When Christians run up against interpretive challenges in the Old Testament\u2013like killing Canaanites to take their land or the meaning of the Adam story vis-a-vis science\u2013a common way of handling these challenges is to make an appeal like:<\/p>\n
\u201cYes, but we can\u2019t just look at these passages on their own terms. We have to keep the whole Christian canon in mind and see how the Gospel affects our understanding of this Old Testament passage.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n I agree, pretty strongly in fact, that Christians now read the Old Testament in light of the entire story, which finds it climax in Christ. I\u2019ve written a bit about that, and my two commentaries (Ecclesiastes<\/a> But we need to remember what we\u2019re doing when we read the Old Testament in light of Christ\u2013<\/strong>what we are committing ourselves to, hermeneutically speaking.<\/p>\n The very declaration \u201cWe need to read the Old Testament story in light of Christ\u201d is an implicit acknowledgment that the Gospel-lens through which we read the Old Testament changes what we see; changes what is \u201cthere\u201d on the plain-sense level. The Gospel drives Old Testament interpretation beyond what it means when understood in terms of its ancient tribal parameters.<\/p>\n In biblical studies, \u201cmidrash<\/strong>\u201d is the word often used to describe the transformation of the meaning of biblical texts by later communities of faith. Midrash (a Hebrew word) is tricky to define. Generally, I define midrash as an approach to the text that goes beyond and beneath the \u201cplain meaning\u201d of the text for the purpose of addressing some difficulty in the text or bring that past text into conversation with present circumstances.<\/p>\n Handling biblical texts this way was a staple of Jewish biblical interpreters beginning after the exile\u2013beginning already within the Bible in 1 and 2 Chronicles, which utterly<\/em> reinterprets Israel\u2019s history in light of the exile and failure to re-establish\u00a0independence\u00a0as before. <\/em><\/p>\n The Persians were now running the show\u2013followed by the Greeks and then the Romans (with a relatively brief period of Jewish independence in between). The older biblical traditions\u2013which presumed<\/span> an Israel that was settled in the land, with a king, temple, and sacrifice<\/em>\u2014needed<\/em><\/span> to be brought into a troubling and challenging present.<\/p>\n Judaism has followed its own trajectory of transformation. Its existence is a testimony to the transformation<\/em> of Israel\u2019s Scripture to adapt to the harsh reality of continued Jewish existence outside of the land and without a temple<\/em>. To remain connected to the past left them no choice but<\/em> to transform.<\/p>\n Christianity is also a\u00a0transformation<\/em> of Israel\u2019s past story in light of\u00a0changing\u00a0circumstances\u2013<\/strong>though the \u201cchanging circumstance\u201d is not nationalistic but the belief that the crucified and risen messiah is the culmination of that story.<\/p>\n Both faiths handle Israel\u2019s story in a midrashic manner\u2013reframing Israel\u2019s ancient story to address a present circumstance outside of its scope.<\/p>\n Christianity\u2019s connection to the Old Testament isn\u2019t seen in how the New Testament writers are more faithful to the original intention of the Old Testament, or that they get closer to the \u201cdeeper\u201d intentions of the Old Testament that lie buried beneath the surface. Actually\u2013seeking these \u201cdeeper\u201d intentions is already an indication that some transformation\u00a0is required.<\/p>\n The Gospel gives us not only the permission but actually demands that, ultimately, our responsibility\u00a0<\/em>is to read of the Old Testament as\u00a0subject to\u00a0<\/em>Christ<\/strong>. We\u00a0are performing an act of \u201cChristian midrash<\/strong>\u201c\u2013an act that is an expression of faith that the Gospel ultimately defines the big picture of who God is, engaging Israel\u2019s story but not bound by it.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n In my writings, when I camp out in and drive home the original meaning of the Old Testament\u2013such as what I think the Adam story is doing in its ancient Israelite context, or how to understand Canaanite extermination\u2013I am not marking off the boundaries of Christian interpretation<\/a>. I hear this criticism now and then, and it is wide off the mark. Rather,\u00a0I am trying to drive home the degree to which the Christian story requires a transformed reading of the Old Testament<\/em>.<\/p>\n Sometimes this transformation will augment the Old Testament, and many other times will shift its direction, neutralize it, or even cancel it out and subvert it. This diverse process of transforming<\/em> Israel\u2019s story is already modeled for us by the New Testament authors. (Few things drive this home for me than reading how Paul handles the Old Testament in Romans, but that\u2019s another 80-part blog series. Don\u2019t hold your breath.)<\/p>\n I know that this way of looking at biblical interpretation can cause some discomfort, but I also feel it goes with the territory of being a follower of Jesus. At the end, all things\u2013even Scripture\u2013bend the knee to the risen Christ.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n![\"\"](\"http:\/\/ir-na.amazon-adsystem.com\/e\/ir?t=inspirandinca-20&l=as2&o=1&a=0802866492\")
Here is the irony: respect<\/em> for the texts of the past was expressed in terms of transforming<\/em> them to speak to present realities.<\/h2>\n
Christianity\u2019s connection to the Old Testament is centered on the belief that Jesus\u2019 death and resurrection is, hermeneutically speaking, in the driver\u2019s seat.<\/h2>\n