Plasticity of the Old Testament Stories

On Christian presuppositions, the Old Testament is inspired by God in a way that makes it useful for understanding God, understanding human nature, understanding morality, and ultimately that foreshadows the gospel of Jesus. There is a sense in which the Old Testament, independently of the new does these things and another sense in which it needs the new to do it. But my main point is that the Old Testament was interpreted plastically, insofar as some of the stories were seen to have more than one meaning, on purpose. And it’s useful and even necessary for Christians to do the same.

But for now, let’s see how the New Testament authors interpreted the Old Testament in subtly different ways which may, nevertheless, do justice to the Old Testament. What this does for us is it canonizes (enshrines in canon) the notion that the Biblical stories signify more than one thing because the inspired writ is recorded treating them this very way.

Jacob and Esau

Below are the interpretations of Jacob and Esau in Romans and Hebrews. For Paul, the significance of the story is that God had chosen in advance (before right or wrong was done) to make the Israelite nation out of Jacob. But the author of Hebrews sees the point of the story as precisely the opposite, that Esau’s rejection of holiness is why he lost his birthright. Interestingly, if you read Romans 9-11, the implication is that Esau and those like him can repent (despite the rejection of Esau being foreordained). But in Hebrews, Esau could not reacquire his blessing after losing it, despite it being his own fault. When you read the Genesis version, Esau is blessed by God, he just is not blessed as the firstborn. And in fact, in Genesis 33, Esau having repented of his self-indulgence has now also repented of his hatred for Jacob. The story appears to be both about God’s election of Israel as a nation, the power of self-indulgence to ruin your life, and the possibility of repentance to a comparable, though not identical state of happiness.

For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.” And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
(Romans 9:9-13 ESV)

See to it that no one fails to obtain the grace of God; that no “root of bitterness” springs up and causes trouble, and by it many become defiled; that no one is sexually immoral or unholy like Esau, who sold his birthright for a single meal. For you know that afterward, when he desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no chance to repent, though he sought it with tears.
(Hebrews 12:15-17 ESV)

Abraham

For James, Abraham was justified by works “when he offered up his son.” And so his faith was “counted to him as righteousness” in the sense that it lead to righteous action and was thereby made complete.

On the other hand, for Paul, Abraham is justified apart from the work of circumcision by virtue of having his faith “counted to him as righteousness” before he was circumcised. Paul’s conclusion: it is faith, not works [of the Mosaic law] that justify.

From these two stories, neither of which deform the story of Abraham, radically different (but complementary) theological conclusions are drawn.

Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God. You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.
(James 2:21-24 ESV)

What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works: “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.” Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? For we say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised.
(Romans 4:1-10 ESV)

Conclusion

These are just impressionistic reflections, but I think my main point is true: the Biblical narratives, as they appear in the canon, are supposed to be flexible in significance and application. I’ll point out some other texts just in the Old Testament w/out reference to the New another time. But I think that moral ambiguity in Old Testament texts is meant to get us to reflect on the several layers or levels of analysis at which life can go wrong.