Below I have quoted the ESV of Rom 4.22-25. What is the “it” to which the passage refers? To narrow this down to two possible options, is it, especially the third it, Abraham’s faith(fulness) or “our” faith(fulness)?

That is why [his faith] (it) was “counted to him as righteousness.” But the words “it was counted to him” were not written for his sake alone, but for ours also. It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification.

A couple quick notes. I placed [his faith] in brackets as that does not appear in Greek. See the UBS4, for example. Most translations supply that to help (correctly) make clear what is going on. One would more woodenly render the bracketed [his faith] with “it,” just as is done in the second instance of “it” in the passage quoted above.

So, again, what is the “it” to which the passage refers, more specifically the third “it” emphasized above? The usual Reformed-Lutheran reading of the passage answers that the third it is “our” faith. Romans 4 holds up Abraham as an example of Justification by faith to prove scripturally Paul’s doctrine of Justification by faith (alone) for Christians. As an aside, this is slightly strange since the traditional doctrine is Justification by faith in Christ. Interestingly, Romans 4 emphasizes not only Abraham’s faith in God, but also “our” believing in God, not Christ (“It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord”).

But, is it possible that the it still refers to Abraham’s faith(fulness), on which Romans 4 has been focused? One should note this reading does not eliminate the necessity of believing (being faithful) on the part of “us.” Paul describes those to whom it will be counted as “the ones believing upon the one who raised Jesus our Lord out of death” (toi/j pisteu,ousin evpi. to.n evgei,ranta VIhsou/n to.n ku,rion h`mw/n evk nekrw/n).

While I think the immediate literary context makes reading the it as Abraham’s faith(fulness) more likely, obviously how one answers this question depends upon one’s understanding of the larger literary and theological context of Romans 4 and beyond. What does everyone think?

If the third it remains Abraham’s faith(fulness), what does that mean for how we understand what is going on in Romans 4? What is the function or significance of Romans 4’s focus on Abraham’s faith(fulness)?

In this context, I shall argue that if it was necessary for evangelicals in response to liberal theology to emphasize the divine speaking, it is time to redress the balance by saying more about the human authors of Scripture. I shall further demonstrate that, far from weakening an evangelical doctrine of Scripture, this move actually strengthens it.

And the winner is…

A.T.B. McGowan, The Divine Spiration of Scripture: Challenging Evangelical Perspectives (p. 13; the link goes to the American version while the page number is from the British version, which I have).

I procured a used copy of this book recently and, about 5 minutes ago, commenced reading it. When I stumbled across this quote in the introduction I thought it worthwhile to throw it up on the blog. Since I have not yet read the book I do not know where McGowan goes with this. Nevertheless, it seems another respected Reformed-evangelical considers focusing on the humanity of Scripture (1) to be important in our contexts and (2) not threatening to our doctrine of Scripture as God’s Word. Indeed, such a focus is necessary for a full appreciation of Scripture as God gave it.

Studying Paul in his ancient Mediterranean horizon and the reception and handling of Paul in early Christianity are two of my primary areas of historical research. In view of this—and the Conn-verations blog’s focus on issues of hermeneutics and context(s)—every now and then I will try to post on Paul in Christian Origins.

During a short reading break I decided to type out something that has been swirling around my head since I recently read through Jubilees (a 2^nd century BCE Jewish writing) again. The following passage stuck out to me in connection with something Paul does in Galatians 3.1-4.7.

Just to be clear at the outset, I do not think that Paul is necessarily writing with Jubilees in mind or that what Paul is doing is predicated upon some unique development within Jubilees. Rather, I prefer to view the following passage from Jubilees as a possible window in on certain ways things might have been understood by some(many?) Early Jews—thus, something that might have been “in the air” in Paul’s context.

But after this they [Israel] will return to me in all uprightness and with all of their heart and soul. And I shall cut off the foreskin of their heart and the foreskin of the heart of their descendents. And I shall create for them a Holy Spirit, and I shall purify them so that they will not turn away from following me from that day and forever. And their souls will cleave to me and to all my commandments. And they will do my commandments. And I shall be a father to them, and they will be sons to me. And they will all be called “sons of the living God.” And every angel and spirit will know and acknowledge that they are my sons and I am their father in uprightness and righteousness. And I shall love them. (Jubilees 1.22b-25)

The Jubilees passage shows an Early Jewish combination of several things in an eschatological setting: the blessing of the Spirit, Sonship, and faithfulness to the Torah—all with YHWH’s ultimate deliverance. The association of the Spirit/breath with Torah-faithfulness in a picture of YHWH’s ultimate deliverance is seen already, for example, in Ezek 36-37. In Galatians, of course, both the blessing of the Spirit and Sonship are on the opposite side of the apocalyptic and salvation-history divide from Torah-faithfulness. To put this another way, in Galatians the Spirit and Sonship are explicitly dissociated from Torah-faithfulness when it comes to God’s ultimate rescue of his people. In Galatians, Torah and Torah-faithfulness belong to the evil age from which Christ delivered us by his death (c.f. Gal 1.4, and the rest of the letter).

