"The Bible Tells Me So" by Peter Enns - Feb 20, 2015 - book review by Randall F. More

‎February 20, 2015

"The Bible Tells Me So" by Peter Enns (Harper Collins, 2014)

review by Randall F. More, P. Eng.

Enns makes a decision to interpret the Bible in a way that he personally chooses, without regard to conventional exegesis (i.e. critical explanation or interpretation of a text) or hermeneutics (i.e. theory, knowledge, and methodology that deals with literary interpretation). He endeavours to explain God and His purposes in a way that he ‎thinks that God should be or the way that he thinks God really intended to be portrayed in the Bible. He places himself as the authority over God's Word.

Enns tells us that the Bible really only means to say what Enns wants it to say. In this way, Enns becomes the interpreter and translator.

Enns refers to Genesis and Exodus as "more like scripts for a fairy tale" (p. 4)‎. One can be quite sure that God never intended these foundational books of the Bible to be fairy tales.

Enns goes so far as to say that the Bible isn't even true as he writes that "What the Bible says happened often didn't" (p. 25). ‎Does he write such notions just to be controversial? One wonders if the Bible has any meaning or relevance at all for Enns.

Enns has a very low view of God as evidenced when writing that "this God is flat-out terrifying: he comes across as a perennially hacked-off warrior-god" (p. 31).

Enns writes that “God never told the Israelites to kill the Canaanites. The Israelites believed that God told them to kill the Israelites” (p. 54). We know that such an understanding is not a biblical truth. Enns wants to re-write or re-interpret the Bible to say what Enns thinks that the writers really intended to say. This is preposterous.

Enns chooses to believe that God would never have instructed the Israelites to eliminate the Canaanites and so there must be some mistake or a very serious misunderstanding (pp. 54, 60). Just because Enns doesn't see it the way that the Bible records it doesn't mean that God didn't see it that way. Sure, we may not agree with or like what happened but it is often that we do not know or understand God's reasons, purposes, or greater eternal plan. We should know, however, that He is not only a God of perfect love but He is also a God of perfect justice. God's ways are not our ways; they are higher than our ways.

Only God knows what would have occurred if the Canaanites had not been eradicated. God did not eliminate these people to be mean or cruel but to prevent a much greater wickedness in the future. Of course, we are mostly troubled by the death of infants and children but is it possible, as has been suggested by others, that these children very likely would have grown to become wicked adults, similar to their parents, but instead God destined them in infancy for heaven?

Regarding the Canaanites, Enns writes “What most everyone is certain about, however, is that the Bible’s version of events is not what happened” (p. 60). It is just too incredible for Enns to write this without any justification whatsoever. Enns writes “Canaanite genocide is part of Israel’s story of the past – not a historical account of something God did” (p. 70). The story is most certainly a historical account in every detail. 

Enns' notion has a few difficulties. ‎If God never issued such a command, because it is perceived by Enns and others to be too brutal for a good and loving God, then the Bible writers have effectively made God look even worse by blaming it all on Him when, according to Enns, it wasn't even His command. Enns' scenario is greatly lacking as an explanation for anything.

The further difficulty is that with the Bible as the inspired Word of God, it is unfathomable that God would ever allow what Enns considers to be a horrible act (in eliminating the Canaanites) to be blamed on Himself in His own inspired and authoritative Word... unless it truly was His command. (The corollary would be that the Bible is not actually even the inspired Word of God.)

Expressed slightly differently, we should already know that God would never permit Himself to appear to be wicked or evil in His own Word‎ (the Word which He was responsible for authoring) just because the Israelites did something that they erroneously believed that He told them to do. We can be assured that if Enns' supposition was correct, God would have ensured that His inspired Word reflected accurately and truthfully the facts, not a lie or an untruth. Enns' supposition does a great disservice to God and His Word and makes no sense.

Further, if, in fact, the Israelites had destroyed the Canaanites because they erroneously believed that God ‎told them to do so, God might readily have rendered judgment on Israel, instead of on the Canaanites.

Yes, in our finite and lowly minds, God's command may be difficult to accept or understand but God's ways are not our ways. He had a far greater purpose than we might ever fully understand.

Presumably Enns would have similar difficulty with other warnings of God's impending judgement such ‎as that spoken by the prophet Zephaniah. 

God wanted to establish a pure, holy, and chosen people through whom He could bless all the other nations on earth. He chose to do this through Israel. Why is this so extraordinary for Enns to grasp? Instead, Enns wants to make the story suit his own present day temporal values.

