Last weekend I had the privilege of attending an event in Carol Stream, IL, sponsored by Act 3, called “Reading the Old Testament the Way Jesus Did.” The speaker was Peter Enns, author of Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament. Enns had been a professor at Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia until he was let go last spring, partly because of the views he presents in the book.
Enns presentation was very engaging (except for the part where he let slip he was a Yankees fan, which is clear evidence he is in need of God’s sanctifying work.) He pointed out how the Old Testament, and the New Testament writers’ use of the Old Testament, presents us with a number of problems. For instance, Matthew 2:15 talks about Jesus return from Egypt as a fulfillment prophecy. Yet when we turn to Hosea 11.1, what we have is an observation the God had called Israel his son and brought … past tense … Israel out of Egypt only to have them become rebellious. There is no prophecy of messiah coming out of Egypt. Enns said that had any of his students used such exegesis they would have flunked. Yet, here is Matthew seemingly reaching just such a conclusion. Was Matthew a fool or deceiver? Other examples like this were examined. How do we resolve the issues?
Enns’ offers an interpretative framework. He notes that the Jews had the Scripture, which promised God’s faithfulness to Israel and emphasized Israel’s centrality for God’s mission in the world. The Jews going to into exile, and then essentially living in exile while under the occupation of other powers while living in their own land, was highly problematic. The Talmud and other writings, written over a period of centuries, were about the Jews trying to come to grips with the disjuncture of Scripture’s narrative and their present reality. The New Testament is sort of a Christian Talmud, except here the disorienting event is the death and resurrection of Jesus. The First Century Christians were trying to make sense of Scripture’s narrative in light these incredible events.
The Christian perspective was that Jesus symbolically stood for the new Israel with his twelve disciples representing the twelve tribes. Jesus would succeed where Israel had failed. Thus, when we read the Matthew 2:15 passage in this light we see something remarkable happening. Matthew is helping his readers make the connection with Jesus reenactment of Israel’s story. So just as Israel was called up out of Egypt, Jesus is called up out of Egypt. As Israel passed through water escaping from Egypt, Jesus is baptized by John. As Israel was tested in the desert for forty years, Jesus is tested in the wilderness for forty days.
Enns used the example of reading a good novel. Only when you get to the end do you see how all the pieces fit together that led up to the ending. If you sit down and reread the novel, you see many connections and implications you did not see before because you now know how the story ends. Scripture is very similar. We can’t read the New Testament without understanding how it emerges from the Old Testament. But we also can’t understand the Old Testament without the end of the story in the New Testament. The testaments are locked in an inseparable dance. Enns said that rather than being Cristo-centric that he is Cristo-telic … Christ is the end of the story and everything in Scripture has to be read through Christ and his resurrection. “Resurrection controls exegesis. By virtue of the Resurrection Israel’s story is both the controlling narrative for the gospel and submissive to the Gospel.”
Enns is a great thinker. If you haven’t read “Inspiration and Incarnation” I highly recommend it. You can also follow Enns at his blog, a time to tear down | A Time to Build Up.
Enns presentation was very engaging (except for the part where he let slip he was a Yankees fan, which is clear evidence he is in need of God’s sanctifying work.) He pointed out how the Old Testament, and the New Testament writers’ use of the Old Testament, presents us with a number of problems. For instance, Matthew 2:15 talks about Jesus return from Egypt as a fulfillment prophecy. Yet when we turn to Hosea 11.1, what we have is an observation the God had called Israel his son and brought … past tense … Israel out of Egypt only to have them become rebellious. There is no prophecy of messiah coming out of Egypt. Enns said that had any of his students used such exegesis they would have flunked. Yet, here is Matthew seemingly reaching just such a conclusion. Was Matthew a fool or deceiver? Other examples like this were examined. How do we resolve the issues?
Enns’ offers an interpretative framework. He notes that the Jews had the Scripture, which promised God’s faithfulness to Israel and emphasized Israel’s centrality for God’s mission in the world. The Jews going to into exile, and then essentially living in exile while under the occupation of other powers while living in their own land, was highly problematic. The Talmud and other writings, written over a period of centuries, were about the Jews trying to come to grips with the disjuncture of Scripture’s narrative and their present reality. The New Testament is sort of a Christian Talmud, except here the disorienting event is the death and resurrection of Jesus. The First Century Christians were trying to make sense of Scripture’s narrative in light these incredible events.
The Christian perspective was that Jesus symbolically stood for the new Israel with his twelve disciples representing the twelve tribes. Jesus would succeed where Israel had failed. Thus, when we read the Matthew 2:15 passage in this light we see something remarkable happening. Matthew is helping his readers make the connection with Jesus reenactment of Israel’s story. So just as Israel was called up out of Egypt, Jesus is called up out of Egypt. As Israel passed through water escaping from Egypt, Jesus is baptized by John. As Israel was tested in the desert for forty years, Jesus is tested in the wilderness for forty days.
Enns used the example of reading a good novel. Only when you get to the end do you see how all the pieces fit together that led up to the ending. If you sit down and reread the novel, you see many connections and implications you did not see before because you now know how the story ends. Scripture is very similar. We can’t read the New Testament without understanding how it emerges from the Old Testament. But we also can’t understand the Old Testament without the end of the story in the New Testament. The testaments are locked in an inseparable dance. Enns said that rather than being Cristo-centric that he is Cristo-telic … Christ is the end of the story and everything in Scripture has to be read through Christ and his resurrection. “Resurrection controls exegesis. By virtue of the Resurrection Israel’s story is both the controlling narrative for the gospel and submissive to the Gospel.”
Enns is a great thinker. If you haven’t read “Inspiration and Incarnation” I highly recommend it. You can also follow Enns at his blog, a time to tear down | A Time to Build Up.
