Way back when I was in university, my friend Mike and I jokingly thought up a scheme to make money by forming our own church. The Church of Mike is what we called it. You sent us a tax-deductible donation and we would send a blank notebook so you could write down everything you wanted to believe. After a while, we thought better of it. At a minimum, some flexible tenets of the faith would be needed to justify our tax-deductible status such as “believe in yourself,” “whatever it takes,” and “if you love it, set it free.” With that last one, we imagined people releasing their helpless pets into the wild. Oh, the irony.
Of course, we were never serious, but the Church of Mike became an often invoked metaphor among our circle of friends for the wish-fulfilling, inconsequential, and philosophically incoherent beliefs out there of both organized and disorganized religion. This included some Christians who would routinely bend and break both scripture and theology to justify themselves and their thoughtless feeling fests.
Peter Enns’ book How the Bible Actually Works is about providing all the excuses you need to join the Church of Mike and still call yourself a Christian. He calls these diverse excuses ‘wisdom’. I’m not kidding. Chapter 4 is named “Wisdom = Time + Diversity.” The thesis is that the Bible as written through time is so incoherent that each era of Judaism had to radically “reimagine” their faith.
The Abrahamic faiths have always thought of their religion as revealed - adding meaning based on the human context, capacity for understanding and encounter with God. Revealed religion requires communication with God and continuity with the past. However, when Enns says ‘reimagined’ he means there is a fundamental break in continuity - a flaw or contradiction that God put in there on purpose that needs some sort of creative compromise. As he repeats again and again, his version of wisdom is never more than creative compromise.
Applying what can be known and solving problems creatively are big parts of wisdom, but another big part of wisdom is understanding the specifications, minimums, maximums, and other limits of what you are dealing with. I kept waiting to read some sort of limit to ‘re-imagining’. He has no limits. Not the Creed, the Ecumenical Councils, the Reformation, definitely nothing in the Old Testament. No limits.
If I use Enns’ way of parsing the Bible on his own book, it appears he would even throw out the Trinity. Monotheism is tossed under the bus in chapter 7. He just barely connects the wisdom of God with the Word of God (ie. Logos, Memra, Angel of the LORD etc.), seeing it as a Greek appropriation (ie. ‘reimagining’) by John that he doesn’t quite grasp (chapter 10). Enns seems to have missed how the Word (ie. Logos) is in part the order in the universe, which is why the universe freaks him out (chapter 6). Finally, he reads the very trinitarian verse John 10:30 where Jesus says, “I and the Father are One” as a mere “unified in their purpose” (chapter 10), which is so weak as to make us wonder why the Jews would want to kill him. He makes the even stronger “before Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58) a mere Johnism. The wisdom that ignores limits is not wisdom. Enns’ crippled version of wisdom is the greatest failing of his book.
There are a few places of agreement. The rule-book part of the Bible is relatively small and often cannot be applied to the world we live in today. Reading the Bible as an instruction manual doesn’t work either. The Bible is teaching about wisdom and the character of God using a chosen example, namely the Jews. So yes, what we are given are stories that help believers understand, remember and communicate wisdom. This is not at all new as can be seen throughout the two testaments and in the Church Fathers. A famous modern example that shows how wisdom and faith presented in this way is not always ‘safe’ is Soren Kierkegaard’s Fear and Trembling.
There are opinions that conflict at times in the biblical text, such as between the writers of Kings and Chronicles (chapter 5). Another example Enns doesn’t cite - the writer of Judges is very pro king (Judges 17:6 and 21:25) while the character of Samuel is not. Furthermore, the Book of Judges highlights how God uses flawed agents with diverse opinions. This makes the divine inspiration of opinions problematic unless we recognize it as an opportunity to wisely understand the approaches of the different biblical characters. The very minimum doctrine of divine inspiration is “thus saith the Lord,” and yet these passages are filled with literary devices and phenomenological description which not only require wisdom to understand but make applying any doctrine of inerrancy problematic. How can you have inerrant irony after all?
But as I’m questioning some of the doctrines of inspiration and inerrancy, I’m not actually questioning the veracity of the biblical text. To read it in good faith I must at least approach the individual books and the Bible as a whole as being without deceit and effective for its purpose. If I find fault with the text for internal or external reasons, I should be finding fault with a good-faith reading, not some wayward reading made up by prejudiced hyper-critical people in the academy.
Take for instance Enns’ major claim that biblical laws are ambiguous (chapter 3). This is true of all law, both physical and moral to an extent. No practical law can be made perfectly airtight. There will always be exceptions and inconsistencies at the fringes, therefore wisdom is required to make the better judgements. Enns isn’t concerned about that. He is saying that biblical laws are especially ambiguous and contradictory on purpose.
