The God of the OT vs the God of the NT

I hate the very premise of the "God of the OT vs the God of the NT" question- you know, the one that sets up within the question itself an unresolveable dichotomy between a God of violence (the OT) and a God of love and compassion (the NT). 

I hate it mostly because it gives credence to what, for many, had been a faith-destroying red herring. 

 

The truth is, there's only one God revealed in Scripture. The LORD, the maker of heaven and earth, the one whom both OT and NT reveal to be a forgiving God, gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and abounding in love. 

BUT...

That there are pretty stark differences in how that God has dealt with humans throughout history is undeniable. WHY those differences exist is a vital question I think everyone should have some answer for. 

For a couple years, since I began thinking through this issue, I have explained it this way: The OT is a record of what doesn't work. It's God patiently allowing and even at times commanding His people to try all the ways of the people around them, one by one, all the while pointing towards Jesus. In the OT we have what doesn't  work- in Jesus we have what does- the Gospel. 

Think through your works you can be righteous? Okay- here are the rules. Let's see how you do with them.

Think through violence you can achieve peace? Think killing your enemies leads to having fewer enemies? Let's see how that works out. (We still haven't gotten this one...)

Think you need a king like all the other nations? Okay- let's give that a try. 

All the while, pointing them towards the One who would ultimately give them the righteousness, the peace and the security and hope they were looking for. 

Today, Greg Boyd had a great post that pushed the ball forward on this idea. I wish his blog took comments- I'd love to interact with him on this. 

I'll encourage you to read the whole thing- but the important bits for this conversation

are this:

Here’s a thought to start with. I think its very clear Jesus affirmed the divine inspiration of the Old Testament. Out of fidelity to Jesus, I feel compelled to accept this collection of ancient writings as divinely inspired. Yet, also out of fidelity to Jesus, I feel compelled to emphatically repudiate its violence.

What’s interesting is that Jesus himself repudiated the violence of the Old Testament — despite his belief that this collection of writings was inspired. Jesus taught, “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also (Mt 5:38-39).

It’s true, as many scholars have argued, that most of the contrasts between what people had heard and what Jesus taught (”you’ve heard it said… but I say“) do not repudiate Old Testament itself but Jewish interpretations that rose up around Old Testament teachings. But this is clearly not the case with this passage, for the “eye for an eye” commanded is explicitly and repeatedly given in the Old Testament (e.g. Ex 21:24; Lev 24:19-20). In fact, this quid pro quo philosophy lies at the very heart of the law, especially its required violent punishments.

Most interestingly, in Deuteronomy Moses goes so far as to stress that the law must not be waved aside out of compassion. “Show no pity,” the text says, “ life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot” (Deut 19:21). Yet, Jesus not only commands people to “show pity,” he replaces the Old Testament quid pro quo ethic with his radical ethic of unconditional love.

For example, while the Old Testament allowed Israelites to hate their enemies and sometimes command them to slaughter them, Jesus forbid his disciples from ever hating or doing any harm to an enemy. Instead, he commanded people to “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Mt 5:43-45). Luke includes the command to “do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you” and “pray for those who mistreat you” (Lk 6:27-28).

...I’ll leave you with this teaser thought: Is it possible that some divinely inspired material is not supposed to reveal to us what God is like but what he is not like? Is it possible that some material is inspired precisely because God wants us to follow Jesus’ example and repudiate it?

Abraham believed God told him to sacrifice his child, yet he trusted that God was not really like the bloodthirsty Canaanite god Molech and thus would not make him follow through with his request, even though he had no choice but to move forward in obedience. He trusted that God would supply the commanded sacrifice, if only at the last minute (Gen. 22:8).

Read the whole thing here.

I don't know that Abraham believed God would stop his sacrifice of Isaac- it seems that he more likely believed that God would raise him again afterwards. Perhaps Abraham didn't know going up the mountain that the LORD was not like the pagan god Molech. 

But he certainly knew it coming down. 

They (and we) may not have had the 50,000ft view that would allow them to see His motivation and strategy, no more than my 5 year old can understand some of the ways we feel compelled by our love for him to parent, occasionally allow to fail, and even punish. But just because it's hard to see doesn't mean it's not there.

