the Romans–faithfulness to the Law was a big deal.

For the rest, click HERE.

--Nick

"Would Paul Have Made a Good Evangelical?"

 I thought this was pretty awesome.

Enns:

No.

Even when you account for 2000 years of cultural differences between Paul and Evangelicalism, the answer is no.

Why? Because Paul didn’t treat the Bible the way mainstream Evangelicalism says you need to.
The way Paul handled his Bible–what we call the Old Testament–would keep him off the short list for openings to teach Bible in many Evangelical seminaraies and Christian colleges. Heck, John Piper, John MacArthur, and R. C. Sproul probably wouldn’t let Paul lead a home Bible study, at least not without supervision.

Here is the main reason why:

For Evangelicals, the Old Testament leads to the Gospel story. For Paul, the Old Testament is transformed by the Gospel.

For Evangelicals, the Old Testament, read pretty much at face value, anticipates Jesus. For Paul, the Old Testament is reshaped in order to conform to Jesus.

For Evangelicals, the Bible is God’s final authority. For Paul, Jesus is the final authority to which the Bible must bend.

You see, Paul had a monumental theological and hermeneutical task before him.  The Old Testament is centered on Israel’s need for obedience to the law of Moses in order to stay in God’s favor–what the Old Testament often calls “life.” God’s favor is most clearly demonstrated by Israel’s remaining in the Promised Land–if they obey, they stay; if they disobey, the are cast out (which is what the exile to Babylon was all about). And, as an added benefit, when Israel is faithful to God, the other nations will take notice and also bend the knee to Yahweh, Israel’s God.

Obedience to law; holding onto the land (and along with it worship in the temple); conversion of the Gentiles. All central elements of being an Israelite.

The Gospel of Christ that Paul preached said:

Law was a parenthesis, a temporary measure; holding on to land is now a non-issue; Gentiles can claim Israel’s God as their own as Gentiles.

Clearly something has to give. For Paul, it was the Old Testament.

For the rest, 

Peter Enns.

--Nick

Peter Enns, "Ten Commandments of How Jesus Wants You to Fire a Colleague"

I thought this was quite interesting. Both honest and respectful. 


Enns:

I wanted to follow up a bit on my recent post citing Larry Hurtado’s prophetic denouncement of the increasingly common acts of injustice toward Christian faculty members. 

The following are reasonable parameters to follow when administrations find themselves, for whatever reason, at odds with a colleague, who is also a brother or sister in Christ. 

1. Christian colleges and seminaries have every right to establish theological parameters that are consistent with their mission and understanding of fidelity to the gospel. Academic freedom does not mean “anything goes.”

For the rest, check Enns/Patheos.

--Nick

Peter Enns, "You and I have a different God, I think"

Enns is always interesting.

I’ve been watching the Adam and evolution debates/discussions on line, in social media, and in print. I think I am beginning to see more clearly what accounts for the deeply held, visceral, differences of opinion about whether Adam was the first man or whether Adam is a story.

The reason for the differences is not simply that people have different theological systems or different ways of reading the Bible. A more fundamental difference lies at the root of these (and other) differences.

I think we have a different God.

Christians are supposed to think about God they way Jesus showed us to think about him.

That God does not hesitate to participate in the human drama, to encounter humanity within the limits of the human experience. That means that biblical writers wrote about the God they encountered as they understood him within their cultural limitations.

True encounter with God, expressed in truly human, cultural, terms.

That’s why I have no problem reading the Adam story as a story of origins like other stories of the ancient world, or understanding Paul’s take on Adam as an outworking of his Jewish world (where biblical texts are molded to fit an argument), and calling this kind of writing “God’s word.”

The Gospel teaches me that this kind of Bible reflects the character of God. This kind of Bible is what I have come to expect.

The Gospel does not teach me that it is a problem for God to enter into the human experience and allow that human experience to shape–from beginning to end–how the Bible behaves. The Gospel teaches me exactly the opposite.

And the Gospel certainly does not teach me that God is up there, at a distance, guiding the production of a diverse and rich biblical canon that nevertheless contains a single finely-tuned system of theology that he expects his people to be obsessed with “getting right” (and lash out at those who don’t agree).

When it comes to things like Adam and I hear how people explain their position, the question I ask myself now is “what kind of God are you presenting to me here when you say X….?” Is it

an incarnating God–Immanuel, God with us, or

a Platonic god–where you have to peel off the obscuring “down here” hindrances to get to the untainted “up there” god, with the Bible as an encoded inerrant guidebook to get you there.

I don’t like the platonic god. I don’t think Jesus did either.

You can tell something about the god people believe in by paying attention to how they talk about controversial issues of the Bible–like Adam.  Do you see a system-dispensing administrator who keeps his distance or “God with us”? If you keep your eyes open, my bet is that you will see one or the other coming through loud and clear.

