The God of the Old Testament

[Amanda_B]

I am a political science major and am taking a class right now called A History of Western Political Thought. We are currently reading works by St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. The debate in class took on a very religious tone, a classmate of mine opined to the professor that Christian philosophy is not immutable because one of the ten commandments in the Bible is “thou shall not kill” and yet the bible also says (paraphrasing the way my classmate worded it) that if a man sleeps with an animal he should be killed as punishment. I answered by trying to explain about how that passage is from the Book of Leviticus and how it was a civil code put forth for the Jewish people, it was not divine law, as is the case with the ten commandments, which are eternal. I then also explained about those civil codes and traditions of the Old Testament being “fulfilled” by Christ’s death and resurrection and hence, why it is not incumbent upon Christians to continue to practice those codes and traditions post Christ’s appearance. However, another classmate then questioned why the God of the Old Testament would promulgate such harsh civil laws, and why in general, if God is unchanging, He would seem to be of two such different temperamental persuasions in the Old Testament and the New. As I have recently begun to read the Bible from beginning to end, and am currently in the Book of Deuteronomy, I have myself been actually wondering the same thing. I have found it difficult to understand why, for instance, God seems so unhesitant about wiping out entire tribes of Israelites when they rebel against Him. In addition, there are several examples in the Old Testament in which God either passively allows or actively engages in destroying whole groups of people in foreign lands that are engaged in some sort of widespread sinfulness. Yet I know that somewhere in the New Testament, I do not know the exact place, Jesus talks about how we should not assume that, if we see a natural disaster befall a nation of people, that this event was allowed to happen as a result of that people’s sinfulness because, essentially, God does not operate in that manner. But if God does not operate in that manner, why in the Old Testament does he involve Himself in human relations to the point of personally destroying whole groups of people? And in general, the question concerning the difference between the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New testament has been frustrating me for awhile and it would be helpful for me on a personal level, as well as in the context of discussing with classmates, if I could better understand this apparent conundrum.

 

[Joe_5859]

We need to be careful about making too sharp a contrast between “Olt Testament God” and “New Testament Jesus”. There are many different heresies from throughout the centuries that used that as their starting point.

First, we need to acknowledge that there are many examples of God’s love, mercy, and compassion in the Old Testament, as well as several examples of “harshness” in the New Testament. There is no sharp divide.

Nonetheless, there are some passages in the Old Testament that give us pause. I think that Jimmy Akin gives a pretty good explanation of that in this article:

Hard Sayings of the Old Testament

Here is another article that might be helpful:

Why We Are Not Bound by Everything in the Old Law

For me, what makes the most sense of these things is looking at incremental revelation as the pedagogy of God. God does not reveal Himself all at once. It is a gradual unfolding throughout human history because that is the only way we could ever come to any sort of understanding.

The danger of sin is very serious and very real. God asked the Israelites to wipe out entire tribes because he knew that, if they did not, those tribes would convert them and take them away from Him leading them to destruction. And that’s exactly what happened. The Israelites ignored God’s request and they strayed even further away.

I could go on, but really, Jimmy Akin says it better than I ever could. I really recommend that article.

 

[A_G]

God commands different actions in different situations.

The God of the OT and the God of the NT are the same, loving God. Whether it’s the OT or the NT, He is portrayed as not only loving and merciful, but also a righteous judge who will come to punish the unrepentant and the wicked.

 

[Barbkw]

professor that Christian philosophy is not immutable because one of the ten commandments in the Bible is “thou shall not kill” and yet the bible also says (paraphrasing the way my classmate worded it) that if a man sleeps with an animal he should be killed as punishment. I answered by trying to explain about how that passage is from the Book of Leviticus and how it was a civil code put forth for the Jewish people, it was not divine law, as is the case with the ten commandments, which are eternal. I then also explained about those civil codes and traditions of the Old Testament being “fulfilled” by Christ’s death and resurrection and hence, why it is not incumbent upon Christians to continue to practice those codes and traditions post Christ’s appearance. However, another classmate then questioned why the God of the Old Testament would promulgate such harsh civil laws, and why in general, if God is unchanging, He would seem to be of two such different temperamental persuasions in the Old Testament and the New.

 

[Gem]

There is another point here. As Fr. Serpa would say, “God is not just a bigger version of us.” In other words, God is God; we are not. He, in His perfect justice, can take life as punishment for sin, where we cannot. We do not know the true heart of people to judge them; God does.

As the previous poster said, maybe the punishments made on peoples in the OT was necessary for establishment of Israel. Look how much trouble they had getting away from idols, even with God’s direct and personal intervention. What would have happened if they were left entirely to themselves?

One must also remember that capital punishment for sin was not considered harsh in those times. It was common at that time for some pagans to burn their children as sacrifices.