I see all through the OT God contrasting Himself to pagan gods and inviting His people to discover for themselves that the ways of those pagan people do not work- do not get them where they need to go. And ultimately pointing them to Jesus. 

Anyway you slice it, that's a pretty loving God.

Comments

[Richard Clark]

OR some of the violence, especially that which which was commanded by God, DOES reveal something about God but something that we do not like. We would much rather think of all the different things that God is as somehow being component parts of his love. After all, the Bible says, "God is love." But the Bible also says, "God is holy." Why don't we rather think that his love is an expression of his holiness? Because it doesn't fit how we want to think about God. But what if he is both holy (with all that comes with it: his law and when his law is broken, his wrath) and love (with all that comes with it: mercy and grace, etc.)? Then the violence is understandable because it is a lawful expression of his holy wrath. When we do not have full appreciation for God's wrath we also cannot have a full appreciation for his love and grace.

[bobhyatt]

No- that's incomplete. God is holy (an adjective), but He is also love (a noun)- while the two are not in competition, I think the latter describes something deeper about Him than the former.
So yes- the OT command to stone adulterers may reveal something about God- but the way Jesus treated the woman cUght in adultery tells us something even deeper.
"Mercy triumphs over judgment" is the verse that comes to mind...

[Matt Stephens]

I think Boyd pretty clearly distorts the data on which he is building his argument. It's simply inaccurate to treat the Old Testament as merely "inspired" as if we are intended to take it as an example of what God is not like. The Old Testament does not present itself this way. God does not present Himself this way in it. God did not merely permit lex talionis or the mass slaughter of Canaanites; He explicitly prescribed them, albeit for specific purposes in specific circumstances. A more sophisticated way of dealing with the problem takes into account the different types of society in which the people of God have found themselves at various epochs of history, as well as considering the possibility that we have misinterpreted Jesus as "softer" than he really is. Perhaps the reign of God is manifested differently in the autonomous theocracy of the OT than among a powerless, exiled NT people. I don't pretend to understand why God chose to establish and interact with His people so differently in the OT and NT. All I know is that He apparently did, and that He gives no indication that the former was simply an exercise in contrast. Rather, it is one of lesser revelation (types) and fuller revelation (antitypes).

All that said, I'm still wrestling with this and am not sure exactly how I would answer a skeptic's questions (including my own at times). I definitely have a lot more learning to do on this, among so many other things theological. Thanks for the opportunity to dialogue.

[Jen W]

Ok, I have a different take on this, though I'll respond mostly to Richard and Bob (ok and Greg Boyd). (Alright everyone!)

To my mind, the difference is due to more practical considerations (namely, national law is necessarily different from personal). Holiness, as it was set out most demonstratively in the Torah, is not a thing to take lightly. Even in the NT you see examples of people punished with death (or dropping dead, rather) for simply lying (Book of Acts). And for that matter, go read Revelation. Plagues much?

But as for violence/death. A couple thoughts. One, I think there is an evolving quality to the societal requirements that God imposes. The rules of the Torah, that seem violent to us 3000+ years in the future, are a huge step UP from everything around previously (see for example, Hammurabi's Code). Things like polygamy, slavery are OK, etc. because people (not God) probably couldn't handle it. Basically he doesn't immediately impose perfection - only the basic requirements with the framework for growth. I think we still see this principle in action.
Two, each violent thing needs to be taken in context. I'll pick one, for the sake of brevity (hahaha) and talk about killing off the Canaanites. God, for some reason which bugs me, likes to use human tools. He seems to prefer to have one evil nation punished with another, and the Canaanites were no exception. Had another nation been more evil, I'm pretty sure God would have sent the Israelites over that way instead. The fact that God's not excited about genocide is seen in the fact that King David was not allowed to build the Temple because he had too much blood on his hands.

Thirdly, if we're worried about death, yes it's a big deal, particularly when it's us doing it, but let's face it: everyone dies, it's just a question of when. When we think about God wiping people off the face of the earth, keep it in perspective. All things die, and it's God who usually does it.

