Most Evangelical Protestants read the Old Testament in a way that combines Symbolism and History. According to this view--the events of the Old Testament, with minimal exceptions, both occur in historical reality, and have symbolic meaning for the contemporary reading. Contemporary readers almost always interpret the symbolic meaning of the Old Testament as pointing either directly or indirectly towards Christ, who they believe is their personal savior. This personal interpretation is both contained in individual stories and the general historical/narrative arc of the Old Testament. Modern readers interpret individual stories, such as Abraham's intended sacrifice of his son--interrupted by God's provision of a Ram at the last minute-- as vignettes of God's ultimate saving plan. And more broadly, they interpret the saga of God's frustrated dealings with Israel as indicative of mankind's futile attempt to live up to the law with their own strength and merit. This reading intentionally leaves the vacuum- how then to please God and live in harmony with him?--open for Jesus as personal savior to fill.
While this reading may have its benefits for personal devotion, it becomes problematic when it is practiced at the exclusion of all other types of reading. Since most mainstream evangelicals believe in the literal existence of a God/Israel relationship or covenant, it would follow that his promises and relations with them would have some meaning at that time. To put it another way, although God's promises to Israel are sometimes confusing and overlapping, they can be described as generally benevolent. Why then, would God subject them to a harsh, impossible law with the intent of using them as a case study for why human attempts at righteousness must ultimately fail? Or, more subtly, why would he lead the Israelites along a path whose primary meaning will be obscured from them because it will only be revealed thousands of years later? Implicit in these conclusions and this type of reading is an essentially progressive idea of history. This idea of progressive history can take a number of different forms, one of the most popular being the idea of history as a sort of divinely controlled narrative. This narrative, like all others has a beginning, a middle and an end. The beginning has the conflict, the middle the escalation of the conflict, and the end--the resolution. Roughly, the Bible takes this form and fills it with the content of Original Sin, escalation of that sin and frustration with attempts to thwart it, and the eventual triumph of Christ. This type of reading provides meaning to history--God is in control! and an emotive appeal--everyone loves a good story! but it can be problematic in that it inherently privileges certain groups of people over another. One can look back in a story, but not ahead. The difference between this grand narrative and its counterparts in fiction is that this one contains actual people, whole nations and generations, who remain in the initial stages. It seems as if they can have no conception of the grand arc of the story.
