NT vs. OT...I'm confused!

  • Thread starter Thread starter FightingFat
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

FightingFat

Guest
Let’s start like this-
Thou shalt not kill.
Click to expand...
Exodus 20:13

Now, how does that square with-
Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. But all the girls who have not known man intimately, sparefor yourselves.
Click to expand...
Numbers 31:17-18
“When the LORD your God brings you into the land where you are entering to possess it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Canaanites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and stronger than you. And when the LORD your God delivers them before you and you defeat them, then you shall utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them and show no favor to them.
Click to expand...
Deutronomy 7:1-2
“When you approach a city to fight against it, you shall offer it terms of peace. If it agrees to make peace with you and opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall become your forced labor and shall serve you. However, if it does not make peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it. When the LORD your God gives it into your hand, you shall strike all the men in it with the edge of the sword. Only the women and the children and the animals and all that is in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as booty for yourself; and you shall use the spoil of your enemies which the LORD your God has given you… Only in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, you shall not leave alive anything that breathes.
Click to expand...
Deutronomy 20:10-17

Now, the way I have always explained this disparity for myself, is that the OT is a history of the Jewish people, but the NT is Jesus come to fullfill and explain that history.

A great example for me is the difference between the Ten Commandments and The Beatitudes. The Commandments can be followed dispassionately. One can obey the law and still not be a man of God. The Beatitudes add colour and grace and are more about the attitude we should live out the commandments with.

Even so, I do find some of the OT hard to read. I do find some of it very coarse, contradictory and I find a great difference between the God of the NT and the God of the OT.

Can anyone help me to understand? Does anyone else/ Has anyone else felt like this before?
 
I am no Scriptual expert, but I have always thought Jesus said many times in the Bible “New rules…” (in so many words). For example, the OT was definitely an eye for an eye, but Jesus changes to rules:

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; (Mt 5:38).

You will find aanother example in the Gospels that contradict the OT. In the OT, the rule (commandment) was “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Can you find the two places in the Gospel where first jesus says “Love your neighbor as you love Me” (notice he is raising the bar), and then He says “Love your neighbor as I love you” (raised the bar even more)

New sheriff, new rules :yup:
 
Thou shall not kill means thou shall not murder. It does not prohibit capital punishment or just wars.

No human has a right to murder another innocent human being. Yet, God has killed wicked human beings, and directed others to carry out his will that wicked human being be killed.

No human has a right to live apart from the grace of God. The very first breath you take is a gift from God. Same with the second, third, and every breath after that. If God decides, at any point, to cease giving that gift, has there been an objective injustice? No. Because not one of us has merited life for ourselves condignly. If God, the giver of life, decides in accord with his own plan to stop giving the gift of life to anyone, or to every man, woman, and child, to include infants, excepting Noah and his family, then it is not objectively unjust. Furthermore, if God should decide to use his creation in such away to carry out his will, such as the utter destruction of the Amalekites, infants included, then it is not objectively unjust. So too with the order to Abraham to end Isaac’s life. Life is a gift, not a matter of condign merit apart from the goodwill of the gift-giver.

It is similar to accusing a loved one of objective evil simply because they stopped giving you Christmas presents. They’ve done it every year? It is therefore is an objective evil to stop giving, right? Yet, there’s no strict injustice when a gift-giver stops giving a gift. That’s what it means to be gratuitous. Life is not owed to us by the Giver of life.
 
40.png
itsjustdave1988:
Thou shall not kill means thou shall not murder. It does not prohibit capital punishment or just wars.
Click to expand...
Now surely that totally contradicts what else has been posted about Jesus’ take on it all?
 
40.png
awalt:
I am no Scriptual expert, but I have always thought Jesus said many times in the Bible “New rules…” (in so many words). For example, the OT was definitely an eye for an eye, but Jesus changes to rules:

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; (Mt 5:38).

You will find aanother example in the Gospels that contradict the OT. In the OT, the rule (commandment) was “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Can you find the two places in the Gospel where first jesus says “Love your neighbor as you love Me” (notice he is raising the bar), and then He says “Love your neighbor as I love you” (raised the bar even more)

New sheriff, new rules :yup:
Click to expand...
Nice post awalt, but why?
 
Jesus came not to abolish the old law but to fulfill it; to perfect it. The New Testament is concealed in the Old, the Old is revealed in the New.

In Old Testament times, it was often the lesser of evils that was allowed because there was no Savior yet. Once we have a Savior, there is no excuse because we can turn to Him in our sinfullness, have it wiped away, become clean and start anew.
 
40.png
FightingFat:
Now surely that totally contradicts what else has been posted about Jesus’ take on it all?
Click to expand...
That, quite obviously, that person’s explanation of Jesus’ take is, at best, incomplete. There is nothing in the Gospels that contradicts a proper understanding of just war or capital punishment.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
40.png
mlchance:
That, quite obviously, that person’s explanation of Jesus’ take is, at best, incomplete. There is nothing in the Gospels that contradicts a proper understanding of just war or capital punishment.

– Mark L. Chance.
Click to expand...
A PROPER understanding Mark, yes, I agree.
 
40.png
FightingFat:
Now surely that totally contradicts what else has been posted about Jesus’ take on it all?
Click to expand...
I’ve read the Apocalypse by St. John and don’t agree that Jesus was a pacifist.
 