Enns writes that Jericho "had no massive walls, which means the biblical story of the 'walls of Jericho' tumbling down is a problem" (p. 59). Enns should know that there is an abundance of archaeological evidence of the ancient walls of Jericho as described in the Bible.

Enns writes that the stories of the Bible are analogous to stories that he used to tell regarding his father when he was a young boy but didn't have all the details correct but that it didn’t really seem to matter (pp. 63-65). Such a perspective represents a very shallow view of Scripture.

Enns writes that "for Christians, Jesus, not the Bible, has the final word" (p. 65). This is not correct. The Bible is the written and authoritative word of God. Jesus is the Living Word. The two together are the consistent Word of God.

Enns writes that "the book of Revelation... is definitely not to be taken literally" (p. 66). Wow! Does Enns know something about the future that God doesn't know and somehow knows that God didn't mean what He said... or is it that he just doesn't like what God is telling us?

Enns writes that many Christians... "are thinking they are showing respect for the Bible and obeying God by making the biblical story mesh with modern science, or rejecting modern science entirely in favor of God's Word" (p. 69). Enns and the many Christians are quite mistaken. If the truth be acknowledged, the biblical story meshes very well with modern science. In fact, the God of the Bible is the God of all science and the two are not inconsistent.

Enns mocks Old Testament civil and dietary laws... only because they don't make sense to him or to most of us today. Not making sense to Enns is not a justification to dismiss the laws which God established for a new nation three thousand years ago. ‎Enns says that "Christians have... re-evaluated these laws against the backdrop of the Gospels" (p. 69). This is not what happened. Christians didn't spend one moment re-evaluating any of these laws. Christ came to free us from the civil and dietary laws because they had already served their purpose for the time when the Israelites had no guideposts for living apart from that which God had provided to them. For the record, it is God's moral laws which are good for all time… for all eternity.

Enns says "that the physical universe is bigger and older and operates very differently than how the biblical writers... thought" (p. 69). How does Enns know this? Enns doesn't provide a single example of where the biblical writers got it wrong.

Enns' objective is "to show Christians that the 'Bible as rulebook' is a human invention and not what God intended or wants" (p. 75). How did Enns come to this conclusion? ‎This is just another example of Enns' incredibly low view of God's Word. In fact, the Bible is God’s manual or rulebook for mankind. The Bible is as much a 'rulebook' or full life manual that could ever be written. It is certainly all that God intended for us.

‎Enns writes that "The biblical storytellers recall the past, often the very distant past, not 'objectively,' but purposefully" (p. 75). Apparently, according to Enns, God is not the authoritative author of Scripture. This is preposterous.

Enns writes that the "biblical storytellers invented and augmented dialogue, characters, and scenes... all for the purpose of telling their story for their audience" (p. 76). No, this is not correct. The writers of the Bible wrote under the authority of the Holy Spirit. The writers did not "invent" anything but instead accurately recorded truth and facts.

‎Enns writes that "Readers who come to the Bible expecting something more like an accurate textbook... are in for an uncomfortable read" (p. 76). Enns is mistaken. For all readers, the Bible is accurate in its entire text.

In referring to the Gospels and the Old Testament, Enns states that "At times these stories of Jesus and Israel contradict each other" (p. 76). Is that so? Enns doesn't provide a single example.

‎Enns has a problem when He writes "that the absence of this episode in two of the four Gospels is a huge signal that their stories of Jesus are significantly different" (p. 82). Sure, the stories of the four Gospels are quite different. If they weren't different there wouldn't be any need for four Gospels. Each is factual and truthful but no one Gospel contains it all... and as far as is known, there are no inconsistencies which would cause anyone to question the legitimacy. Enns finds a problem with the book of John because it is so different than the others (p. 80). With all of Enns' scholarly background, his perspective is rather surprising. Matthew, Mark, and Luke deal mostly with Jesus' life as a man. Matthew writes about His royalty; Mark writes of His humility; Luke writes of His humanity. John, however, writes of His divinity. Of course, John's writing would be very different than the others. The fullness of the true Gospel is only achieved through the contributions of four authors.

Enns doesn't believe that the magi followed a star and he doesn't believe that Herod had babies killed‎ (p. 83). Why is that? It seems that Enns just can't bring himself to believe it. He doesn't believe Scripture as it is written. There is no factual basis for his disbelief. God's Word is nothing more than a fairy tale to him.

