The same lecturer who made the analogy I used in my
previous post, has some interesting thoughts on this issue. Below is my understanding of his main argument.
The Old Testament was written, read and then re-read by communities down through history, up to the present day. In fact, it was the re-reading and re-appropriation of many of the Psalms that led to their collection and eventual canonisation. For example, Psalm 2 starts ‘You are my Son, today I have begotten you’. This was probably used originally at successive Judean king’s coronations. However, it was likely collected and canonised due to eschatological re-readings surrounding hope (that is re-readings appropriating the language to the Messiah), after the exile to Babylon. And more recently, the passage has been re-read christologically (that is with Christ in mind) by the New Testament writers (e.g Heb 1:5). The process of re-reading and appropriation is therefore intrinsic to much of the Old Testament.
Jesus also partook in the tradition of re-reading the psalms. His beatitude about the meek inheriting the earth is a re-reading of an ancient Hebrew idea expressed clearly in psalms 25 and 37 (amongst others); the idea of land. In his appropriation, Jesus stretches ‘land’ to refer to the whole earth, he stretches the chronology of the passage to refer to the Age to come, and his promise includes all followers of Jesus, not just the nation of Israel.
Jesus constructs a trajectory of meaning that arches across time, cultures and covenants. The pillars of this trajectory include Deuteronomy and psalms 25 & 37. This allows us to bridge the chasm between author and reader without denying it’s existence.
What do you all think, a solution or not?