From Fr. William Most’s commentary on *herem *(utter destruction of entire nations per the will of God in the OT).
80. God sometimes ordered Hebrews to wipe out a city: herem. Was it immoral?
[286] No, the adults had sinned mortally; children in it had not, but life is a moment to moment gift: God decided to stop giving it, using Hebrews as a means. Killing is wrong precisely because it is a violation of rights of God, the Lord of life. (Fr. William Most, Addenda: Course information; study questions and answers)
Click to expand...
In cases of herem, total destruction of a city and its people… God ordered this as a punishment for the sins of adults. In Gen 15:16 God told Abraham He would give the land to him and his seed, but not at once: the sins of the Amorites who then lived there, had not reached their fullness. But in the day of Joshua, the sins had reached fullness, and so punishment of adults was called for. As to innocent children – we must recall that life is a moment to moment gift. We are not comparable to robots, into which the maker can put a battery and then walk away or even die. The robot runs as long as the battery has power. But with us, each instant is a fresh gift. In Aristotelian terms, it involves rises from potency to actuality, each of which needs the power of the First Cause. Therefore as to infants if God for His own reasons simply decides to stop giving life–He is the Lord of life. (Fr. William Most, COMMENTARY ON EZEKIEL)
Click to expand...
Some are shocked at the severity of the ban (Hebrew herem), a theme found in many places, e.g. in Dt. 7:1-5, where God ordered them to destroy the nations in the land of Canaan, without mercy. Two things are to be noticed. First, God wants them to be free of the temptation - which later experience showed was fatal - of joining in the idolatrous worship of those nations. Second, God is the supreme Lord of life. If He wills to end the lives of any persons, that is His right. And we recall that in Genesis 15:16 God promised to give them the land, but not until after the fourth time-span (Hebrew dor, which can mean either generation or period of time). He said He would wait, because the sins of the Amorites had not yet reached their fullness. For even one mortal sin, a person merits death. If his sins reach their fullness, go the limit, this is all the more fully true. As to the deaths of children: life is a moment to moment gift from God. If He just stops giving, or uses a human instrument to end it, there is nothing wrong. (Fr. William Most, *Basic Scripture, *Chapter 11: The Books of Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy )
Click to expand...
Paragraph 97: could they be just who had many wives at once and killed men and sacrificed animals – polygamy was permitted in OT-- about the ban, herem :God ordered them to wipe out Canaanites to avoid danger of falling into idolatry - they did fall. Further, already in Gen 15:16 God said He would wait till the sins of the Amorites reached their fullness. By now they did. As to children: life is a moment to moment gift. God can stop giving at any point - or use a human agent for the same effect. The wrong of murder is that it violates the rights of the Creator. (Fr. William Most, *Commentary on St. Augustine, *I. The Confessions)

Paragraph 346: On the ban (herem): Basically it was death penalty for grave sins. As to children etc. - God’s gift of life is moment to moment - He could just stop giving - or use a human agency for the same purpose. (Fr. William Most, *Commentary on St. Augustine, *II. City of God)
Click to expand...
 
40.png
itsjustdave1988:
From Fr. William Most’s commentary on *herem *(utter destruction of entire nations per the will of God in the OT).
Click to expand...
Dave, where did you get Most’s book? (salivate, drool, slaver)
 
40.png
FightingFat:
That’s great! So basically, only God can take life.
Click to expand...
I would say that only God can, without objective injustice, authorize the destruction of cities, including the intentional killing of women and children or other non-combatants.

Yet, in theory, governments can authorize capital punishment and/or just wars without injustice. We are charged with upholding justice and loving our neighbor. Is capital punishment of a criminal an attempt to uphold justice? Yes. Is it loving our neighbor? Considering the security of the neighborhood, yes. Loving the criminal? That’s not so clear, is it? How can we do both? Sometimes the answer is not an easy one.

My landlord’s wife was raped and murdered in the downstairs apartment when I was in college. The murderer was just released from prison, on parole. Sometimes we fail to uphold justice, as God calls us to do. I find that the practical results of our justice system is a lot like bologna: the more you learn how the product is made, the more you tend to conclude it is a lousy product. If we had benevolent lawmakers, judges and parole boards, for example, their judgment would be just, never divergent from the Divine will. This just isn’t the case, however. So, we do our best. We try to discern what the Divine will is, and act according to it. Sometimes we miss the mark in attempting to uphold justice while at the same time love our neighbor.

From (Death Penalty)CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Capital****Punishment
The infliction of capital punishment is not contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church, and the power of the State to visit upon culprits the penalty of death derives much authority from revelation and from the writings of theologians. The advisabilty of exercising that power is, of course, an affair to be determined upon other and various considerations. … [Yet] The learned [Marquess Beccaria, in his famous work, “Crime and Punishment”] makes a most impressive argument in favour of penal servitude for life as a substitute for the judicial killing of criminals.
Click to expand...
For just war theory, I recommend the following:

lawful?SUMMA THEOLOGICA: Is some kind of war
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: War

In theory, such things as capital punishment and just wars can be in accord with the Divine will, consequently, without injustice. In practice, we often fall rather short of just capital punishments and just wars.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top