This has more to do with identifying with the background of how the text of the Scriptures has been transmitted to us, rather than critical reading of the Bible. Authoritarianism in politics tends to go with authoritarianism in religion. But this particular method of reading the Bible isn't necessarily how Jesus used the Bible:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/pete-enns/3-ways-jesus-read-the-bib_b_5902534.html
Let me give you a little help: beware of enlisting the likes of the Huffington post(!) withits piece by post-evangelical Pete Enns as a teaching aid in Bible interpretation.
Right off the bat, in seeking to support their charge that Jesus did the opposite of “sticking to the text” and not going beyond it, but instead Jesus was "ready and willing to be handled in creative ways, Enns cannot see, but outright denies, that "I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob" (Mat 22:32; Exodus 3:6) implies their continued existence, in contrast to being the God of biological dust, so that as Christ stated in support of the resurrection, "God is not the God of the dead, but of the living."
And being their God meant that they would see the fulfilment of the promises made to them, and thus Rabbis themselves enlisted these promises made by their God to the patriarchs Dt. as supporting the resurrection.
As Gill
provides , Menasseh ben Israel (was one of the great figures of Sephardic Jew) states on Deuteronomy 34:4,
"for God is not the God of the dead, for the dead are not; but of the living, for the living exist; therefore also the patriarchs, in respect of the soul, may rightly be inferred from hence to live"
And unlike the rendering of Enns who denies that Christ was providing a deeper meaning, but asserts that He used the Bible in creative ways (which would sanction liberals who reduce what the Bible says to always being just a matter of interpretation), some of the scribes did not express that they were "very impressed with Jesus’s ability to" by affirmed His interpretation, replying, "Master, thou hast well said." (Luke 20:39)
Next, Enns' charge that most Christians would dismiss such interpretation, "to try and stick to the text better and if not to start looking for another line of work, is largely a straw man. While mot of those Enns likely defines as "Christian" little have little interest in making sure that their pastors/priests properly interpret Scripture, those who do are typically going to be know, and as classic evangelical commentaries attest, that sound teaching can be understood by deduction and not simply from plain explicit statements. Ask them to show from Scripture why consensual cannibalism (you have me for dinner if i die first) is wrong as a practice.
Thus HP's first attempt to implicitly enlist Christ on the side of liberal "creative ways" opposite of “sticking to the text,” and not going beyond it, simply fails.
Next, Enns imagines that the Lord expanding of the meaning of the Law and abrogation of parts of it is meant that real obedience to God mean[t] it was time to move on," and was contrary to evangelicals believing what the Bible says isn’t like being on a buffet line where you “pick and choose” what you like. Of course, the latter is just what liberals do, as well as to "move on" onto their creative denial of Biblical morality.
However, in further demonstration of their blindness, what Enns fails to see is what evangelicals have well substantiated, that Christ as the Messiah would, for his righteousness’ sake "magnify the law, and make it honourable." (Isaiah 42:21) And that, and that the only "moving on" what not to creative denial of OT Biblical morality, but expanding its teaching to its full intent, which is also taught in the OT (such as adultery of the heart (Proverbs 6:25), and even a restriction of its allowances in the case of divorce, going back to its original intent (in which the Lord defined marriage as btwn male and female).
Evangelicals also recognize that the Lord, , not evangelicals, would institute the promised New Covenant, in which typological ceremonial laws on "meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ," (Colossians 2:16-17) Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. (Hebrews 9:10) But which abrogation meant that Christians were to fulfill their righteous intent, such as separation from unclean vessels corresponding to moral uncleanness.
For rather than abrogation of universal moral laws, fulfilling the righteous intent of universal moral law usually meant keeping the letter of it as well, and the intent of all laws, thus "Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:19)
That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. (Romans 8:4)
(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. (Romans 2:13)
Other Enns charges, that an “eye for an eye” is contradicted by turn the other cheek, ignores that Christ was not countermanding this as a matter of civil jurisprudence (including false witnesses getting the penalty they sought by lying), in which context is where it is found, (
Ex 21:22-27;
Le 24:19,20;
De 19:19) and which power He affirmed as coming from God, and warned of being punished by, but as it was applied to personal vengeance. In which eye for an eye can be seen as a restriction of retribution, which intent the Lord took all the way, consistent with Leviticus 19:18 and the expansion of who thy neighbour is.
As for “Let your word be ‘Yes, Yes or ‘No, no" being contrary to solemn oaths, what is proscribed is swearing by something greater than yourself, akin to using the credit card of someone else, since you lack such.
Thus Enns further attempt to set evangelicals in opposition to Christ, and HPs attempt to implicitly enlist Him as a liberal in which real obedience to God meant "it was time to move on" onto creative modern liberal ethos, is another failure.
Which refutes Enns summation, that Jesus did not agree with things about the Bible that evangelicals take for granted and consider non-negotiable—like “stick to the text” and, “God’s word is eternal and never changes,” for this a strawman, as this is the very Christ whose teaching evangelicals see no problem with (except maybe pacifism).
For “stick to the text” and, “God’s word is eternal and never changes” is not simply defined, at least in scholarly in evangelical exegesis, the way Enns portrays it, otherwise they would have a real problem preaching on what Christ taught week after week.
I do not have the time to further expand on this
