International Reformed Baptist Seminary
Submitted to Dr. Barcellos
in partial fulfilment of ET 501: Hermeneutics
By
John Carter
August 31, 2024
Did Jesus and the Apostles Preach the Right Doctrine from the wrong Text? Revisiting the debate seventeen years later in Light of Peter Enns’ Book, Inspiration and Incarnation
by G.K. Beale
(Themelios, 2006, 25pp.)
Reviewed by John Carter
Any student of biblical interpretation will eventually come across Old Testament passages quoted in the New Testament. Although some quotes come across as quite natural, other quotes comes across as odd or peculiar. This of course has led to various ways of understanding what the New Testament authors were doing. When there are various views, there are undoubtably rebuttals of those various views. Bringing us to G.K. Beale’s article, Did Jesus and the Apostles Preach the Right Doctrine from the wrong Text? Revisiting the debate seventeen years later in Light of Peter Enns’ Book, Inspiration and Incarnation. This article is a response to a book written by Peter Enn’s, Inspiration and Incarnation. Specifically it is a response to the 4th chapter of Enn’s book (19). However, this article is also based on an article Beale wrote in 1989 in response to an article that Richard Longnecker wrote (18). In other words, this article has a heritage of thought and devolvement worth considering.
The purpose of this article review is to interact with Beale’s article written in response to Enn. This review will follow the format outline in Beale’s article. Beale begins appreciating Enn’s term ‘christotelic,’ which conveys that Christ is the end or the goal of the NT instead of the term ‘christocentric” where Christ must be found in every passage of the Old testament (19). Even further, Beale likes Enn’s improvement in this discussion and his goal of “reading the Old Testament from the eschatological perspective of the New Testament age” (19). Reading the Old Testament in light of New. Beale, however, ultimately dislikes Enn’s definition of christotelic (19), which is drawn out throughout the duration of Beale’s article. He does this by first looking at six issues and includes some final comments. Below is an assessment to of those issues taken with Enn.
In the first issue addressed, Enn claims that there are repetitive “odd” usages of Old Testament in the New Testament (19). Beale, however, points out that these “odd” uses are based on a limited view of interpretive methods. Enn appears to build a straw man argument based on a singular interpretive method for the sake of more easily defending his position. Specifically, it appears he only mentions the “grammatical-historical” in opposition to his “christotelic” method (20). Though Beale is right to call out the false dilemma presented by Enn, it might be reasonable to point out that both positions could be held, at least in a modified form. The false dilemma could be resolved by a third option or by holding both options. Beale decides to briefly offers alternative interpretive methods (21). Through showing multiple methods for interpreting these passages, Beale demonstrates that the “odd” usages of the Old Testament in the New Testament may not necessarily be the best description (21). Beale even points out the Enn is already showing a third interpretive method, contra his earlier either/or fallacy (22-23) when Enn discusses the “biblical-theological approach” (22-23) demonstrated in Matthew’s use of Hosea 11:1.
Moving forward, in the second issue Beale dislikes Enn’s short list of “‘strange’ uses” on the OT in the NT (23). Beale points out Enn’s ipse dixit, Beale fails to provide an acceptable number of passages that would satisfy him. How many more texts will Enn need to satisfy Beale? Thus creating a moving of the goal post fallacy (23). Addressing the next issue Beale examines Enn’s four major options for dealing with the problem passages (24). Beale pokes holes in Enn’s list and while disagreeing with Enn’s assessment he again asks for more examples. This time clarifying that at least a list of reference passages would satisfy Beale (25).
The fourth issue introduces the topic and interpretive methods of the Second Temple Period. This is the longest issue addressed. Beale demonstrates that Enn’s monolithic view of Second Temple Judaism is incorrect (26). Requiring that for Enn to base an interpretive method off this period requires more than just pointing to it. Further, Beale points to the lack of sources or evidence provided by Enn (26). Beale disagrees with Enn’s assessment that the New Testament’s writers were just doing what everyone was doing (27). This is simply an ad populum fallacy based on a nonexistent populum. In light of Enn’s argument, Beale rightly asks whether or not Jesus was capable of resetting the Old Testament interpretation back to its proper method, even if opposed to cultural norms (30). Asking, was Jesus limited to the false interpretive methods of his day, or was he capable of superseding these methods? The clear answer to this rhetorical question is; absolutely.
Moving to the fifth and sixth issues, Beale in short order points out Enn’s error of accusing others for doing what he himself is doing (31); imposing a preferred grid of interpretation onto the text. In the sixth issue raised Beale addresses Enn’s reference to Jewish traditions found in the New Testament as evidence that those Jewish traditions have a great influence over the New Testament’s method of interpreting the Old Testament (31). Beale again asks for more examples. However, Beale demonstrates the even the examples provided are problematic at best (32-55).
After addressing these six issues, Beale then considers the implications of Enn’s approach. Beale ultimately points out the major flaw of much, if not most, of biblical scholarship. This flaw could be stated as, “here is a list of reasons why you can’t trust other methods, here is a list of reasons why my method is better, but here is a list of reasons why my methods do not work, and to sum it all up, you can’t trust any method for interpreting the Bible. Now go interpret the Bible” (38-39). The great concern of Beale is that following Enn’s interpretive methods with be destructive to a cohesive view of the Old Testament and the New Testament thus have a destructive effect on biblical theology (40-41).
Beale’s response is a convincing argument to be wary of Enn’s conclusions. Yes, Enn may have helped the discussion along, but perhaps not in the way he may have hoped. I appreciate Beale’s humble conclusion to his article in that he expresses how Enn helped him improve his own thinking and articulation of his position (42-43). This humility was clearly displayed even while expressing his forthright disagreement with Enn. Beale’s article is well worth the read. Though it deals with a broad range of topics it remains accessible enough to read and comprehend. Much more, it provided a compelling argument for how to understanding the New Testament’s interpretation of the Old Testament.
Musica Theologica 