In addition, it is said that the ethical reading of OT stories is man-centered because it focuses on what we should do. However, it does not follow that if an OT story was crafted with the intent to communicate ethical/moral truth that it is inevitably man-centered and thus insufficiently “biblical.” It would seem that a large portion of the OT would either have to be reinterpreted Christocentrically at the expense of textual/authorial intention or it is of no value to the NT believer because it is "man-centered." Furthermore, why are some OT stories read Christocentrically and others are not? For example, the David and Goliath story is commonly read Christocentrically because of the messianic connection through the house of David. However, the David and Bathsheba story is not a likely candidate because of David’s adulterous and murderous actions (never mind the fact that Nathaniel used a story to communicate ethical truth to David). The messianic/Davidic connection is present in both stories. Why is one chosen to be read Christocentrically and the other not? It then seems that the application of the Christocentric reading to OT stories is ultimately arbitrary. This may have the unintended effect of ignoring parts (rather large parts) of the OT that do not provide adequately for a Christocentric reading or interpreting them in such a way that they no longer resemble the story in the text.
In a following post, we’ll look at the oft used story of David and Goliath and see if the intention of the story is Christocentric?