Some Thoughts on Theological Exegesis of The Old Testament: Toward a Viable Model of Biblical Coherence and Relevance – Peter Enns, Westminster Theological Seminary

Introduction

A recent movement in biblical interpretation is referred to as theological exegesis, and is represented by such well-known biblical scholars as Christopher Seitz, Francis Watson, and Joel Green.1 The driving motivation behind this movement is an attempt to reclaim biblical interpretation as a decidedly theological exercise, which is something with which I am in enthusiastic agreement. My comments here will be restricted to the Old Testament, and I would like to begin by offering a working definition of theological exegesis that may not gain full assent but, I trust in the context of this journal, will be allowed for the sake of discussion. Theological exegesis of the Old Testament is a distinctively Christian reading that seeks coherence and relevance: coherence, meaning it seeks to understand the parts in relation to the whole; relevance, meaning it seeks to focus on the theological significance of such exegesis for the church. Defined in this way, theological exegesis may be seen as a corrective to other approaches to Old Testament interpretation where it seems coherence and relevance are either ignored or even vilified, namely much of the history of higher-critical, post-Enlightenment exegesis.

Theological exegesis defined in this way is something with which I have an immediate affinity. This is because I am an evangelical/Reformed reader of Scripture. I read conscious of how the whole fits together (coherence), and seeking to understand where and how the ancient and modern horizons meet (relevance). I would go so far as to say that it is a basic Christian instinct to do so —bordering, perhaps, on common sense, although that may be overstating a bit.

This article is a slightly revised version of a paper read at the Eastern Regional ETS, Calvary Church, Souderton, PA, April 1, 2005.

1 A recent summary of theological exegesis may be found in S. A. Cummings, “The Theological Exegesis of Scripture: Recent Contributions by Stephen E. Fowl, Christopher R. Seitz and Francis Watson,” CBR 2.2 (2004) 179-96. Joel B. Green and Max Turner have edited a volume focusing on NT studies, which also contains valuable bibliographical information (Between Two Horizons: Spanning New Testament Studies and Systematic Theology [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003]).

Eerdmans is also planning to publish a commentary series (Two Horizons) that focuses on theological exegesis of the Bible.

Enns, Theological Exegesis, p. 1 of 21

Yet it seems valid to observe that theological exegesis represents somewhat of an attempt at a recovery of the church’s hermeneutical instincts vis-à-vis modern developments. The purpose of this essay is to flesh out this rough definition of theological exegesis by observing how traditional models of coherence and relevance were challenged in early historical-critical scholarship on the Old Testament and in the fundamentalist response to that challenge. Specifically, the perspective I will take is to observe how historical criticism and fundamentalism collided precisely because they offered alternate and competing models of coherence and relevance. Although these early battles are technically over, trajectories were set during this time that are still felt by evangelicals today. I also am a firm believer that a strong grasp of our past is important for any forward progress we might wish to make. I will conclude with some very brief thoughts on how our own canon provides guidance for how the church today can read the Old Testament with coherence and relevance.

Historical-Critical Exegesis of the Old Testament: An Alternate Model of Coherence and Relevance

I think it is important to state at the outset that the past 300 years of Old Testament interpretation have not been all bad. Among the benefits have been not only advances in our understanding of the nature of the biblical text, socalled lower criticism, but in our understanding of the Bible itself. I am thinking here mainly of the increased historical consciousness that largely defines modern scholarship, i.e., the issue of “Bible in context.” It is the “quest for the historical…,” whatever, whether Jesus, Abraham, Moses or David that has helped us see something of the real-life, flesh and blood, incarnational dimension of Scripture—however erroneous some of the earlier quests may have been.

We need only think of how our understanding of the Bible and its world has been affected by such things as the discovery of ancient Near Eastern creation accounts, law codes, wisdom texts, various inscriptions—not to mention the Dead Sea Scrolls and, in their wake, the accompanying increased attention given to Second Temple Judaism in general. The effects of these and other discoveries during the 100-year span from 1850 to 1950 have been felt by all

skip a bunch

Enns, Theological Exegesis, p. 21 of 21