Patheos/Enns

--Nick

Scot McKnight, Peter Enns and "The Evolution of Adam" pt III

As usual, food for the mind.

Part One (Ch 1-4) of the new book by Peter Enns, The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn’t Say about Human Origins, discusses Genesis as an ancient story of Israel’s self-definition. Chapter 4, Israel and Primordial Time, sums up the discussion of Genesis and the Old Testament and moves on to consider specifically the story of Adam in Genesis 2-4. Enns argues that the OT is a story of Yahweh, the God of Israel, as creator and redeemer and that the story of Adam serves as a foundation for this story of Israel. In this post we will look at both of these arguments.

Yaweh is Creator and Redeemer.

The creation narratives in the Old Testament are not merely stories of origins. Rather they are theological statements that declare that Israel’s God is supreme, victorious over all. The Old Testament is filled with allusions to various ANE myths and stories. This was, after all, the cultural context of both the authors and the original audience. The allusions are especially prominent in the Psalms. The Lord God tamed the waters into submission, subdued and ordered the chaos, cut the Red Sea to pieces, crushed the heads of Leviathan, laid the foundations of the earth. This same God led his people out of Egypt and established David’s line “forever … through all generations.”

Speaking into the context of Israel in exile and post-exile the scriptures attest to the power and ultimate victory of God.

Israel’s God is (1) the one responsible for the created order and (2) still acting in the here and now to save his people. Yahweh, in other words, is creator and redeemer, and creation and redemption are not two separate acts; the latter is an instantiation of the former. That Yahweh was Israel’s creator and redeemer is what made him stand out among the crowd of less worthy gods, why their God alone was truly worthy of worship. (p. 65)

The theological message of the Old Testament speaks to the power and majesty of God and to his work as Israel’s redeemer. This sets the foundation for our understanding of the work of Jesus as God’s Messiah. Enns suggests that to read all of the cultural allusions at work in the Old Testament as literal will unavoidably misunderstand the theology at work. Our modern cultural context is very different.

Do you think that Yahweh as creator an redeemer is a good summary of the message of the Old Testament?

Is it reasonable to suppose that the original authors used ancient ideas about origins to convey ideas about Yahweh as creator and redeemer?

The case Enns makes for the theological message of the Old Testament is powerful, God is creator and redeemer. As one who is by nature a student and a synthesizer, who likes to look for and understand the big picture, I found the book full of important new insights and understanding. The Old Testament as a whole makes sense in ways I never saw before.

Enns also draws connections between various elements of the Old Testament – Genesis 1, the construction of the Tabernacle, the construction of the Temple, the importance of a cycle of work and rest, the pattern of seven. The created world is God’s temple. The creation story in Genesis 1 is part of Israel’s story of self-definition and the Sabbath is Israel’s privilege to share in God’s rest after victory over chaos.

Adam in Genesis. 

The specific argument Enns advances for the role of Adam within the theological message of the Old Testament is, I think, somewhat less convincing. This makes it interesting and worth some serious discussion centering around both Adam in Genesis and Adam as understood by Paul.

Enns first suggests that some of the elements of the story of Adam are about the origins of Israel rather than about the universal origin of humanity. This is a line of thought that has its origins in pre-Christian literature in Second Temple Judaism. The parallels are outlined in the table below (Table 4.1 p. 66)

This is summarized:

Adam in primordial times plays out Israel’s national life. He is proto-Israel – a preview of coming attractions. This does not mean, however, that a historical Adam was a template for Israel’s national life. Rather Israel’s drama – its struggles over the land and failure to follow God’s law – is placed into primordial time. In doing so, Israel claims that it has been God’s special people all along, from the very beginning. But this is no mere triumphalism. Israel is also asserting that (1) its sorry pattern of disobedience and eventual exile has marked their existence since the very beginning; (2) despite this pattern, their creator and savior has always been with them – and remains with them. This message of God’s faithfulness would have been especially poignant in the wake of the exile, which is likely the time when the stories were brought into their final form (as we saw earlier). (p. 66-67)

Enns continues on to describe some of the ways that this idea of Adam as proto-Israel can be reconciled with various features of the text.

Physical death becomes Adam’s end when he disobeys and is exiled from God’s garden containing the tree of life. Life, human life, is a divine gift from God – I’ve posted on my thoughts about this before, particularly in the post last August: Immortality is a Divine Gift.

Because Adam in the story is the original Israelite not the original human the presence of other peoples is not a problem. Cain found his wife from another nation.

Enns also discusses the world plays and use of the word ‘adam as, perhaps, and indication that Adam is “the one human with whom he has a unique relationship, the progenitor of God’s chosen people, Israel.”

Noah continues the line of Adam within God’s chosen people – again with disobedience, obedience, and God as creator and redeemer. The flood need not be universal in the context of the story. The parallels with Gilgamesh and Atrahasis suggest that the story has been restructured as Israel’s story.

The Story is Christ-Centered. 

