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

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

I will first outline two of the latter concerns and then return to the former. First, what is perhaps the most nettlesome of Beale's charges is his view that I am dismissive of the work of other evangelical scholars. In the light of the book's announced purpose and audience, surely this type of criticism is unfair. Beale apparently expected a very different kind of book, with detailed citations, interaction with alternate proposals, and nuancing the complex ANE, second Temple, and biblical data. Of course, such a book could have been written, but my failure to meet these expectations is not an indication of sloppy thinking or a dismissive posture toward others but an attempt to write a book that is accessible to a non-scholarly audience. When one popularizes, one necessarily simplifies. Lay readers do not need to be brought up to academic speed; they need to be reassured that, regardless of diverse viewpoints, the Bible is still the word of God.

Hence, my rhetorical approach should not be understood as dismissive of the work of others, nor do I feel that I alone am equipped to lead evangelicalism forward. This point is not only implicit in the annotated bibliographies, but stated plainly in the second paragraph of the book: "Although it is not always made explicit, in working through these issues I lean heavily on the work of many scholars, some of whom are listed in the 'Further Reading' sections at the end of each chapter" (p. 9).7 In fact, I am advocating that evangelical scholars continue their excellent work in studying Scripture in its varying historical contexts, and bringing to the foreground the vitality-indeed, the theological and practical payoff-of reading the Bible in context. But I also believe that evangelical biblical scholars need to work harder at presenting the grand picture of what God has done in and through the Bible for the benefit of the thinking lay reader. Providing persuasive comprehensive models for explaining why the Bible looks the way it does, and then drawing implications from that model for how we should think about Scripture, is precisely what unbelieving scholarship has done so effectively, and why it can present such challenges for evangelical readers. For the benefit of the church, we should endeavor to be very intentional in carrying further such a theological project.

By advocating new models, I do not mean to imply that previous evangelical articulations of the doctrine of Scripture are somehow unaware of the divine-human elements, nor that my book is a clarion call to abandon our evangelical heritage. I want us to build on that heritage. Yet because of developments in our understanding of the historical setting of Scripture, the stakes have been raised for evangelicals since the nineteenth century, and these developments continue to pose challenges to evangelical doctrine. This is the case not because of the divine-human elements in Scripture in principle, but because of specific historical issues surfacing in the study of Scripture.