Did the same God write the OT and the NT?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bob_R
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Bob_R

Guest
It seems impossible that the same God wrote the OT “eye for an eye” and the NT “turn the other cheek”. This is but one differing ideology that is conflicting between the two Testaments. Can anyone explain this?
Thanks
  • Bob :confused:
 
Hi Bob, one need only need where to look for the love of God in the OT and where to look for the justice of God in the NT to see that they are in fact the same God. Simply read both testaments using a theme approach concerning the nature of God.

Torrey’s Topical Bible online would be a good place to extract your reading list.
 
I STRONGLY recommend Scott Hahn’s “Our Father’s Plan”, which helps explain the Testaments as part of God’s one loving plan of salvation. Great read!

Notworthy
 
In response to the particular case you brought up -

Eye for an eye was not the exact amount you had to do, it was a limit. It meant that the maximum revenge you could extract was the amount of injustice done to you - so, if someone took one of your eyes, you could not take both of their eyes as revenge. You could choose to take one eye or you could choose to take no eyes, but you could not take any more than one eye.

Turn the other cheek was not a contradiction of this rule, it was setting an ideal. Jesus was telling us that it is best to take no revenge at all. However, that didn’t mean that it was a sin to take revenge. The old rule still applies, that it is a sin to take more revenge than what is done to you.
 
I am not enough of a scholar to offer a definitive answer to this.

Those strict rules of the OT about stoning people to death and all that eye-for-an-eye rules were seldom if ever enforced. There’s a lot of killing in the Bible, but we just don’t see a lot of that kind of justice going on. But, for sure, tell me if I’m wrong, here.

To be specific, for every one of those rules, show me in the Bible or elsewhere where they were enforced.

To be sure, we hear a lot about radical punishments in the other semitic (Muslim) people in the middle east. We hear about people having their hands cut off and eyes gouged out. And, of course, we know about the beheadings.

Even when King David commits some big sins, his punishments are far less than what are called for and he sings in the psalms about the mercy of God. God’s mercy and love are far more evident and are extolled greatly in both testaments. In fact, the testaments themselves reflect God’s mercy and love. In fact, it is God who makes covenants with mankind over and over. It is mankind that is always backing out. In Jesus, we have the eternal testament of God – the God-man who does not back out of the covenant.
 
Hi Bob! St Augustine says that the New Testament is hidden in the Old Testament and the Old Testament is revealed in the New Testament (I didn’t get the wording right but I hope you get the idea).

Jesus also talks about eternal damnation, separating the goats from the sheep and see Revelation for how He will judge the world. It can sound pretty harsh.

God needed to set the nation of Israel apart from other nations. Out of Israel would come His Son. How would we know Jesus to be the one fortold if there were no nation of Israel to witness? The practices of sacrifice in the OT prepared the people to see the ultimate sacrifice of Christ, the Lamb of God. The people outside the nation of Israel worshipped other gods and at times were a stumbling block for Israel.

In the NT, Jesus says He doesn’t come to abolish the old law, but to fufill it. Turn the other cheek is Jesus calling us to a greater degree of personal holiness through forgiveness. That doesn’t mean justice isn’t important anymore, just that we should leave the ultimite justice to God.

God does seem more harsh in the OT in a first reading, but if you dig deeper you will see that He is disciplining Israel. A good father, one who loves his children, disciplines his children when they stray. How many of us actually liked being punished for things we did as a kid? But didn’t it teach us something about how we treat other people and how we are to behave in society (I’m going on mental examples of my six year old right now :)). God also protects His children in the OT (read the Exodus). He pretty much destroys Egypt to protect Israel.
 
God is Love
God is Mercy
God is Judgement
God is Knowledge
God is Wisdom
God is Goodness

God does not contain these attributes. God is these attributes. These attributes do not exist apart from them. By extention and through the grace of supernatural help someday, we will understand that:

Love=Mercy=Judgement=Knowledge=Wisdom=Goodness.

We catch glimpses of this throughout our life but reality is they are all exactly equal in God.

The reason that God effected justice in the Old Testament is because he is love. The reason that God showed love in the New Testament is because he is also a merciful judge.
 
