Enns’ absolute confidence that no rock actually moved throughout the wilderness strikes me as rather strange (and ultimately, dare I say, Bultmannian). My guess is that his confidence on this point stems from the rather mundane observation that rocks don’t stretch their legs all that often. Fair enough. But seas aren’t generally in the habit of clearing a path for large parties fleeing their former masters either. For that matter, water doesn’t typically turn into wine, and dead men don’t typically rise from the grave.

Earlier this summer Pete Enns wrote a blog post describing the pivotal role that I Cor. 10.4 played in his progressive rethink of the notion of biblical inerrancy (at least as that notion has been understood in traditional Reformed teaching). In that verse Paul, drawing exhortation for Corinthian believers from the (wayward) experience of the Israelites following the Exodus, makes reference to the “the spiritual rock that accompanied them” in their wilderness wanderings, ultimately identifying that rock as Christ. Enns claims that Paul, in writing these words, accepted as true a contemporary Jewish interpretation (otherwise described as a “strange legend”) which resolved two OT accounts of a rock providing water to the people — one at the beginning of their wanderings (Ex. 17), and one towards the end of the same (Num. 20) — by suggesting that “one and the same rock” actually “accompanied the Israelites on their 40-year journey.”

Thus Paul, claims Enns, essentially accepted as true, and (more importantly) repeated within the confines of inspired Scripture, something which was, well, clearly not true. “No rock moved in the Old Testament, but Paul said one did.” Enns assumes that evangelical readers will agree with him on the merits of the movable rock “legend,” rightfully dismissing it as “just plain silly.” The implications for traditionalist notions of biblical inerrancy are deemed fairly obvious. The logic runs something like this: No rock followed the people around the wilderness. Paul suggested that one did in canonical Scripture. Ergo, canonical Scripture contains erroneous statements of fact.

Greg Beale has offered an intelligent response to Enns, casting doubt both upon the presence of the movable rock “tradition” in Paul’s day and Paul’s allusion to such a “tradition” if it did exist. In a less intelligent vein, I’d like to ask why it would be a problem — if in fact Paul did believe and suggest that a water-providing and Christ-typifying rock followed the Israelites around the wilderness (which, by the way, I don’t think he did) — simply to conclude that such a rock actually followed them around?

In other words, Enns’ absolute confidence that no rock actually moved throughout the wilderness strikes me as rather strange (and ultimately, dare I say, Bultmannian). My guess is that his confidence on this point stems from the rather mundane observation that rocks don’t stretch their legs all that often. Fair enough. But seas aren’t generally in the habit of clearing a path for large parties fleeing their former masters either. For that matter, water doesn’t typically turn into wine, and dead men don’t typically rise from the grave.

I’m not sure, then, that anyone who takes seriously (that is, accepts) Scripture’s affirmation of miracles (especially in close proximity to salvific events) would so quickly dismiss even an un-inspired account of a water-providing-rock following the Israelites around the desert; the people of Israel, after all, were hardly strangers to the miraculous at this period in their history. If an inspired Apostle were to affirm that account (which, again, I don’t believe he did), the response of at least this evangelical would be “awesome,” and my only question would be whether the rock rolled behind the people or grew legs for the occasion

Read More