I agree, too, with the “gradual revelation” idea. Look at how God first approaches Abraham. God doesn’t mention “love your enemies” to him. He says, “I’ll make your descendents as numerous as the stars.” = familial wealth, in terms of progeny.

 

[Amanda_B]

All of these thoughts are helpful, does anyone have any suggestions however as to how to pithily summarize them as a rebuttal to an un-religious classmate?

Continuing on with the theme of the civil code and the Book of Leviticus, why is it that the law that God laid down for them had to be so detailed even to the point of seemingly inane situations? for instance, there are multiple codes and regulations for how one should cleanse and purify oneself if they have a disease, if a woman is bleeding when not on her period, and how to properly dispose of human excrement, et cetera. Why was it so important for the Jewish people to observe such regulations in regards to God’s final plan for humanity?

Also, why does the Old Testament law preach “and eye for an eye” yet in the New Testament Jesus exhorts us to turn the other cheek? This issue can pretty much summarize the problem I come across in dealing with lots of young, secular-minded individuals. Essentially I hear a lot from them that the Bible contradicts itself a lot because of things like this, etc, etc. I am not really sure how to respond in a manner that would be understandable and acceptable to someone who does not share my faith.

I should add that I am sure there is a good answer for these things, but I am not theologically well-versed and will admit that I do not know my Catholic faith as well as I would like to, which is why I’m looking for some clarity here.

 

[Barbkw]

The Old Testament is in many ways like the training given to children from ages 1 to 19, within the confines of a boarding school for a period of 2,000 years.

These are the rules.

These are the additional guidelines surrounding those rules.

The consequences for breaking those rules; are these rules.

The New Testament is a new Covenant. It has rules, but the children are young adults now, living far and away from the protection of the boarding school. And the young adults aren’t only from one tribe, all people can be members now of this new Kingdom.

 

[Amanda_B]

Barbkw:
In regards to #2: why does it seem that in the days of the Old Testament, it was much more common for God to intervene in human affairs to punish rebellion against Him by resorting to dolling out temporal punishment upon people (i.e., wiping them off of the face of the earth)? For instance, we all, by nature of our sinfulness, rebel against God (whenever we sin). Yet we know that this will either be punished or forgiven (depending on if we are repentant or not) only after we die. We do not necessarily fear that our sins will be punished in the manner of God afflicting us with some personal calamity and/or death while we are still here on earth. Can this also be explained through the idea that God gradually reveals himself to man through time? If so, could it be useful as an explanation to someone who believes that God seems harsh and threatening in the OT but loving and forgiving in the NT?

 

[Amanda_B]

woops, that “in regards to #2” was meant to be a reply to Barbkw’s post

 

[Barbkw]

In regards to #2: why does it seem that in the days of the Old Testament, it was much more common for God to intervene in human affairs to punish rebellion against Him by resorting to dolling out temporal punishment upon people (i.e., wiping them off of the face of the earth)? For instance, we all, by nature of our sinfulness, rebel against God (whenever we sin). Yet we know that this will either be punished or forgiven (depending on if we are repentant or not) only after we die. We do not necessarily fear that our sins will be punished in the manner of God afflicting us with some personal calamity and/or death while we are still here on earth. Can this also be explained through the idea that God gradually reveals himself to man through time? If so, could it be useful as an explanation to someone who believes that God seems harsh and threatening in the OT but loving and forgiving in the NT?

Jesus talked a lot about Hell, more than He did about Heaven. He said that sin was so disasterous to a soul that people should be willing to cut off body parts to avoid the damage it creates.

Adult people are responsible for their actions and inactions.

Jesus was giving fair warning about developing a conscience that focuses on God’s will. We will be held responsible in our afterlife. There will be judgement and the unrepentant should not assume God’s mercy.

Personally, I believe God has always been open and available to His people. They however, haven’t reciprocated His affection.

IMO, the Son of God came to save humanity before humanity (once again) became irreconcilable.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

Bear in mind the the earliest Jewish writings regarding God is an expression of their view of Him. It’s possible for people to express a view of me that is not completely indicative of my true nature but is nonetheless inspired by me. The same applies for God and the writings of the Old Testament. We are to view the Old Testament in the context of the Jewish understanding of God.

For the prohibitions outlined in the Ten Commandments, the proper translation commands us not to murder, as opposed to not to kill, which are two different concepts. If you would like, I can address your theological questions in more detail.

 

[Joe_5859]

All of these thoughts are helpful, does anyone have any suggestions however as to how to pithily summarize them as a rebuttal to an un-religious classmate?

Would that there were a tweet-size response to all of life’s difficult questions.

Galatians 3:19 says that the law was added because of transgression. I think that pretty much sums up the Old Testament in a nutshell.