The standard understanding (eg. Holman Bible Dictionary) describes two types of law - general law and case law. General Laws are short and sweet principles such as might be posted in big letters on the wall as classroom rules. Case laws are judgements that apply to specific situations. Since case law is derived from the general law, considering several case laws along with the general law can help a judge wisely decide a novel case. One would think then to show biblical law is ambiguous you would look at the case law, but not Enns. He goes right to the Ten Commandments, the ultimate example of general law, and discovers that they are in fact general.
Enns then moves on to other laws such as Exodus 21:12-14 that are no more ambiguous than any other ancient laws (cf. Hammurabi's Code). His questioning of the law comes off as disingenuous, but I think he doesn’t understand how the law works. A judge had five types of penalties he could assess: restitution, enslavement, exile, death, and Lex Talionis. Lex Talionis - “An Eye for an Eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life” - applies with few exceptions to nearly all crimes of malice and negligence between individuals. That leaves the only places the law needed fleshing out in case law are crimes against the community, crimes against God, contracts, and accidents.
If we engage in the historical no no of Presentism, which Enns does, certainly the ancient laws are less specific than the thousands of criminal offences a person could be charged with today. Indeed, in our time it is impossible to not break the law. But our law today is incompatible with the law back then. If we plopped a million people in the Sinai desert with a copy of the 60,000+ pages of the US Federal Code, copies of the Bible, and a supply of manna 6 of the 7 days of the week, which of the two law codes would actually get used? The Federal Code would undoubtedly get used...for kindling fires. As law, it is not only intractable but totally inappropriate for a population living on the edge of survival. The parts that aren’t completely irrelevant require things that aren’t easily attainable, such as a medical system, police system, and a prison system.
Biblical law, on the other hand, provides laws that don’t require a vast material culture or deep social organization. For instance, there are standards of cleanliness and sexual conduct that protect against bloodborne pathogens without the need for antibiotics or Personal Protective Equipment (PPE in bloodborne pathogen training, ie. latex gloves, masks, safety glasses etc.). Judicial proceedings do not require a dedicated police force or prison system. Witnesses must participate in the sentencing. If deceit is found in any of the two or three witnesses that accuse a person of a crime, blood is quite literally on their own hands - Lex Talionis applies.
Although Enns is squeamish about it (pg. 27), chronically disobedient teenagers heading for a life of crime are dealt with definitively, likely causing a chilling effect to other teens. This as compared to our ‘enlightened’ system where even a slap on the wrist is too much, tools to correct and manage behavior are increasingly taken away from parents and schools, and criminal records are cleared at 18, after which they are free to feast on victims until someone gets the nerve to toss them in prison. Our modern criticism of the biblical law is that it is graceless and not nearly ambiguous enough - for various reasons, we like our loose ends. The ancients would surely see our way as negligent, lacking justice for the innocent, and totally inadequate for a people living on the edge of survival.
Enn’s last chance to convince us of ambiguity and ‘diversity’ (ie. contradiction) in the law is to point out that some of the case law is different between the books of Exodus and Deuteronomy. He wants us to see this as an obvious contradiction, but actually, these are revelations that are to be expected. The book of Exodus is about living on the edge of survival in the Sinai Desert. The people have nothing but what the Egyptians gave to them and God provides. The case law reflects that. An indentured servant receives nothing when they are set free because there is nothing to give, and for the slave woman, there is nothing to be set free too, except the wild (Exodus 21:1-11).
Deuteronomy is the last address of Moses to the people before he dies and they cross the Jordan into the land of Canaan. He takes the opportunity to flesh out some of the law with the new realities which they will face, namely land, wealth and a measure of economic freedom. When indentured servants are set free they are to share in this wealth and the master should look to support their success. Thus in a section on the sabbatical year, Moses on the authority of God, informs them how the law will change when they enter their new reality (Deut. 15:12-14).
On a side note, while I appreciate that Enns takes every opportunity to decry slavery, even at the Bible’s expense, the fact is there are some 1.3 million indentured servants in the United States today. They are officers and enlisted in the military. While we live in a land of milk and honey, one need only look up ‘veterans’ in the news to see our nation doesn’t always live up to Deuteronomy 15:12-14.
Enns tries to bring up similar contradictions between Exodus and Deuteronomy concerning the Passover, but it ends in a fit of misrepresentations. According to Exodus 12:1-20, the Passover meal is held at home or the home of a neighbor and consists of roasting a lamb and burning the leftovers by morning. Verse 9 uses three words to stipulate clearly that the lamb should not be “cooked in boiling water.” In verse 14, the Passover festival is deemed a perpetual ordinance that should be celebrated forever.