I need to proofread. Should say:

“These attributes do not exist apart from Him”

and “extension”
 
The premise is wrong. God didn’t write the Bible; men wrote the Bible. Read any good commentary and you will find scholars’ best current theories on when the books were written and by whom. For example, some people think Moses wrote the Pentateuch while others do not. Some people think the Gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were written by men named Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, others do not. Paul is credited by some with writing letters, epistles, that are credited to him; others think that there are some he did not write. If anyone thinks God wrote the Bible, then where is the original Bible He wrote and when did he write it. Many don’t know that the scriptural canon was not established until the Council of Trent.
 
Bob R:
It seems impossible that the same God wrote the OT “eye for an eye” and the NT “turn the other cheek”. This is but one differing ideology that is conflicting between the two Testaments. Can anyone explain this?
Thanks
  • Bob :confused:
These statements do NOT conflict. The Church still teaches (and always will since it’s doctrine!) that legitimate governments have the authority to exercise the death penalty when necessary. Jesus’s statement to “love you enemy” is most certainly true. St. Thomas Aquinas exlained that to love is “to will the good of another.” There is not one death row inmate that I do not wish to be saved (though this does not take away from the fact that he’s still my enemy). However, IMHO, modern ideologies have changed the meaning of “love” to: withholding due justice and temporal punishment from wrongdoers. This has led to pacificism in the Church on all issues from war to the DP. The Catholic Church has NEVER taught pacifism! We are fighters (ie. - Crusaders, Conquistadors, the Notre Dame Fightin’ Irish, and I could go on and on) and always have been. After all, remember what Christ said in Matthew 10:34 (refer to my signature 👍 ). Now, as far as “turning the other cheek,” this also holds true, but in no way conflicts with the idea of capital punishment. Christ was saying that we should not lash back in vengeance. Many will claim that the DP is used as revenge, but it is not (at least not in America considering we take 20 years to execute people! :rolleyes: ); however, if it is being used in that manner, then it is wrong. In his book entitled The Catechism Explained, Fr. Francis Spirago explains:

“The officers of justice, in as far as they stand in the place of God, have the right to sentence evil-doers to capital punishment. . . . The authority of the magistrate is God’s authority; when he condemns a criminal, it is not he who condemns him, but God. . . . Yet the judge must not act arbitrarily; he must only sentence the criminal to death when the welfare of society demands it. Human society is a body of which each individual is a member; and as a diseased limb has to be amputated in order to save the body, so criminals must be executed to save society. As a matter of course the culprit’s guilt must be proved; better let the guilty go free than condemn the innocent. It is an error to suppose that the Church advocates capital punishment on the principle of retaliation; an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. This is a principle of Judaism, not of Christianity. The Church does not like to see blood shed, she desires that every sinner should have time to amend. She permits, but does not approve capital punishment.

PS - Suggesting that the God of the O.T. and N.T. are different is what the Gnostics did. :eek:

“For I, Yahueh–I change not; therefore you sons of Jacob are not consumed.” Mal. 3:6

“Long ago you laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you endure; they will all wear out like a garment. You change them like clothing, and they pass away; but you are the same, and your years have no end.” Psa. 102:25-27

“Jesus Christ: the same yesterday, and today, and forever.” Heb. 13:8

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever obeys and teaches these commandments will be called greatest in the kingdom of heaven.”
(Matthew 5:17-19)
 
40.png
Flopfoot:
In response to the particular case you brought up -

Eye for an eye was not the exact amount you had to do, it was a limit. It meant that the maximum revenge you could extract was the amount of injustice done to you - so, if someone took one of your eyes, you could not take both of their eyes as revenge. You could choose to take one eye or you could choose to take no eyes, but you could not take any more than one eye.

Turn the other cheek was not a contradiction of this rule, it was setting an ideal. Jesus was telling us that it is best to take no revenge at all. However, that didn’t mean that it was a sin to take revenge. The old rule still applies, that it is a sin to take more revenge than what is done to you.
I’ve heard this before, and I think you’re right, however, I wouldn’t use the word “revenge.” Refer to my last post. 😉
 
40.png
OriginalJS:
The premise is wrong. God didn’t write the Bible; men wrote the Bible.
Wrong. Read your Catechism. The Church teaches that the ultimate Author of Sacred Scripture is Almighty God, but He used men as an instrument, obviously.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top