The Jubilees passage in question, along with many other passages in Early Jewish literature, helps us see how Paul’s understanding of Torah and Torah-faithfulness in relation to YHWH’s ultimate salvation would be shocking to a 1^st century audience—it is foreign to any strand of Old Testament and/or Early Jewish thought with which I am familiar. This—that Torah faithfulness is part and parcel of any type of salvation YHWH would ever bring for his people—by the way, would be one of the main (Biblical) points of the teachers in Galatia that Paul sets out against in his letter. Paul can only put forth his shape of eschatological hope and deliverance, one dissociated from Torah, in the light of his understanding of Christ’s death (in Galatians) and the experience of the Spirit among the Galatians apart from Torah (c.f. Gal 3.2-5). Paul appeals to the Galatians’ experience of something—the Spirit—that was known to mark the climax (fullness) of time in the history of God’s dealing with Israel according to various forms of Jewish eschatological expectation. He appeals to their experience of it (the Spirit) not “ek/x ergwn nomou” (not out of works of Torah) in order to have credibility to recast completely the relation of the Spirit (and Sonship, as we will see) with Torah—to recast the relationship in a way foreign to any strand of Hebrew Bible and/or Early Jewish thought.

It seems Paul is sort of constrained into having to do something with Abraham in view of the other teachers (his “opponents”) presentation of their Torah-defined form of Christianity. It appears they taught their form of Christianity to the Gentiles of the Galatian churches through casting Abraham and Abrahamic descent in terms of Torah-keeping (various understandings of Abraham as a Torah-keeper colored the thought of many strands of Early Judaism). They would have presented this version of Abraham and Abrahamic descent as a Scriptural argument. Among other things they could appeal to Genesis 17 where circumcision is part of God’s covenant with Abraham and his descendants FOREVER. They also could appeal to Genesis 26.5, for example, where Abraham is a Torah-keeper.

In view of this, in 3.6-14 Paul presents his own “Scriptural”—reread in the light of Christ and the reality of experiencing God’s salvation apart from Torah—argument dissociating Abrahamic descent (Sonship) from Torah. Instead he associates Abrahamic descent with being “ek pistews” (literally: out of faithfulness). In 3.10-12 Paul dissociates “ek pistews” from Torah. In 3.13-14 we catch a glimpse of how “ek pistews” is a short-hand reference to Christ’s rescuing faithfulness (in the Cross) for Paul. Thus, for people such as myself (and the Paul scholars in whose footsteps I tread), Paul has all along been associating true Abrahamic descent with Christ when he talks about it being “ek pistews,” which, again, for Paul is something completely dissociated from Torah.

Paul’s “Scriptural” argument for his version of Abrahamic descent—“ek pistews” and not “ek/x ergwn nomou”—eventually turns on his playing with “seed” in 3.15-29. True Abrahamic Sonship is “ek pistews”—again, a short hand reference to Christ’s rescuing faithfulness—because Christ is the “seed” of the Abrahamic promise (3.15-16). Thus, “in Christ you are all sons of God, through [Christ’s] faithfulness” (3.26)…”and if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, heirs according to promise” (3.28). True (Abrahamic) Sonship is “ek pistews”/in Christ and thus (for Paul) not in any way associated with Torah keeping. Paul thus counters the Scriptural arguments of his opponents in Galatia with his (re-read) “Scriptural” presentation. They urge a Torah-observant form of being Christ’s people through their Scriptural presentation of a Torah-defined Abrahamic promise.

Ok, I hope I have not bored or lost anyone with this whirl-wind tour through Paul’s thought in Galatians…

Getting back to Jubilees and Galatians, the Jubilees passage connects the eschatological expectation of the Spirit with Sonship. In the light of this association, it seems to me, parts of what Paul does in Galatians 3.1-4.7 make greater sense. In Gal 3.1-4.7 Paul speaks of the promise of the Spirit, the “blessing of Abraham,” Sonship, and even “Justification” in almost overlapping ways. More to the point, Paul somehow connects “the blessing of Abraham”—that all the nations of the earth would be blessed in him; Abrahamic descent for the Galatians—with the promise of the Spirit, which (3.2-5) the Galatians have begun to experience. For this connection, see 3.14, “so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through (Christ’s?) faithfulness.”

Here I submit Jubilees 1.22b-25 helps us with a question that has troubled some in the history of interpretation. How is the “blessing of Abraham” connected with the Spirit? We usually just gloss over this. But, how did the “blessing of Abraham” and Abrahamic descent (Sonship) become associated with the Spirit in Paul’s mind in such a way that he could relate them in his argument? How could this make sense to and help in persuading a group of people in the 1^st century—a group with some exposure to Abrahamic traditions and an eschatological hope linked with Abrahamic identity? Though we might be able to answer this question without it, I think Jubilees 1.22b-25 gives us something more concrete with which to work.

The Jubilees passage presents us with a form of Early Jewish eschatological expectation in which the Spirit is associated with Sonship. Thus Paul can discuss the blessing of being Abraham’s seed in association with the blessing of receiving the Spirit. Indeed, for Paul the Spirit is a Spirit of Sonship that God has sent “because you are sons” (4.6). The Spirit, at least, marks out the Galatians as God’s Sons—Abraham’s true seed in Christ Jesus (3.27-29). Like Jubilees, Paul understands the presence of the Spirit as identifying its recipients as God’s true people, his Sons (Children).