In Deuteronomy 16:1-9, after reiterating that the Passover should be celebrated, a Passover sacrifice is stipulated which requires a pilgrimage to “the place that YHWH will choose to tent His name” (Friedman, 2003 pages 605, 616; emphasis mine) as do all sacrifices in the promised land (Deut. 12:4-7). Enns insinuates that this is an unexpected contradiction. He says “we see no sign of this perpetual ordinance” of the Passover, yet there it is verse 1. Enns seems to be assuming that Moses should be repeating every stipulation from his earlier statement of law. He does not. He is emphasizing the commonality with the exodus law and clarifying that which will be modified to be a nation in the promised land. That is to say, Moses is focusing on the necessary additions to the law when moving from the elementary level to the middle school level, which is what we should expect of revealed religion. Moses explains in Deuteronomy 12:8-12:
You are not to do as we do here today, everyone doing as they see fit, since you have not yet reached the resting place and the inheritance the Lord your God is giving you. But you will cross the Jordan and settle in the land the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, and he will give you rest from all your enemies around you so that you will live in safety. Then to the place the Lord your God will choose as a dwelling for his Name—there you are to bring everything I command you: your burnt offerings and sacrifices, your tithes and special gifts, and all the choice possessions you have vowed to the Lord. And there rejoice before the Lord your God—you, your sons and daughters, your male and female servants, and the Levites from your towns who have no allotment or inheritance of their own.
Then Enns’ spends a startling six paragraphs - which is enormous considering his hit-and-run style - on a word found in both Exodus and Deuteronomy that he states categorically means ‘to boil’. He is wrong. The word bashal means “to grow ripe” and by the context can mean ‘to cook’ or ‘boil’. In Exodus 12:9, the last of the three word phrase that includes bashal specifies with water, therefore Exodus clearly means the lamb should not be “cooked in boiling water.” In Deuteronomy 16:10, bashal is all by itself, thus the less specific ‘cook’.
Most (all?) of the other holy things are boiled during the Passover and that is why 2 Chronicles 35:13 has the lamb roasted and the other holy things boiled. There were no compromises in 2 Chronicles as Enns claims because there is no discrepancy to begin with. And that’s it for chapter 3. If we regard the biblical text in good faith, Enns reimagining compromises are irrelevant.
There are a lot of misrepresentations in this book. Some of them are just careless, such as when he says the Angel of the LORD is “the accuser” - as in Satan (pg.185) - when the text is without the definite article in Numbers 22:32. However, it seems the more common reason for misrepresentation is that Enns does not believe in revelation. Most of the tensions he wants us to look at are in the context of a revealed rationale that he ignores, as can be seen with the case of the Passover above. He never comes out and says it, but his idea of revelation is just an authoritarian power play - Thus saith the Lord just to get your way.
This leads to a bunch of other things he does not believe in such as the historicity of Chronicles, the Flood, most of the Exodus, Jesus childhood in Matthew and he is a bit undecided on John. A reimagining of a reimagining of a reimagining of something that was imagined in the first place isn’t true in anybody's book. If there were not so many people I respect saying to consider Enns, I would swear he is some sort of theological quisling. I recognize the existential concerns he brings up (mostly in Chapter 6), but many of those concerns are answered by a strong Logos theology (eg. Cappadocian Fathers, Eastern Orthodox such as John Zizioulas, and Reformed such as Bavinck and Kuyper), and recognition that death in this life is only evil for the evil and the bland.
Overall Enns ‘reimagining’ of the Bible seems like capitulation with a happy face. He keeps coming at the biblical text with a frenetic ‘now-we-know-better’ arrogance, presenting his litany of alleged contradictions as if they are self-evident and above reproach. And yet most of his readings seem either spurious or easily resolvable. I can easily contend with half, which is enough to tell me it isn’t wise to bother with the rest.
So who is this book for? Throughout the book, it seems he is doing whatever it takes to create tensions that allow for his liberal theological and political positions. Not far into the book, I was asking, what does Enns believe no matter what? What does obedience look like? Enn’s world allows the freedom to ‘reimagine’ to whatever way you choose or whichever way the wind blows. No longer “narrow is the gate and difficult the road.” By the reimagining of Peter Enns...er...thus saith the Lord, the way is now a freeway. If you are into that kind of thing, here’s your notebook. Welcome to the Church of Mike.
-Lee Bright 7/21/2019