RESPONSE TO G. K. BEALE'S REVIEW ARTICLE OF INSPIRATION AND INCARNATION

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Jun 2006 by Enns, Peter

(ProQuest Information and Learning: ... denotes formulae omitted.)

I would like to thank JETS for inviting me to respond to Prof. Greg Beale's review of my book, Inspiration and Incarnation.1 Although the review is almost entirely critical of the book, I appreciate Prof. Beale's attempt to present its contents in as thorough and objective a manner as possible. Criticism and response are important components of continued progress in evangelical theology, and Beale's review can serve as a basis for such progress. However, the disagreements I have with the review are many and thoroughgoing. I will first address some preliminary but vital issues, and then move to a few areas of substantive disagreement.

I will begin by reiterating the book's aim and target audience. It is important to do this, for Beale does not give these matters due consideration. This persistently yields a reading of my book that is at odds not only with my stated intention but also with the implicit and explicit genre indicators of the book.2 I appreciate the fact that Beale cites me at length on more than one occasion in an effort to allow me to speak for myself. But if a critique is founded on a faulty reading strategy, citations, no matter how lengthy, will not contribute to bringing clarity to an author's intention. Conversely, real and important differences-or at least areas of needed discussion-might become obscured.

Plainly put, Inspiration and Incarnation is neither an academic treatise nor a systematic theology nor an introduction to Scripture. Rather, its aim is to reach a lay evangelical audience for which the human element of Scripture (to use Warfield's term)3 presents an obstacle to confessing that the Bible is God's Word. Such a scenario is not restricted to graduate students, nor even to college students taking Bible courses in secular and hostile settings. In many popular contexts, whether it be Time, Newsweek, PBS, or the History Channel, the latest "important discovery" is touted as "Exhibit A" for how the Bible is not the Word of God.4

My primary audience, therefore, is evangelical (and therefore already exposed to Scripture and shaped by evangelical doctrine) and non-academic (and therefore ill-equipped to handle confidently the data to which they have been exposed). And the book's purpose is specifically apologetic, that is, intended to help the faithful deal with threats to their faith. These factors should guide any evaluation of the book, and they are repeatedly stated (e.g. pp. 9, 13, 168). Furthermore, not only is the book's aim announced explicitly, but its popular focus is implied throughout the book, as indicated by the absence of footnotes, annotated bibliographies at the end of each chapter, and a glossary of terms at the end.

The fact that my aim is evangelical, non-academic, and apologetic accounts for the rhetorical strategy I adopt throughout the book, which is to lay out a few examples of things that are universally accepted as demonstrations of the human situatedness of Scripture-the very thing that is causing readers problems-and to present these examples unapologetically, in as stark and uncompromising a manner as that of hostile commentators, be it in a book, on cable TV, or in a classroom. As part of this apologetic, it is crucial that the non-scholarly reader understand that nothing in principle has been withheld; no data has been covered over as too damaging or problematic for consideration; no special pleading has been employed against the data themselves, because these data have positive value in helping us understand how Scripture-by God's design-bears perfect witness to the wisdom and glory of God.

To present the matter this way is to attempt to pull the rug out from under the perceived strength of the opposing argument, that for the Bible to be God's word it cannot possibly look the way it does. Certainly, one can judge whether my book achieves this goal, or whether it could have been achieved better. It could be said that the book's rhetorical strategy could be set up differently, and readers could be reminded of it more often. But such comments would have yielded a very different critique of the book than the one Beale provides.

It is true that, in seeking to help my target audience develop a more robust estimation of Scripture in view of challenges, it was my hope that my peers would join me in that effort, and so it is appropriate for Beale to flag various topics for further, high-level discussion. To that extent he has correctly discerned what sympathetic readers have also discerned, that in addition to the primary purpose, there is a secondary purpose as well: to foster further theological discussion among evangelical scholars regarding the implications of the human element of Scripture for how we think about our Bibles, and for how we are equipping our students to do the same.

This is what I am trying to accomplish in the book. It is not always clear whether Beale misunderstands the purpose of the book5 or whether he critiques what he considers flaws in my actual arguments. Whatever the case, Beale seems to read the book alternatively as a failed academic treatise, an ambiguous systematic theology, or a dangerous introduction to Scripture. None of these descriptions is valid, but they form Beale's starting point, which leads him to draw unwarranted conclusions. Some of these reveal theological, methodological, and epistemological6 differences between us, while others are of a more general nature and stem from Beale's mistaken reading of the book.