Thus, Jubilees 1.22b-25 with its connection of Sonship and the Spirit helps us see how Paul can do what he does. Paul’s opponents in Galatia muster a powerful Scriptural argument: being the God of Israel’s true people now through (the) Christ means you need to keep Torah. After all, as they might argue, true Abrahamic descent (Sonship) as defined by the eternal Abrahamic covenant means circumcision and Torah keeping like Abraham (c.f. Gen 17 and 26.5, for example).

Paul counters by pointing out that the Galatians received the Spirit apart from Torah. Since the blessing of the Spirit defines, or is at least connected with, true Sonship—a way of thinking reflected in, for example, Jubilees 1.22b-25—Paul can persuasively move from their experience of the Spirit to the nature of their (Abrahamic) Sonship. Paul can persuasively move from their experience of the Spirit apart from Torah to discussing the nature of their Abrahamic Sonship as apart from Torah, despite the powerful Scriptural arguments his “opponents” presented. Paul does this through his own “Scriptural” (re-read in the light of Christ and the experience of the Spirit) arguments—through his “ek pistews”/Christ-rereading of those scriptures. Paul’s re-reading of those scriptures as supporting true Abrahamic Sonship apart from Torah carries weight only because of the Galatians’ experience of the Spirit apart from Torah.

Again, all of this turns on Paul’s ability to treat the Galatians’ experience of the Spirit as something bound up with Sonship—an association seen in Jub. 1.22b-25. Since they have experienced the Spirit apart from Torah, they can be Abraham’s true descendents apart from Torah. Perhaps Jubilees helps us see how Paul’s discussion of the blessing of the Spirit can also be a discussion of Sonship. Discussion of the Spirit can connect to arguments about true Sonship in view of such an established connection in Jewish thought as reflected in Jubilees 1.22b-25. Whether or not I even buy the argument I have made, Jub 1.22b-25’s association of the Spirit and Sonship should catch the attention of the careful reader of Galatians.

So, Jubilees 1.22b-25 helps us better see how what Paul does with the Torah in Galatians is shocking. It also (1) provides us with a relevant parallel of a connection between eschatological Sonship and the eschatological Spirit and (2) aids our understanding of how Paul’s arguments could actually be persuasive to his 1^st century audience.

In view of certain controversies concerning Paul in our ecclesiastical world, I should mention that there is really nothing distinctively New Perspective in what I have said in this post.

An article by N.T. Wright, entitled “Kingdom Come: The Public Meaning of the Gospels,” appeared in Christian Century on June 17, 2008.

Regarding common approaches to the gospel, Wright notes how approaches to the Gospels (in the West, in recent history) have tended to give exclusive attention toward either Jesus’ announcement of the kingdom (and, so, social gospel readings) or Jesus’ death and resurrection (and, so, individual salvation-of-souls readings). I appreciated his “third way,” so to speak, of looking at the Gospels. He avoids a private/public dichotomizing of these Scriptures. And he goes on to ask how the church should live out its kingdom calling–its “biblical commitment to ‘doing God in public’” (33).

I thought this was a worthwhile read for someone who does little reading these days. And I was glad to see it appear in Christian Century. I’ll be interested to hear what others have to say.

It’s time for a brief break in the polemics!  Since its introduction in late 2007, I have eagerly followed the progress of the Amazon Kindle, an e-book reading device and so much more.  Although e-readers have been around for a while, the great leap forward in the Kindle (and a few competitive devices of which the Sony E-reader is the most notable) is the employment of electronic ink, which creates a screen reading experience that mimics print on paper.  This is not like reading a computer monitor or cell phone; it’s like reading a book. 

Before choosing Kindle over Sony, I did my homework.  No question about it, the Sony is nicer looking, and it was at the time $100 less expensive.  (Amazon dropped the price on Kindles from $399 to $359 a few wees ago, reducing the gap.)  But the benefits ended there, and were outweighed by 1) Kindle’s ability to download books over free built-in cell phone technology wherever a Sprint cell signal can be had.  That’s right; no need to connect to the computer, and the ultimate in bibliophilic instant gratification.  Sitting at the airport, and stuck?  No problem.  2)  The price of most books through Amazon is $9.99, even brand new releases.  The Sony’s offerings through mobipocket and elsewhere are priced in relationship to the physical book, and considerably more expensive.  3)  The Kindle allows the user to take electronic margin notes; the Sony does not.  4)  Amazon permits the downloading of any Kindle book’s first chapter for free.  5)  There is rudimentary web capability (emphasis on rudimentary) on the Kindle, including instant access to Wikipedia, and the ability to access web-based email - at least gmail.   6)  There are thousands of free books available on other web sites, including many classics.  7)  Amazon will Kindle-ize and send to one’s device a PDF file of any size for a dime.  (Did you really want to print out the HTFC report?) 

