Interaction With Bruce Waltke -- By: Peter E. Enns

Journal: Westminster Theological Journal
Volume: WTJ 71:1 (Spring 2009)
Article: Interaction With Bruce Waltke
Author: Peter E. Enns


Interaction With Bruce Waltke

Peter Enns

I. Introduction

My friend, Dr. Bruce Waltke,1 has taken the time to put down on paper some disagreements he has had about I&I. He and I have been in some discussion about these matters, and we are both of the same mind, that a one-time, open discussion would bring clarity and charity to an issue that desperately needs both.

The tone of Waltke’s comments models well what Christian academic disagreement should look like. Waltke commends me for my “unflinching honesty” and his disagreements with me exhibit the same quality—it is clear where Waltke stands on numerous issues. He does not do so, however, by sacrificing respect for a colleague. I deeply appreciate this, and, although I have strong disagreements with Waltke, I aim to return this respect for a brother in my comments below.

Let me begin by stating that I am not convinced by the force of Waltke’s points—either taken individually or collectively. We do indeed seem to have very clear differences of opinion on a number of things. If I may summarize my most pressing point, it is clear to me that Waltke’s concerns with I&I are most certainly based on a priori commitments rather than, as he claims, “exclusively on exegetical data and a posteriori reasoning.” The interplay between one’s theological commitments and exegetical practice is delicate indeed, for all of us, and bringing these matters to the surface is important for further progress in our understanding of Scripture. An exclusively a posteriori approach to exegesis is, I fear, impossible, and I am somewhat surprised that Waltke would put the matter as starkly as he does. Now, on another level, I deeply appreciate Waltke’s concern to address rigorously biblical and extra-biblical data while eschewing the notion that a simple appeal to a systematic theological grid will adequately address the problems. I welcome this type of exchange with open arms, but I must admit that I am nevertheless struck by Waltke’s apparent claim to have achieved exegetical objectivity.

My reason for highlighting at the outset this aspect of Waltke’s comments is not to circumvent his exegetical points. I will address those as well. Rather, it is to show how Waltke’s own exegesis is framed by the very kinds of theological pre-commitments challenged by historically sensitive exegesis. Although Waltke

and I certainly have very clear differences about some exegetical points, the more fundamental disagreement concerns where our a priori commitments lie, and how these commitments move us to exegetical conclusions. If ...

You must have a subscription and be logged in to read the entire article.
Click here to subscribe
visitor : : uid: ()