Reading Backwards

I was reading the letter to the Hebrews the other day, and came across the following verse which gave me pause:

He [Moses] considered the disgrace of Christ greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt, because he was looking towards the reward. Hebrews 11:26

This verse puzzled me because it seems to imply that Moses knew about Christ. But Moses lived centuries earlier than Christ! So in what sense did Moses think about the disgrace of Christ? How should we interpret this statement in Hebrews?

Moses and Christ

One interpretation of this verse might be to take it literally. We might then try to find evidence in the Old Testament that Moses knew Christ to support our interpretation. For example, we might look at some of the places where God appears to Moses (Ex 3:1-6; 33:11; Num 14:14; Deut 34:10). Could these have been cases of Christ appearing to Moses?

Or, we might look at the scene of Christ’s transfiguration, where he talks with Moses:

And there appeared to them Elijah with Moses, and they were talking with Jesus. Mark 9:4

If they were talking, does this mean they already knew each other? Might this offer a hint that Moses did know Christ in the Old Testament after all?

Or, finally, we could look at Jesus's own words regarding Moses:

If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. John 5:46

How are we to interpret Jesus's words here? Is he saying that Moses literally wrote about him? The last time I checked, the five books of Moses do not mention anything about Jesus Christ. So how should we approach this conundrum?

These and other considerations reveal that a literal interpretive approach to these texts is problematic. If we start with the assumption that Moses had to know about Christ in a literal sense, then we are forced to try and find clear predictions of Christ in the writings of Moses. But the implications of this approach can strain credulity. For example, if Moses did literally know the person of Christ in this way, why isn’t Christ mentioned more explicitly in his writings?

But alas, there is a better way.

Prediction or Prefiguration?

On the Emmaus road, Jesus explained a way of reading the Scriptures to his traveling companions that encouraged them to see all of Scripture in light of himself:

How foolish you are, and how slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory? And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself. Luke 24:25-27

The New Testament scholar Richard B. Hays calls this reading strategy of seeing Christ throughout the Old Testament reading backwards. This is not the same thing as simply looking for predictions of Christ in the Old Testament to prove his divinity. Rather, it involves reading the Old Testament as pointing "forward typographically to the gospel story."¹ In other words, according to Hays, Jesus is teaching us to read the Old Testament for prefigurations, not just predictions. A prediction is clear; a prefiguration is a hint, a foreshadowing, an inkling of what is to come.

Seeing Hebrews 11:26 in terms of prefiguration rather than prediction frees us up to embrace the creative theological imagination of the author of Hebrews, instead of seeing this verse as creating a puzzle we need to solve. Rather than making a literal claim about Moses's knowledge of Christ, the author of Hebrews is making a comparison between Moses and Christ for the purpose of illustration and encouragement. Moses endured disgrace because he was looking forward to the reward, just as Jesus endured the cross for the joy set before him (Heb 12:2).

This figural interpretation of Hebrews 11:26 sits well with the theme of perseverance found elsewhere in the New Testament. Paul spoke of running in such a way as to get the prize (1 Cor 9:24), and James similarly used the imagery of receiving a crown for enduring trials (James 1:12). So, rather than creating a historical conundrum, we find that Hebrews is simply affirming a theological truth that would not be controversial to the other authors of the New Testament.

But isn't literal more faithful?

"But," I can hear someone saying, "isn’t a literal interpretation more faithful to the biblical text?"

The idea that literal interpretations of Scripture are somehow always better or more accurate is something we often hear people say, and it is often taken for granted. However, while there is a time and place for literal interpretations, and I do not wish to universally discourage these by any means, I do think there is a time and place for figurative readings of Scripture as well.

As I bring this little post to a close, I want to therefore briefly offer a few examples showing that literal interpretations are in fact not the only faithful approach to Scripture. In fact, sometimes Scripture sets an example for us by interpreting itself figuratively!

For instance, consider Paul:

These things are being taken figuratively: The women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. Galatians 4:24

Or Revelation:

Their bodies will lie in the public square of the great city—which is figuratively called Sodom and Egypt—where also their Lord was crucified. Revelation 11:8

Or Jesus:

Though I have been speaking figuratively, a time is coming when I will no longer use this kind of language but will tell you plainly about my Father. John 16:25

In short, figurative interpretations are all over the place in the New Testament. Jesus himself used figures of speech often and taught in parables, for goodness sake!

This kind of theological creativity is something of a lost art today. We want things to speak clearly and straightforwardly. We often don't have the patience to ponder a more symbolic meaning. However, the writers of the New Testament show us that seeing the Old Testament figuratively, through the lens of Jesus, can free us to read the Scriptures afresh the way the disciples on the Emmaus road did: as a way of enriching both our hearts and our minds.

So why not approach the Old Testament through the lens of Jesus, trying to see all of the stories therein as pointing to the gospel – whether they specifically reference Christ or not. We might just be suprised at what the Spirit can teach us.

Food for thought.

Notes

[1] Richard B. Hays, Reading Backwards: Figural Christology and the Fourfold Gospel Witness (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2014), 15.