I took the plunge last month, and asked my husband for one for my birthday.  I’m delighted with it.  Yes, I agree with a few of the commonly-cited criticisms like the size of the page advance button and the overall uninspiring look of the device.  The grey and black screen is limiting; charts and illustrations don’t reproduce well at this point in the device’s development.   But, what I’ve gained is the ability to carry around a small library in my purse.  Which brings me to the point for this post.

Amazon’s Kindle offerings at this point are substantial, but they are geared to best-seller style reading.  The real utility of this device for us would be the market for theological writing.  I still recall standing in the WTS bookstore (back when that was not only expected but encouraged!) with a $40, c. 200 page paperback in my hand, and saying “absolutely no way.”  The problem is that the Kindle’s current offerings in theology are quite shallow.  Keller’s new book is available, but that’s because it’s a best-seller.  But, imagine the possibilities if commentaries were Kindle-ized or if small-run but important works were Kindle-ized?  The academic market, and more specifically, the theological market represents incredible potential for the Kindle.  We all know what some of these books cost, how heavy they are to carry, how much space they take to shelve, and how much money they cost to move.  The Kindle takes care of all that! 

As the number of users grows, the book offerings will diversify!  So, take a look, and let me know what you think.  Is this device going to be part of our future?

John Frame has posted a gentle-negative review of Pete Enns’ Inspiration and Incarnation on his website. Perhaps sometime soon I or someone else on the Conn-Blog can do a more detailed post on it.

I commend this review to everyone. I do take issue with Frame on a number of points throughout the review and, of course, his disagreeing with the book more than he agrees with it (how he puts it). At the same time, Frame appears to have been charitable and respectful in his reading of Enns, attempting to understand Enns rather than simply attempting to show how Enns is wrong.

I have always enjoyed reading John Frame’s writings, finding them insightful and edifying. Indeed, his multi-perspectivalism (and Poythress’) had a formative impact on me. Reading his review of Enns was similarly enjoyable. It was especially refreshing to read a negative reviewer of Enns who seems to have approached his task as any reviewer of Enns (or anyone, for that matter) should—with charity, humility, and a desire to understand Enns at least somewhat on his own terms.

At multiple places in the review Frame treats aspects of Enns’ book where others have harshly and/or condescendingly critiqued Enns, frequently through (at the least) aggressive misreading. Frame, in contrast, expended the reading and writing energy to try to communicate what Enns was saying and how, in reality, it does not conflict with a nuanced Reformed-Evangelical approach. In several such instances Frame explains that his approach and Enns’ are, in reality, really the same and/or quite similar, etc.

If I may conclude on a seemingly random point, Frame’s review has some true gems in it for the current debates—which are not only about Enns. I will mention one of them. Frame includes a particularly interesting note (14) after writing, “Actually, I agree entirely with the points made in the above paragraph [summarizing some of Enns’ points on pp. 160-63] (repeated in various ways on 170-71). Yes, interpretation, is an art, a communal walk, a fellowship with the Spirit. And yes, there are depths of meaning in Scripture.” Note 14:

“There has been some talk lately about how this and other kinds of interpretation are consistent with Westminster Confession of Faith 1.9, which says that the sense of Scripture ‘is not manifold, but one.’ The Confession here refers to the four-fold exegesis of the Medieval period, and it speaks against arbitrary interpretations not grounded in the text being expounded. But I cannot imagine that the Westminster Divines intended to deny that the meanings of Scripture texts are often complex, especially given the ‘rules for the right understanding of the ten commandments’ found in the Larger Catechism, 99, and the vastly complex expositions of the commandments in 102-148. Generally I think it is unhelpful to bring the Confession into hermeneutical discussions like the present one. The Divines did not address the specific problems of modern hermeneutics. They did maintain, however, the infallibility of Scripture, and any hermeneutical theory that calls biblical infallibility into question must deal with that” (emphasis mine).

Again, I highly recommend John Frame’s review of Peter Enns. Even though I disagree with its overall take on Enns and numerous specific points, I think Frame’s review is an excellent contribution to the discussion and will hopefully serve to move the conversation along in an edifying way.

I have modified this post slightly from its original version. Though I did not write this post in anger or as a rant, I realize how some of my repeated charges throughout it could come across that way. My goal was to be honest about my thoughts on Dr. Lillback’s work not only as scholarship, but as a Christian leader of a Christian institution. As I hold a strongly negative view of Dr. Lillback’s essay, the work of a respected leader, I struggled to express this in a respectful but at the same time honest manner. I would like to thank everyone for their advice thus far, both on and off the blog.

About a month back Art Boulet posted a critique of WTS President Peter Lillback’s essay (at the end of the documents released by WTS in April). Lillback’s essay was published in the recent festschrift for Richard Gaffin. For those who do not know, Art is the WTS student who was told on Monday to withdraw from the seminary or face disciplinary action that could lead to a twelve-month suspension. He was not given an opportunity to repent, to apologize, etc. See the post and discussion on his blog.

Getting back to Art’s critique of Lillback, a 73 comment (as of now) discussion ensued in which no one took up any of Art’s points. Furthermore, various people and bloggers, some of whom are aware of Art’s critique, continue to recommend Lillback’s essay as helpful in establishing Peter Enns as outside the Reformed Tradition. Some such comments can be seen here.