Lastly, and unfortunately, sometimes people only respect violence. It sucks, but that is human nature. If I weren't a little bit afraid of God, I know I wouldn't take him as seriously. Nor would I take sin seriously. So, moving on to Jesus, once you've got it established in people's minds that Sin=Very Bad, then you can start forgiving them. Just like if you're raising a kid, first you establish it indelibly in their mind what's naughty, then if they screw up they understand that if you let them off the hook it's not a green light to go do it again.

I think that, in a nutshell, is why the OT reads more like a discipline manual than the NT - because it came first. It did what it had to do, establish an understanding of sin, create a respect for holiness and lay the framework from which to grow.

[Richard Clark]

I appreciate the attempt to clarify, Bob. But it seems to me there is still something missing here. Whether adjectives or nouns, the words are used to describe God's being, who he is. And they are treated as intrinsic to who he is. Where do you get from Scripture, in plain language, that his love trumps his holiness? When the worshipers gather around his throne do they sing, "Love, Love, Love, is the Lord God Almighty?" I hope that isn't sacrilegious. I also hope you took that as humor, the way I intended it.

What we find is that when God's holiness and love are confronted his beloved's (mankind's) sin it creates a tension within him. Martin Luther, in reference to this tension said that it is a problem fit for God. How will he resolve it? He pours out his holy wrath and fully expresses his love through mercy and grace in one climactic event: Jesus Christ on the cross. So, mercy does not triumph over judgment at the cross, but justice and mercy both win.

That verse you cited, as you know, comes from James 2. This is not a reference to holiness and love. It is a reference to believers who were showing favor to rich believers over poor believers. So, the point was not that love wins over holiness but that love wins over discrimination or mercy wins over being judgmental.

[matybigfro]

Bob I'm worried that the trajectory your drawing starts to paint god in the OT as a trickster and fraud, sending his people into pursuits that are not fruitfull (in the OT as its written its not that God simply lets his people do stuff we are uncomfortable {we'll some of us including it seems jesus anyway} with but God demands full on genocide not just kill but kill everyone decree's quoted as coming directly from God) For him to be commanding things that he see's as wrong is simply lying and misleading.

Atleast though you and greg are dealing with the issue as opposed to ignoring the issue. If Jesus as revelead in the Gospels is the fullness of God releaved then there are deffinatly tensions between his statements and examples and testimonty of the Old Testament. To suggest Jesus' statements in the NT are limited to a specific context or merly personal application is to reduce him to status of the personal exiled demi God not really Yahweh but someway God. Equally the progressiv trajectory thesis is attrative bust also somewhat misleading.

Both the 'how not to do God' and the 'progressive trajectory' interpretation to me seem to be away to dressing down/watering down or covering up basically a more liberal approach to the bible where we approach text as not dirrectly literally reflective of God.

[bobhyatt]

Don't downplay the difference between a noun and an adjective. Saying I am loving is a different thing than saying I am love.
Yes, God is holy. Absolutely.
But to posit (and I'm not sure you are doing this, but...) the OT describes God's holiness and the NT His love is silly. Particularly when, as Boyd points out, Jesus takes great liberty to "expand and revise" the OT commands (like "an eye for and eye" and MANY others)

The fact is this: Take God as He is described in the OT only and you do not have the whole picture- to see God's character fully, finally revealed, we look to Jesus, the visible image of the invisible God. What Boyd and I are pointing to is that the OT functions best not when we try to take individual verses like "Don't eat shrimp!" and "stone (everybody)!" and try to discern a moral code for today from them, but rather see them in the context of a story that God (with different acts and an arc) is telling and perhaps a course He is taking us through that ultimately points to Jesus.
I think it's sound hermeneutics to look at all of Scripture as pointing to Jesus. My thesis is that some of the more puzzling parts of Scripture point to Jesus through telling us what doesn't work, so that when the Gospel is revealed and the mystery of Christ uncovered, we get it.
But it probably works on various levels. Does the law tell us about God's holiness? Absolutely. Those who received it thought they were receiving a way to be to be righteous. What they discovered was that they were really receiving a tutor that showed them they could not be righteous- and needed a Savior, the One to whom all their sacrifices and feasts and holy days pointed...