The Israelites are finally freed from Egyptian slavery. They get to Mt. Sinai where Moses ascends the mountain and speaks to God who gives him the Ten Commandments. The Israelites get impatient and start worshipping the golden calf. Bam! We get the Book of Leviticus which goes into great detail about sacrificing all those animals the Egyptians taught them to worship.

The Israelites wander the desert for 40 years and finally get to the threshold of the Promised Land where they again commit idolotry on the plains of Moab. Bam! We get the Book of Deuteronomy (literally “Second Law”) which gives them even more instruction and many of the concessionary laws (like allowance for divorce). God had to lower the bar once again because they just weren’t ready.

If you think about it, it makes sense. The further we stray from God, the more specific guidance we need to get back in line. Even the secular culture doesn’t usually add laws until people start breaking them. We didn’t really need legislation stating that marriage must be between one man and one woman until people started questioning it.

Of course, the New Testament brings us the Incarnation which changes everything. How could it not? With the grace available through the sacraments (those tangible gifts entrusted to the Church that allow us to tap into the saving power of the Cross), we now have the means to fulfill the command to “Be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect”. That simply was not possible prior to the Incarnation. Now that it is, we don’t need all those concessionary laws. We don’t need all those sacrificial laws (because Christ has offered the perfect and everlasting sacrifice). But the natural moral law as seen in the Ten Commandments does not change.

If you think about it from a purely secular perspective, you might ask if the person can imagine if it would ever be okay for murder to be legalized. (Hopefully, they can’t! ) But can we imagine a culture where we drive on the other side of the road and Stop signs are shaped like triangles instead of octagons? Sure.

Some laws don’t change. But some laws are simply conventions to help keep order in a certain time and place. Not all laws are created equal.

 

[Gem]

In regards to #2: why does it seem that in the days of the Old Testament, it was much more common for God to intervene in human affairs to punish rebellion against Him by resorting to dolling out temporal punishment upon people (i.e., wiping them off of the face of the earth)? For instance, we all, by nature of our sinfulness, rebel against God (whenever we sin). Yet we know that this will either be punished or forgiven (depending on if we are repentant or not) only after we die. We do not necessarily fear that our sins will be punished in the manner of God afflicting us with some personal calamity and/or death while we are still here on earth. Can this also be explained through the idea that God gradually reveals himself to man through time? If so, could it be useful as an explanation to someone who believes that God seems harsh and threatening in the OT but loving and forgiving in the NT?

Yes, for our relationship with God to be truly loving (whic is what he wants), it must be voluntary. If God’s voice were heard from the heavens on a daily basis today, you would be insane to act against Him. People would act out of fear (indeed some do). But what God wants is love. “You can’t beat people over the head with love.” How’s that for a pithy line?

 

[Della]

The pithy way of stating the seeming differences between how God acted in the OT and the NT is this:

Before the Incarnation which brought about the Redemption of all mankind, only the Hebrews enjoyed the outpouring of God’s graces because he had chosen them as his own people in order to give the world the Messiah/the Christ. When Christ came a New Covenant was made with all mankind so that God’s graces were now poured out on everyone everywhere. In the OT justice was immediate and final. In the NT God has held back his punishing hand in order to bring the world to himself through the grace of the Redemption. Now everyone can be saved who wishes to be saved because of the Sacrifice of Christ and his Resurrection.

 

[Amanda_B]

Thanks everyone this was all very helpful. I also by coincidence just came across Aquinas’s description of the Old and New Law which was incredibly clarifying and now reconciling the differences in the Old and New Testament is much easier for me. Gotta love Aquinas

 

[Della]

Thanks everyone this was all very helpful. I also by coincidence just came across Aquinas’s description of the Old and New Law which was incredibly clarifying and now reconciling the differences in the Old and New Testament is much easier for me. Gotta love Aquinas

So glad we could be helpful, and yes, no one beats Aquinas.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

So glad we could be helpful, and yes, no one beats Aquinas.

I can prove, by the infallible decree of the pope, that Duuunnnnsss Scotus beats Aquinas…!!!

Long time, no see or read, Della. I rejoice, again, at being provoked by your thoughts !

I don’t quite agree with Aquinas on the idea of the Law, although much of what he says is undeniably right. (Fides et. Ratio, PJP II).

The more I study the old Law, the more I find that even our present day Canon Law in the Catholic church follows many of it’s precepts; consider, for example, the law concerning divorce in the case of adultery (which is pornea in the Greek, and more general). We too have an exception for adultery and hardness of heart.

Even the 10 words (decalogue) regarding the Sabbath which is Saturday in the language of the Hebrews; as well as “protest/stop” has a mutable dimension.
We no longer keep the Saturday Sabath, and the CCC teaches that Sunday is not a replacement for it. Indeed, Jesus “stopped” on Holy Saturday – and arose on Sunday; and there is now no real Sabbath until we rest in God himself; so that the understanding of the meaning of “Sabbath” has been made less rigorous.