I thought I would write at least one post focusing on a specific place in Lillback’s essay, illustrating what I consider to be the deficient nature of his scholarship. At the same time, since Dr. Lillback is the head of an explicitly Christian institution and would see his writing as more than simply scholarship, I will try to engage it also on the level of Christian responsibility.

On pp. 25-26 Lillback includes a series of quotes from Inspiration and Incarnation meant to demonstrate his claim on p. 25, “When we consider Professor Enns’ repeated statements in this regard, it seems as if a believer can trust God, but he may not necessarily be able to trust Scripture.” Lillback charges Enns with driving a wedge between God and Scripture. As Lillback says at the end of the series of quotes, “Lacking in Enns is the insistence of Berkouwer on the trustworthiness of Scripture” (p. 26; followed by a quote from Berkouwer). All of this functions within Lillback’s larger argument that Enns denies the Reformed approach to the divinity of Scripture both in theory and in practice, especially through his method and hermeneutic.

Let us examine the quotes Lillback adduces to show how Enns claims “a believer can trust God, but he may not necessarily be able to trust Scripture.” It should be pointed out that these quotes are the only evidence/argument Lillback puts forward to demonstrate his point about Enns claiming a believer can trust God but not Scripture.

(1) “We are to place our trust in God who gave us Scripture, not in our own conceptions of how Scripture ought to be.” This comes from p. 169 of Inspiration and Incarnation.

First, this quote, even lifted out of context, does not set up the dichotomy of which Lillback accuses Enns: trusting God and not Scripture. Enns opposes our own conceptions about Scripture to trusting God. This falls in line with the whole point of Enns’ book. The problem is not with the Bible, but with our conceptions of what it means that the Bible is God’s Word. For Enns, placing “our trust in God who gave us Scripture” functionally means trusting Scripture. It seems that only readings that are aggressively uncharitable and/or looking for a way to accuse Enns of something that will raise Reformed (or Evangelical) eyebrows would think Enns is saying what Lillback claims this quote shows him to be saying.

Even worse, one needs only to look to the previous sentence to see that Enns is not advocating an approach that is untrusting of Scripture, “We trust the Bible, not because we can show that there is no diversity, but because we believe, by the gift of faith, in the one who gave Scripture to us. We are to place our trust in God who gave us Scripture, not in our own conceptions of how Scripture ought to be.” So, Enns explicitly says we trust the Bible, right next to the quote Lillback lifts out of context in his attempt to show Enns driving a wedge between God and Scripture.

Lastly, we should note how similar Enns is here to the movement of WCF 1.5. If I may apply WCF 1.5 to the issues at hand, we ultimately trust the Scriptures as the Word of God (“…our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof…”) because of the inward work of the Holy Spirit, not ultimately (“…yet notwithstanding…”) because of “…the consent of all the parts…” (and all the other things listed in 1.5 as “…arguments whereby [Scripture] doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God…”).

(2) “This should lead us to a more willing recognition that the expression of our confession of the Bible as God’s word has a provisional quality to it. By faith, the church confesses that the Bible is God’s word. It is up to Christians of each generation, however, to work out what that means and what words work best to describe it.” This comes from p. 168 of Inspiration and Incarnation.

This quote also fails to demonstrate Lillback’s point. I have trouble understanding how this quote could be seen to show Enns claiming we are not to trust the Bible. Here Enns touches upon an issue of great importance in his book, the povisionality of our theological articulations. What is provisional, according to Enns here, is not the confession that the Bible is God’s Word, but what it means that the Bible is God’s Word. At no point here does he even imply that we cannot trust the Bible. Is Lillback assuming Enns thinks the church working out each generation what it means that the Bible is God’s Word will involve the church legitimately thinking (in some contexts) that we do not need to trust the Bible, but rather God? Enns never claims or implies this. If Lillback thinks he does, the burden is on Lillback to show this—something he does not do. He simply supplies the quote in a list that has the purpose of showing how Enns drives a wedge between trusting God and trusting Scripture.

Perhaps Lillback used this quote because it brings up the provisionality issue in connection with the Bible as God’s Word. He knows understandings of theology as provisional irritate some of the more conservative Reformed-Evangelical folk. Whatever the case, the quote does not prove Lillback’s point. He does not provide any explanation as to how it could support his point.

Quotes 3, 4, and 5 belong together in my discussion. In each case the part of the quote Lillback presumably means for the reader to see as evidence of Enns’ heterodoxy (of claiming we should not trust the Bible) is Enns giving voice to a position that he is writing to correct and/or to show as misguided. As such, they by definition cannot be used to demonstrate Enns’ point of view, and certainly not to show that Enns questions the Bible’s trustworthiness. As will be seen, it is not likely Lillback’s misuse of these quotes is an unconscious mistake. Rather, his misuse of them functions as a piece of his larger aggressive misreading both of quotes from Enns and Enns’ overall project in Inspiration and Incarnation. As best I can tell, the other most plausible (but probably not very plausible) alternative is that Lillback lacks basic reading (and/or logic-argument) abilities.

(3) “The second concerns the Bible’s integrity, its trustworthiness. It is a common expectation that the Bible be unified in its outlook, be free of diverse views, if we are being asked to trust it as God’s word (does not God have just one opinion on things?).” This comes from p. 16 of Inspiration and Incarnation.

