The author claims that Christianity, in order to remain healthy and viable, needs to reclaim the Old Testament to maintain a tie to the world at large. Christianity, like all religions and cultures, needs connection, identification, and unity. Moreover, the New Testament, according to Rosenweig, should be viewed as a "counterpart," not as a canon that was "intended to supercede" the Jewish Bible (238). Rather, the New Testament can "supplement and outrange" the Old (238). Historically, the New Testament is like an organic outgrowth from the Hebrew Bible, a scripture that characterized a newly emerging religion and culture that while separate and distinct from Judaism is nevertheless intimately tied to it. The Hebrew Bible is usually referred to "in a spirit of opposition" to the New Testament. Christianity views the "fruitful tension" between the Old and New Testaments as "a torment it wished to evade," (239). The need of Christian culture to identify itself in opposition to Jewish culture is a natural human tendency, one that springs from the ease of drawing distinctions in order to define boundaries. However, Rosenweig suggests that a more proper and academic viewpoint on the placement of the Bible in modern human society would be to view both traditions on a continuum. Scripture is intended to be a bridge between people and generations, not a divisive wedge.

The "effect" of the Bible...

Rosenweig also comments on the "cultural strength" of Christianity, a strength which proves to be an integral part of the "destiny" of the Bible. Therefore, the Bible's effect on human history is its ability to create, mould, and transform human cultural and spiritual consciousness. The Bible's destiny is similar: its role in human history will change dramatically over time, just as it already has. The import of the Bible on Jewish and Christian societies one thousand years ago is far different than it is today; likewise, the impact of Scripture fifty years hence will be different than it is today. The Bible's destiny will, however, always be to maintain a connection with the entire course of history and culture.
Rosenweig claims that the New Testament is full of "pointed paradoxes," (237). In fact, the main weakness with Rosenweig's argument is that he exposes a bias for the Hewbrew Bible and a bias against the Christian gospels when he generalizes about them both. The author claims that the New Testament is only concerned with being "face-to-face with Judgement," (237) whereas the Hebrew Bible constitutes "a whole national literature" that offers "a solid ground for building the world," (237). In spite of this inherent bias in the writing,…