[bobhyatt]

Not a trickster and fraud, but one who knows our hearts and knows that we need to learn the hard way- to see what doesn't work before we'll ever accept what does.
As for "genocide"... It's interesting that we don't pay as much attention to books like Habakkuk which wrestle with the problem of God using the Assyrians and Babylonians to judge/exile his people, even though that involved what was undoubtedly a lot of death... and then actually judging the Assyrians and Babylonians for doing such things to God's people!
There's a sense, I think, in which God uses a lot of things to His ends while simultaneously accomplishing purposes on multiple levels.
So while He's judging the extreme wickedness of the Canaanite people who did things like sacrifice their children in the fire to false gods, I think He's also working something in His people- showing them that the approaches of the people around them just don't work.

The whole thing needs a lot more thought, I know- but trust me when I say that the whole text is (as you say) "directly reflective of God")... perhaps just not in the ways which some people think.

[matybigfro]

I think it’s allot more reasonable to hold God responsible for the actions of the Israelites acting on his direct commands as relayed by prophets, Judges and such as opposed to those that the bible often states as being allowed to take actions of their own decision.
the crux of my discomfort boils down to; If when you look at the texts and say this is actually, literally and without fault what God was saying to the people there at that time, it seems that on one hand you can have a God who is either deliberately leading people into false behavior (do the ends really justify the means) or the other you have growing tension with what God is saying there and what Jesus say's later on.
On the other had lies the dangerous waters of suggesting that the limitation of the writers of the text may play a role in their interpretation and perception of both God and his words (something that historically even in the last 100 years is evident as possible). Which both the trajectory and this view seem to require to be logically robust.

[Richard Clark]

OK, I see better what you are going for here. Thank you. Yeah, I was not trying to suggest that the OT is weighted toward one side of God and NT toward the other. Truthfully, that's what I sensed you were doing, so I appreciate you setting that straight.

Contrary to that, I think the OT reveals both the holiness AND the love of God (as well as other character traits, but these two come front and center when we are talking about our need for a Savior). Neither are revealed fully in the OT. And both are revealed in the NT and especially in Jesus. In fact, one has to skip some significant Gospel passages to avoid expressions of holy wrath from Jesus.

Let me get back to your first blog. I LOVE the way you started it. The first three paragraphs have me saying, "YEAH!" Then, the only thing I would have done added would have been something like, "Although he is slow to anger, this God who is the same in the OT and NT, will (because of his holiness and because of sin) kindle his wrath against human wickedness." That's a little awkwardly worded so I would work on it a little, but you get the idea.

Sorry, I have used too many words and wasted too much of your time to make that point.

God bless you, Bob.

I am not sure I buy your thesis if what you mean by it is that God is experimenting and trying things on for size. If, on the other hand, what you mean is that God is giving mankind a chance to work it out, so to speak, and then suffer the just consequences of our choices, I definitely buy that.

I also think the law did more than point out that we could not be righteous. It was a tutor to show us what righteousness is: namely, the only One who is righteous, holy - the one true standard. The law says do not kill because God is a God of life; do not lie because God is a God of truth, etc. In this sense, the distinction you make between saying God is holy and God is love is one without much difference. In either case, he is the standard. By the way, when we say God is holy it means more than that he does not do certain things. It means that he is a certain thing. That standard is held up for us not only in OT law but in NT law - "as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do."

Before you think that I am suggesting we can be saved by keeping this law to be holy, we need to point out that the OT saints were not saved by keeping law any more than NT saints are. Hebrews 11 establishes that for us. Anyone who is saved is saved by faith not the keeping of law, whether OT, NT or (as Romans points out) even natural law.

BTW, we are in total agreement on the point about all Scripture pointing to Jesus. And I would take it a step further. We need the full counsel of Scripture to get the correct picture of what Jesus is like, not isolated passages. All of the various passages kept in their respective contexts will together present a contextual portrait that is accurate and complete.