Quote number 3 comes from the introduction (Chapter 1: Getting Our Bearings). On the previous page he outlines a central theme of the book, “The problems many of us feel regarding the Bible may have less to do with the Bible itself and more to do with our own preconceptions” (p. 15). He then unpacks the three common “problems,” each of which he will devote a chapter to discussing. He will explain how “the problem” (the common way of thinking that leads to problems) is misguided and will present a better way forward.

It seems to me that if Lillback read the book with a view to understanding what Enns is trying to do, he could not have thought Enns agrees with the “expectation” (of average Evangelicals) in this particular way. The book is not about whether or not the Bible is God’s Word (and thus trustworthy), with explorations of ancient data and the Bible to determine the answer. The book is about what it means that the Bible is God’s Word and how readings of its writings in their ancient contexts help us see how the Bible, perhaps, does not fit with typical Evangelical expectations. From my point of view only an aggressive misreading of Enns can lead Lillback to miss this fundamental point of the book and to employ quotes (such as number 3) from the book to show how Enns thinks the Bible’s trustworthiness (its status as God’s Word) is up for debate and discussion.

(4) “There are many ways of asking these questions, but they all boil down to this: Is the Bible still the word of God?” This comes from p. 39 of Inspiration and Incarnation.

What I said about quote 3 obtains for quote 4 as well. These “questions” are not Enns’ questions in the book. Rather, just as the immediately preceding sentence says, “These are some of the questions that Christians have been asking for the last several generations since ancient Near Eastern evidence first began coming to light. There are many ways of asking these questions, but they all boil down to this: Is the Bible still the word of God?” The ability of quote 4 to support Lillback’s claim depends upon said quote voicing Enns’ point of view and “questions.” Thus the quote would illustrate Enns thinking that whether or not the Bible is God’s Word is an issue up for discussion; an issue called into question by the material he discusses. Again, in quote 4 Enns gives voice to the “questions” he seeks to show as misguided, through his discussion. Enns makes this very clear in the immediate context (as well as the overall context of the book). Again, it seems to me that only way Lillback could employ quote 4 as evidence of Enns denying that we should trust the Bible is if Lillback aggressively misreads both the quote in question and the book as a whole. Especially with quote 4, it appears Lillback consciously misrepresents Enns so as to present Enns in a heterodox light.

(5) “If anything, would we not expect the Bible, which records God’s revelation, to “get it right” by not allowing authors to be biased like all the other histories of the surrounding cultures, but instead just giving us the objective and neutral facts? No evangelical can consider this issue and not feel the force of this argument. If the Bible does not tell us what actually happened, how can we trust it about anything?” This comes from p. 45 of Inspiration and Incarnation.

Yet again, what I wrote above concerning quotes 3 and 4 holds true for quote 5 as well. Quote 5 gives voice to the “questions” and “problems” Enns seeks to redirect and to show as ultimately unhelpful. It does not give voice to Enns’ questions and problems, as it would need to do in order to function in support of Lillback’s claim.

In the first sentence of the next paragraph Enns writes, “To anticipate our discussion below, the questions we must ask are these…” After listing his questions that reframe the issue in a way he finds helpful (as opposed to what he presents in quote 5), Enns proceeds through a discussion of “How Have these Issues Been Handled in the Past” (pp. 45-48 ); a section that explores the approach that leads to the questions and concerns in quote 5. Then he works through “How Can We Think Differently through These Issues?” (pp. 48-68 ) and presents his point of view—he reframes the questions and problems given in quote 5.

Yet again, simply reading Enns up to this point also makes clear that the questions and problems in quote 5—and thus the question about whether we can trust the Bible—are not Enns’. The rhetorical point of the questions in quote 5, especially the culminating “If the Bible does not tell us what actually happened, how can we trust it about anything?,” is to set up Enns’ discussion of a better way forward that does not lead us to such questions; that does not lead us to the misguided thought that we should question if we can trust the Bible as God’s Word.

As with quotes 3 and 4, it seems only an aggressive misreading and misrepresenting of Enns can lead Lillback to employing quote 5 as evidence that Enns thinks we cannot trust Scripture. Especially in his use of quotes 3, 4, and 5, Lillback has failed ethically as a scholar. By listing these quotes in a list of citations meant to show Enns as holding that we cannot trust Scripture, Lillback has misrepresented Enns. He has presented the quotes as though they are Enns’ own questions and problems when, in fact, they are the questions and problems Enns seeks to correct. As should be clear, it is difficult to see this as anything other than Lillback’s conscious intention.

(6) “My intention below is to explore how the biblical and extrabiblical evidence can affect these assumptions. If, in full conversation with the biblical and extrabiblical evidence, we can adjust our expectations about how the Bible should behave, we can begin to move beyond the impasse of the liberal/conservative debates of the last several generations.” This comes from p. 48 of Inspiration and Incarnation.

