Enlightenment Hermeneutics

Enlightenment Hermeneutics
By R.D. Smith
The second point of the covenant asks, “Who is in charge?” Peter Enns says in his book, Inspiration And Incarnation, that the method of the apostles in interpreting the Old Testament seems odd. He says, “The New Testament writers do some odd things by our standards.” (Maybe we need to change.) He cites several examples of how the New Testament writers seemed to quote Scripture out of context. They did not seem to use our so-called “more enlightened” method. Where did they get the authority to do that?
He even thinks Jesus used an odd (odd to we who are influenced by Enlightenment rationalism) method of proving the resurrection of the body. He quoted what God said to Moses. “I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.” Why would that seem odd? What kind of a God would be the God of men who are dead and gone and will never arise from the dead? He would be the God of the dead. That sounds like the devil. He might as well be the God of cockroaches. His answer certainly stopped the mouths of His adversaries. No one dared to ask more.
The apostles learned from Jesus how to interpret the Scriptures. On the Mount of Transfiguration, God said, “This is My Son. Hear Him.” Hebrews 1:1 says God spoke to us in old times by the prophets but now speaks through His Son. After Jesus arose, He expounded from all three divisions of the Old Testament on the Scriptures that spoke of His passion and resurrection. He taught them how to interpret Scripture. Paul said that the mystery that had been hidden from the ages was now revealed through Christ. Jesus said that “life” from the Old Testament is from those Scriptures that speak of Him.
The method that was taught was that the things in the historical account of the Scriptures were types, copies, and shadows of things that are fulfilled in Christ. The Second temple culture was somewhat familiar with allegorizing, but men like Philo of Alexandria and others were quite fanciful with that method. However, the Alexandrians with whom Stephen debated had no trouble understanding the analogies made by Stephen. He compared Joseph’s rejection and the rejection of Moses to Christ’s rejection. He called the Tabernacle of God the “Tabernacle of Moloch” and implied that the same was true with the temple.
Matthew shows that Christ is the true Israelite when he seems to quote Hosea out of context. “I called my Son out of Egypt.” Hosea was not referring to Christ, he was referring to the nation of Israel. But Matthew is showing us that Israel is a type of Christ. He quotes Isaiah 7:14 about a virgin conceiving and bearing a son, and applies that to Christ. Isaiah was talking about his own son as a sign to King Ahaz. How did he make that connection? It was by way of analogy. When Jesus was taken to Nazareth, Matthew says the prophet said, “He shall be a Nazarite.” Where is that found? This was said to Samson. Evidently Matthew (actually the Holy Spirit) saw Samson as a type of Christ in the same way that Jesus said, “There is one greater than Solomon here. There is one greater than Jonah here. There is one greater than the temple here.” The same logic would make Jesus the greater David, the greater Moses, the greater Joseph, etc.
Where did the apostles get this authority to interpret Scripture this way? “As the Father has sent Me, so send I you.” “What you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven.”
The first church council in Acts 15 decided on circumcision. Evidently some of the believers in Jerusalem could not make the analogy that this was a type of baptism. We still have that problem with many believers today. Paul tells us that these things were written as types (Gr tupos). Since Jesus was circumcised, and believers are baptized into the body of Christ, that must mean that believers are also circumcised. They are circumcised by means of being baptized into Christ.
In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead (Col 2:11-12 NIV).

So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ (Col 2:16-17 NKJV).

Using this method, Paul saw the Old Testament history and ceremonial law as types of things that were fulfilled in Christ. The unclean foods were gentiles (Acts 10). Hebrews shows us that Christ is our high priest. He is our temple (Rev 21). He is our Passover Lamb, etc.
The prophets, Peter tells us, did not always understand what they were prophesying (1 Peter 1:10-11). The reason they did not was because the Holy Spirit inspired them. The Spirit simply spoke through them and bypassed some of their understanding. Even the High Priest did realize he was prophesying when he said that someone must die for the nation. On the Day of Pentecost the disciples prophesied in unknown tongues (unknown to the speakers). The people gathered from the nations, however, did understand them speaking in their languages in psalms and prophecies. In referring to the gift of tongues, Paul said, “I will pray with the spirit and also with the understanding.” This shows how the Holy Spirit can speak through men while bypassing the understanding. The fact that Isaiah, for example, did not understand that the Spirit was not only referring to Isaiah’s wife bearing a son (Isa 7:14), but was at the same time referring to Christ, also illustrates this. How did Matthew know this? He had been taught by Jesus this method of types, the “already/not yet” motif of prophecy, and was also inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Peter Enns asks, “Should we handle the Old Testament the way the apostles did?” Well, if we do not, we certainly will not understand it the way it should be understood. We are their heirs. We should honor our parents. We are told to not be like the mule that needs a bridle; but to understand the ways of the Lord. If we do not understand the apostolic method of interpretation, we certainly will not understand the Lord and His word. It is obvious that Peter Enns’ Enlightenment rationalism was not the apostolic method of interpretation.