I could stop at this point and open the topic for discussion – but to be fair to the force of the argument of the book it is important to point out that the story Enns puts forth is first and foremost Christ-centered. The last section of Chapter 4, The Gospel and Primordial Time, comes back to this focus.

“Jesus is the final and unsurpassed intersection of primordial time in history.” The Gospel of John is a telling of the gospel with a theological focus that brings all of these elements together. In the beginning was the word … and the word became flesh and dwelt among us. Jesus is the temple (John 2:19). The fantastic hymn in Colossians 1:15-20 repeats the same theme. All things were created through and for Jesus.

[T]he New Testament transform’s Israel’s own traditions to address the climactic turn of events in the gospel. How Israel articulates the intersection of primordial time and history is no longer adequate. Israel’s self-definition is not abandoned, but it is transformed to account for the climactic act of God. In the resurrection of the Son of God, the people see more deeply what the Israelites have expressed in their own way. Some of their articulations remain as vibrant as ever, while others are exposed as mere shadows, awaiting the clearer word that is in Jesus (Heb 1:1-4; 8:5-6) (p. 75)

In Part Two of the book Enns moves on to look at Paul’s understanding of Adam, of Christ as the second man born not of dust but from heaven, and the role this plays or should play in our understanding of the gospel. For now, however, we can stop and consider the story of Adam as told in Genesis.

What do you think about the idea that Adam is the proto-Israelite rather than the proto-human?

Do you think it works with the text? What are the theological implications?

If you wish to contact me directly, you may do so at rjs4mail[at]att.net

If interested you can subscribe to a full text feed of my posts at Musings on Science and Theology.

Entire link, McKnight/Enns part 3.

--Nick

Scot McKnight, Peter Enns and "The Evolution of Adam" part II

The more I read Peter Enns, the more interesting I find his ideas. Very cool material, regardless of prior convictions. 

Chapter Three of Peter Enns’s new book The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn’t Say about Human Origins looks at the relationship between the stories of origins contained in the Hebrew Scriptures – our Old Testament – and the stories of origins in the surrounding Ancient Near East (ANE) cultures. 

Before the mid-nineteenth century it was possible to read the Old Testament in isolation and marvel at the creation stories in Genesis, to believe that they were a unique special perfect revelation delivered to Moses during the sojourn in the wilderness. A multitude of discoveries over the last two centuries has challenged this view in deep and profound ways. 

Among the most important challenges are the tablets that have been found dating from the mid-seventh century BCE and earlier, in fragments much earlier, that relate creation myths and flood myths of Mesopotamia, both Akkadian and Sumerian. I am an amateur here, but have on my shelf books like Samuel Noah Kramer’s The Sumerians and Stephanie Dalley’s translations Myths From Mesopotamia and several others.  The ANE stories are both obviously different from and unnervingly similar to the stories of creation, flood, and re-creation in Genesis 1-11. Of particular significance is the evidence that these ANE myths have their origins in stories dating far earlier than Genesis in the form we have it in our bibles. 

The study of the ANE texts is taken by some, both within the church and outside the church as a challenge to the inspiration of Genesis in particular, and more generally to the validity of scripture as a divine book of any sort. The implications of the discoveries in ANE archaeology are either “worldly wisdom” to be resisted or one more nail in the coffin of an outdated religious superstition. Both these extremes are misguided and damaging.  Enns takes us in a different direction: 

Perhaps a better way of thinking about the issue is to introduce the phrase “genre calibration.” Placing Genesis side by side with the primordial tales of other ancient cultures helps us gain a clearer understanding of the nature of Genesis and thus what we as contemporary readers have a right to expect from Genesis. Such comparisons have made it quite clear that Israel’s creation stories are not prepared to  answer the kinds of questions that occupy modern scientific or even historical studies. Genesis is an ancient text designed to address ancient issues within the scope of ancient ways of understanding origins. (pp. 35-36)

McKnight/Enns PART II


Thoughts?


--Nick

Scot McKnight, Peter Enns & "The Evolution of Adam" pt I

I'm currently considering/reconsidering the various interpretative methods involving Genesis, and I'm told Enns is one of the top Christian thinkers investigating evolution. Besides, y'know, Francis Collins. ;-)

Instead Enns has written a book coming from his expertise as a biblical scholar (Ph. D. in Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations  from Harvard) and rooted in the conviction that we need to revisit scripture and think deeply about how to read Genesis and how to read Paul. The first chapters of The Evolution of Adam address the questions raised by Genesis regarding the origin and purpose of the creation narratives in the book. Although evolutionary biology challenges traditional Christian views of human origins, it is important to realize that this is not the sole challenge. The challenges to the traditional view of Genesis and indeed all of the Pentateuch from Genesis through Deuteronomy are both internal and external to the text. These challenges arise from Biblical Criticism, Archaeological study of the Ancient Near East, and from science.

To continue, Enns/McKnight


--Nick