I do not understand how this quote shows that “When we consider Professor Enns’ repeated statements in this regard, it seems as if a believer can trust God, but he may not necessarily be able to trust Scripture.” As best I can tell Lillback means for the reader to pick up on Enns’ language of “we can adjust our expectations about how the Bible should behave.” From Lillback’s point of view this means Enns thinks we should adjust our expectations away from thinking the Bible behaves in a trustworthy manner? Perhaps moving beyond the Liberal/Conservative debates is a cipher for Lillback that Enns no longer wants to defend the trustworthiness of Scripture—a classic conservative goal in the “debates” of the last several generations? This is the best I can do with Lillback’s use of this quote.

Similarly to quote 2, Lillback does not unpack how this supports his claim. Furthermore, if my reconstruction above approximates Lillback’s intentions, then his use of this quote also fails to make his point. At no point does Enns even imply that he wants our expectations adjusted to thinking the Bible is not trustworthy. Rather, again, a key question driving the book is what does it mean that the Bible is God’s (trustworthy) Word? For Enns, moving beyond the traditional conservative/liberal debates means moving past the point where whether the Bible is God’s trustworthy Word is even up for discussion. Such is presumed and, again, the more helpful questions focus on what it means that the Bible is God’s trustworthy Word.

Conclusion

The six quotes Lillback employs completely fail to show that “When we consider Professor Enns’ repeated statements in this regard, it seems as if a believer can trust God, but he may not necessarily be able to trust Scripture.”

Lillback’s use of quotes 3, 4, and 5, in particular, mark an ethical failure on Lillback’s part. He has presented them as voicing Enns’ own point of view and questions when, in fact, they do no such thing. With each quote it is abundantly clear, even in the immediate context, that Enns is not there presenting his own problems and questions, as though he is actually asking “…how can we trust [the Bible] about anything?” It is difficult to see Lillback as engaged in anything other than conscious and deliberate misrepresentation of Enns for the purpose of establishing his point that Enns thinks “a believer can trust God, but he may not necessarily be able to trust Scripture.” I make the extra point about Lillback’s work being ethically flawed because of his position as the President of an explicitly Christian institution and because he certainly understands his own actions and work to reside ultimately in the realm of moral accountability as a Christian.

From my point of view, other alternatives to Lillback deliberately misrepresenting Enns do not make this work any more acceptable. If Lillback lacks basic reading skills and that is responsible for his wrongheaded use of quotes from Enns here, then his essay lacks any scholarly validity. If Lillback was simply careless, then we have sloppy scholarship that certainly should not have been published (although, it would be a fairly consistent pattern of carelessness with respect to one issue). Yet again, however, I think I have shown that it is most likely Lillback consciously and deliberately misrepresented Enns in order to establish his point.

One of my goals in this lengthy focus on one particular place in Lillback’s essay is to provide us all with a focused area of discussion about Lillback’s paper. Those who disagreed with Art’s negative assessment of Lillback’s essay did not really engage in any discussion of the points Art made and/or aspects of Lillback’s work. This is not to say that the points they did make were irrelevant or lacking insight. Perhaps my focus on one particular page of Lillback’s essay will facilitate easier discussion about details of Lillback’s essay.

I realize I have made some strong comments about Lillback’s work. I have tried to go about this in as respectful a way as possible. I spoke with Dr. Lillback in his office prior to writing this, telling him what I thought of his essay as well as my plans to critique it on this specific point. I offered to send him a draft of this prior to posting it here. He declined. He was very gracious and patient with me and encouraged me that I had the freedom and right to present my views and to engage his work. He requested that I do so prayerfully and he prayed with me. I set about composing this critique after waiting for about a month (maybe several weeks).

While Enns may in fact hold the position that “a believer can trust God, but he may not necessarily be able to trust Scripture,” Lillback has failed to show this through the only evidence he offers—these six quotes. I do think Lillback’s poor treatment of Enns on this point is representative of his poor work in the essay as a whole. On this I, again, direct the reader to Art’s critique.

Below I have quoted various writings from the ancient Mediterranean on women in relation to specific questions and issues. I have not included references to the sources/authors from which the quotes come—I will provide them later. For now I thought it would be interesting to reflect on the snapshots of the varied ancient Mediterranean discourse on women, specifically how components of the varied patriarchal consciousness connect with views of women as inherently deficient.

There are many many more passages from which I could draw. Below is simply a minor sampling…

 [on womankind] “…is inclined to be secretive and crafty, because of its weakness…You see, leaving women to do what they like is not just to lose half the battle (as it may seem); a woman’s natural potential for virtue is inferior to a man’s, so she’s proportionately a greater danger, perhaps even twice as great…”

“How can one reach agreement with a woman?” “By recognizing,” he replied, “that the female sex is bold, positively active for something which it desires, easily liable to change its mind because of poor reasoning powers, and of naturally weak constitution. It is necessary to have dealings with them in a sound way, avoiding provocation which may lead to a quarrel. Life prospers when the helmsman knows the goal to which he must make the passage…”

Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel…

…females are weaker and colder in nature, and we must look upon the female character as being a sort of natural deficiency.