Enns attempts to mock God when he writes "Did God not get the memo about the kind of Bible Christians 'need' to have?" (p. 89) but ultimately God will not be mocked. Enns would be wise to recognize that God authored His Word exactly in accordance with man's need... because He knows man's need, exactly.‎

Enns does not seem to understand the book of Genesis or the creation of mankind (p. 113). Contrary to Enns' understanding, Adam is the same person in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. The descriptions are different aspects of the same narrative.

Enns writes that "The Bible has one more mythically robed story involving God and water: the story of Noah and the flood" (p. 124). Enns would be wise to understand that there is an overwhelming amount of scientific evidence which lends support to the biblical account.

Enns writes that "the Bible itself complicates matters: its writers are clearly engaged in consciously shaping the past rather than simply reporting it" (p. 127). ‎The Bible is no more complicated than that which God intended. It is His work. ‎Sure, each biblical writer has his or her own personality but their work is superintended by God, the ultimate author.

‎Enns writes that "If the Bible isn't clear even about big issues like God (!!), what's it good for?” (p. 135). This may seem like a reasonable question but we can be sure that the Bible, God's handbook and manual to mankind, is just as clear as God intended it.

Enns writes that "even in the biblical creation story, God says, 'Let us make humanity in our own image.' Who is 'us?' Does God have a mouse in his pocket?" (p. 152). One can scarcely believe that someone as knowledgeable as Enns could write such a ‎comment. Enns should reasonably know that the "us" refers to the Trinity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

Enns writes that Jesus "wasn't bound by the words on the page of his Bible and what they meant" (p. 169). Of course Jesus was bound by the words of Scripture. There is no reason to believe otherwise. Jesus is the Living Word… the Word lived out in the flesh.‎

Enns has minimized the truth, facts, and power of God's Word. If one accepts the Bible as God’s Word, His authoritative Word, one can be sure that the Bible conveys exactly all that God intended to convey in His Word. There are more than 30 prophecies regarding Christ written by 11 different authors anywhere from 1000 to 500 B.C. Each one of the prophecies came to fruition as recorded in eight books of the New Testament. One can be sure that God was quite capable of having His Manual written for mankind without having Enns or any of us telling Him or telling others what was really intended by re-interpreting His Word. That wouldn’t be God's Word; that would just be Enns' word.

Enns plainly doesn't like the God who identifies Himself in His Word but he doesn't provide any justification for his views other than he refuses to believe what has been written by God about God.

His Word is powerful just the way it is. You and I don't even know the words which we may be speaking ten minutes from now... and yet God knew it all, foretold it all, and accurately recorded events in the minutest detail a THOUSAND YEARS before‎ they even occurred. I don't think that He then got the rest of it wrong or allowed His Word to be anything other than His truth. His prophecies were given for two main reasons: so that we could know that His Word was trustworthy in every regard and so that we could know and claim the promises regarding our eternal destiny.

There is no reason to believe or accept that Enns has any of it correct. Enns provides no substantiation for his views except that's what he wants to believe. In fact, according to Enns, the Bible apparently has little or no merit. It apparently isn't even really God's Word; it doesn't say what God really intended to say, and it is historically inaccurate. For Enns, the Bible isn't an accurate historical record of anything. It's about the history of what Enns believes that the Bible writers meant to record regarding history... but for which they apparently didn't do a very good job.

Sure, Enns could be correct in everything that he says... but he provides no reason whatsoever to believe such and we have no reason to believe that anything that he says is correct except that he wants to believe it himself. That is not a sufficient or a good enough reason. 

Enns is a rationalist. He is using his own intellect as his authority. He is not using God's Word as his authority. For Enns, he is his own authority. Enns is effectively sitting in judgment of God's Word. That is a very bad place to be.

‎Much of what Enns writes is not new. In fact, he would do well to study the curriculum of some of the mainline Protestant churches which, in the decade of the sixties, denounced most or all of the miracles: Creation, the Flood, parting of the Red Sea, the virgin birth, Jesus turning water into wine, Christ's physical resurrection. Enns' understanding of the Bible is not the gospel. Enns’ understanding is basically a denunciation of the supernatural power of God, His miracles, His purposes, and His plan. In fact, Enns mocks some of the miracles because, in his mind, they could not happen in the natural realm. That is exactly what miracles are, events outside the natural realm. We would certainly only be worshiping a very tiny God if He wasn't able to bring miracles to pass. Strangely, Enns happens to believe in the virgin birth and the resurrection but one is compelled to ask what is the reason that he denounces all the other miracles? This might be referred to as selective belief. One doesn't need the Bible for any purpose if one chooses to assign one’s own revelation of truth.

‎

‎