Hank,

How does the "back and forth" jive with reformed notions of fixed history?

I am reading the review right now.  two initial comments
1. Have you ever heard the laity talk about these issues?  If the laity have a problem, those teaching them have a problem.
2. it got him fired

However, I have yet to find anything very controversial in his work

Update: As I am reading through the review, I am becoming increasingly frustrated. The reviewer doesn't seem to "get" what Enns is talking about. Particularly the issue of myth. It is Enns' point that the writers used the genre of myth and not history and to impose history on the text is to do it injustice. I am surprised at the reviewer's inability to understand what Enns is talking about.... but I am still reading it.

I read John Frame's review of Enns' book and he thought this book wasn't very controversial. Nothing Enns' said really challenged the traditional view of the inspiration of Scripture and inerrancy. In fact he said that Enns' on many occasions actually shies away from the issue. Here is the link to the review. I'm curious to see if you feel that Frame is fair or not.

Hank,

You are precisely correct.  Enns is only addressing the narrative of the OT.  In the narrative this happens.  And his point above is that you can't dismiss this feature of the narrative as many are want to do.  As he is only addressing the narrative portions (and excluding the covenants and the laws, which you rightly point out) which you have to hold in tension with the other portions. 

So, I really the only think I wanna say in relation to your point is to point out (as a person who has the book to a person that does not have it) is that he is purposefully not talking about those sections here and only talking about the narratives.  However he is not taking taking the narratives to stand for the whole of the OT.

From reading only the narrative of the Old Testament, I think that the give and take relationship that Enns points out is the predominant way that Yahweh interacts with Israel.

Reading the Torah and understanding the nature of the covenant that was made with Yahweh and Israel through Moses (the Mosaic Law Covenant) where blessing and wrath are contingent upon Israel's behavior and conformity to the stipulations of the covenant, Enns' point is spot on.

But in reading the covenant God made with Abram/Abraham (Genesis 15), God does not make a conditional covenant but rather a covenant where the conditions are only to be met by Yahweh himself. There are no stipulations for Abraham to accept. He only has to agree to the covenant (hence the meaning of "believed" in Genesis 15:6?). There is a sense in which God makes a covenant where those who have agreed to it do nothing. So there is very little give and take between the two. It is God giving and giving and the receiver receiving.

Then there is the issue with the prophets, especially Isaiah. Second-Isaiah (although I personally don't hold to a deutero- or trito-Isaiah but only one author) does not picture a God who operates in a give and take. he sovereignly operates and that's it. It is what Enns doesn't want to allow from a "philosophical point of view." I feel that, based only upon this paragraph, that Enns is not allowing the whole of the Old Testament to speak, only the narrative portions.

However, I must emphasize that I have not read his book and so I can only react to what was posted.