In all genera in which the distinction of male and female s found, nature makes a similar differentiation in the characteristics of the two sexes. This differentiation is the most obvious in the case of humankind…For the female is softer in character…woman is more compassionate than man, more easily moved to tears, at the same time is more jealous, more querulous, more apt to scold and strike. She is, furthermore, more prone to despondency and less hopeful than the man, more void of shame, more false of speech, more deceptive…

…because a male is more complete, more dominant than the female, closer akin to causal activity, for the female is incomplete and in subjection and belongs to the category of the passive rather than the active. So too with the two ingredients which constitute our life principle, the rational and the irrational; the rational which belongs to the mind and reason is of the masculine gender, the irrational, the province of sense, is of the feminine…

Why did the serpent accost the woman, and not the man? …But the woman was more accustomed to be deceived than the man. For his counsels as well as his body are of a masculine sort, and competent to disentangle the notions of seduction; but the mind of the woman is more effeminate, so that through her softness she easily yields and is easily caught by persuasions of falsehood, which imitate the resemblance of truth…

…woman is accustomed rather to be deceived than to devise anything of importance out of her own head; but with the man the case it just the contrary.

I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.

The woman, being imperfect and depraved by nature, made the beginning of sinning and prevaricating; but the man, as being the more excellent and perfect creature, was the first to set the example of blushing and of being ashamed, and indeed, of every good feeling and action.

But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning…

But the woman first became a betrayer to him. She gave, and persuaded him to sin in ignorance.

Adam said to Eve, “Why have you wrought destruction among us and brought upon us great wrath, which is death gaining rule over all our race?”

And he [Adam] said to me [Eve], ‘O evil woman! Why have you wrought destruction among us? You have estranged me from the glory of God.’

From a woman sin had its beginning, and because of her we all die.

So, any thoughts?

I thought I would make a short post on this. Many of the contributors of this blog, and certainly some of its readers, know Daniel Kirk. Daniel is a MDiv graduate of Westminster Theological Seminary (2000). He subsequently completed a PhD in New Testament from Duke University’s Department of Religion, studying under Richard Hays, E.P. Sanders, and Joel Marcus, among others. He wrote a fascinating dissertation on Resurrection in Romans, how Paul re-understood and re-told the significance of Israel in the light of Christ. His advisor was none other than Richard Hays, whose writings certainly molded my thought on Paul and the communal significance of Paul for the church more than anyone else’s writings. Daniel commences his job as a professor of New Testament at Fuller Theological Seminary this coming Fall.

During and since his time at Duke Daniel has written a fair amount concerning Paul and the significance of recent scholarship on Paul for the contemporary church. He penned a helpful response to Doug Kelly (Professor of Systematic Theology at RTS-Charlotte) on the New Perspective and Reformed Theology for the PCA’s online news site. He also published a two-part article in the Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology (24 [2006]: 36-64, 133-54) arguing for a passive-obedience-only position both as Scriptural and within the bounds of the Westminster Standards. A shorter version of these articles is available online, as are google-documents versions of the original articles (1 & 2), which require some cleaning-up. Many of you have read, and probably frequent, Daniel’s blog. There, when he has time, he has continued to post refreshing communally and missionally-oriented reflections on Christ, the Bible, hermeneutics, and contemporary scholarship. His reputation as a cutting-edge but church-oriented scholar apparently grew enough that he was asked to present a paper on the New Perspective on Paul at last year’s meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society. Daniel has written and published other reviews, essays, and articles in more academically oriented contexts as well.

While I have known Daniel, I have seen (and see) him grow as a churchman; as one committed to serving the church through his scholarship. For those all of us here who know him, his passion for seeing God continue to challenge the Church through Christ and His Word is contagious. This passion and drive is evident in his writings.

Recently Daniel reworked his dissertation for publication through Eerdmans. It is now listed for pre-ordering at amazon.com: Unlocking Romans: Resurrection and the Justification of God, available November 15, 2008. This book epitomizes many of Daniel’s driving concerns. He approaches Romans with a sensitive eye on the historical-pastoral concerns that shaped the letter and springs from there to wrestling with the powerful missional-communal message Romans still speaks to the church.

I have long found in Daniel’s work careful and sensitive exegesis. This sensitivity spans, again, from historical, cultural, communal, and theological issues of the first century to missional, practical, theological, and pastoral concerns for both then and now.

I wanted to alert everyone to this upcoming publication. In this book we find some matured fruit of Westminster’s and Gaffin’s Redemptive-Historical approach to Paul; matured through combination with helpful religious-historical sensitivities to the 1^st century context of Romans.

I was struck the other night by the hilarious comments on the bottle of Arrogant Bastard I shared with some friends while watching the Red Wings finish their business in Pittsburgh,

“Arrogant Bastard Ale: This is an aggressive beer. You probably won’t like it. It is quite doubtful that you have the taste or sophistication to be able to appreciate an ale of this quality and depth. We would suggest that you stick to safer and more familiar territory—maybe something with a multi-million dollar ad campaign aimed at convincing you it’s made in a little brewery, or one that implies that their tasteless fizzy yellow beer will give you more sex appeal. Perhaps you think multi-million dollar ad campaigns make a beer taste better. Perhaps you’re mouthing your words as you read this.”

I realize this post does not have anything to do with our usual topics and discussions on the Conn-blog. Perhaps we can file this under “cultural relevance.” Basically, I just think it’s funny…