[bobhyatt]

"I am not sure I buy your thesis if what you mean by it is that God is experimenting and trying things on for size. If, on the other hand, what you mean is that God is giving mankind a chance to work it out, so to speak, and then suffer the just consequences of our choices, I definitely buy that."

That's not what I mean at all! I mean that he is saying: You want to justify yourself by rule-keeping (the basic orientation of our hearts) like all the "religious" people around you? Well, here's some rules, etc.

I agree- the law as a tutor not only shows us our need of a Savior but the holiness of God. But the function of it in the human heart, is, I think- to lead us to grace and to Jesus through our failure. And that, as I see it, is what most of the OT does- and why the Gospels depict so much of Jesus recapitulating the OT- but succeeding where Israel failed.

[Richard Clark]

I am with you in like 80-90% of what you are saying. And I love the way you are saying it. The problem is that neither Moses nor Abraham were attempting to justify themselves by rule-keeping. Neither were Elijah or David or Samuel, etc. Not all Israel failed to get the idea of salvation by grace and even more importantly Israel succeeded in its most important task: providing a context and a covenant people through whom the Messiah could come.

I DO buy that rule-keeping is the basic orientation of our hearts. But I guess I don't buy that God just poured on the rules as a way of saying, "I am going to show how fruitless it is for you to try to keep the rules." Romans points out that even if all we have is the natural law we can understand the fruitlessness of the effort to keep it. Additionally, if that was God's reason for piling on laws in the OT, what is the reason for ratcheting up the expectation of those laws in the NT? Now, I can hear someone say, "Well, in the OT the motivation for keeping the law was to avoid penalty but in the NT the motivation is love." But we can find both motivations suggested in both OT and NT (including violence from the hand of God in the NT).

In the end, I agree (and maybe this is all that is important) that the OT (and NT, for that matter) is designed to lead us to grace and lead us to Jesus by seeing our failure and inability and God's goodness, love, grace, mercy, and I believe (and this is the part we separate over) holiness and just wrath.

Thank you for this dialog. It has been helpful to think through these issues this way.

[Jen W]

God judged the Assyrians and Babylonians, but I believe it was because they went overboard. Not because they simply did it.

Similarly I'd like to point out that it is often said in the Bible that Israel's problems were due to the fact that they didn't fully obey God in wiping out the peoples they were supposed to, and therefore picked up their bad habits. How do you reconcile that with your theory?

[Jen W]

When you say "letting mankind experiment" and discover what doesn't work, I disagree. But only with the "mankind" part. I think that's what the rest of the world is about. Israel's the example to the world, held to a higher standard. Yeah, they failed too, but not because they were encouraged to (so to speak).

[David]

I liked Philip Yancey's take on it in "Disappointment with God" quite a lot.

In the Old Testament the Lord is interacting with us initially in the way the people wanted. In the New Testament he is interacting with us in the way he wanted. Just as the Lord gave the Israelites the King they wanted in Saul and then gave them the King he wanted in David.

at Mount Sinai the Lord acted as the people wanted him to. Directly, visible, giving them the laws and telling them what to do, showing them miracles constantly (manna, water from rocks, parting the sea, etc). What kind of spiritual godly people did this create? In plain view of seeing God they turned on him and created an idol to create a god of their choosing instead of getting to know the one who obviously was.

In the New Testament the Lord sends himself as a man, who initially proclaimed who he was with miracles early on but by the end of his ministry performed very few. It culminated with what all of the Jewish people didn't want and didn't expect... their Messiah dying. But look what happened? It inspired a faith that spread like wildfire and allowed people not to kill but to die bravely in the face of lions and others.

Now every time I feel lost and confused and feel like asking for a great supernatural sign... I remember the Old Testament and how things often worked out poorly for those who got them (Witch of Endor, Samson, etc.) Faith is hard, but God is teaching us to truly rely on him and get to know him.

and yes I agree, I do think he is letting mankind experiment and that the Israelis and the Gentiles each play different parts of it.

[Jen W]

Hm. You make a very good point. Points rather.