IN the OT; too; There are, to be sure, examples of non-jews upon whom God pours out his grace; For Jonas is sent to some of them (Nineve) and they PLEASE God for a “day”. (cf. the plant that withers over Jonah).

Not only this, but the prophet Balaam is outside of constituted Israel during the Exodus and YET he is a prophet of God. Rahab the Harlot is the mother of the line leading to Jesus. It isn’t proper, IMHO, to say that Grace was restricted to the Israelites.

The Law of God is eternal, but GOD entered a treaty with negotiations with particular men at particular times; and the fullness of meaning of God’s law lay hidden in incomplete statements and imperfect human language and in some ways, still does. The effect of “Babel” is still with us today; where man’s desire to sin is partially checked through preventing unambiguous vocabulary.

I think Sodom is one of the best examples of How God’s law does not actually change; but it sometimes hard to discern because of political “spin”. Sodom, itself, was captured and taken away into slavery worse, even, than that of the Israelites in Egypt. It is to Sodom, that God sends Abraham to free them from their slavery to other nations (all parties were pagan/none Israelite). And it is Abraham, who saves them for Free; leading to the Priest King Melchizadech giving THANKS to God; for Lot and the Sodomites are restored to their city by Abraham. There is no one who can say that isn’t a gift; and that in Melchizadech who thanks God – shows that the gift has also a thank you. Therefore it is properly “grace”. However, we all know that Sodom later chose to abuse God; God who wanted holy children for himself was met with lust and domination of sterile sex. He gave to Sodom the same as he would later give to Israel; but they rejected God’s desire for a family of Peace.

And it is in the very act of war against God – that God sets fire to Sodom’s munitions and the whole of pitch, sulfur, and wood goes up in one large explosion as the people blinded by the fire of God are destroyed by their own devices of war.

This isn’t a story about homophobia; it’s about cheating God of the loved ones he desires us to bring fourth (children) and God letting the worst possible natural consequence take place. This is the eternal Law; God wants a family in communion, and those who threaten his children destroy themselves as well.

In a pithy statement, God’s eternal law has been shown to us by repeated bad examples and confused languages in the Old Testament; It is in the new testament, that God reveals one solitary and perfect example of his divine law that solves all the riddles and contradictions perceived in the Old Law.

The consequence of this pithy summary is that one only perceives the law in proportion to their knowledge, wisdom, and ability to logically deduce the truth from incompletely displayed facts. It is easier to discover this law in the New Testament, than in the Old; for in the New Testament a logical solution to the meaning of many obscure passages in the Old testament are revealed.

However, even now – it takes the Spirit of God – to lead us into all Truth.

 

[Della]

I can prove, by the infallible decree of the pope, that Duuunnnnsss Scotus beats Aquinas…!!!

I wouldn’t say that one infallible degree negates the enormous contribution by Aquinas nor does it in any way trump him. Duns Scotus simply stated what others had speculated upon in a way that was acceptable to the Magisterium and settled a long debated matter of faith. I think it too simplistic to give him too much credit for hitting upon a solution built on the work of others, don’t you? But me thinks you are overstating here simply to make a provocative opening statement. Or am I wrong?

Long time, no see or read, Della. I rejoice, again, at being provoked by your thoughts !

Thank you…I think. Seriously, though, it’s good to see you posting again, HT (if I may take the liberty of using your initials).

I don’t quite agree with Aquinas on the idea of the Law, although much of what he says is undeniably right. (Fides et. Ratio, PJP II).

I bow to you in this. I am not well versed in Aquinas, I’m afraid. The Assemblies of God and even the Episcopal Church, to which I belonged before being reconciled to the Church, are a bit weak on Aquinas.

The more I study the old Law, the more I find that even our present day Canon Law in the Catholic church follows many of it’s precepts; consider, for example, the law concerning divorce in the case of adultery (which is pornea in the Greek, and more general). We too have an exception for adultery and hardness of heart.

Even the 10 words (decalogue) regarding the Sabbath which is Saturday in the language of the Hebrews; as well as “protest/stop” has a mutable dimension.
We no longer keep the Saturday Sabath, and the CCC teaches that Sunday is not a replacement for it. Indeed, Jesus “stopped” on Holy Saturday – and arose on Sunday; and there is now no real Sabbath until we rest in God himself; so that the understanding of the meaning of “Sabbath” has been made less rigorous.

IN the OT; too; There are, to be sure, examples of non-jews upon whom God pours out his grace; For Jonas is sent to some of them (Nineve) and they PLEASE God for a “day”. (cf. the plant that withers over Jonah).

Not only this, but the prophet Balaam is outside of constituted Israel during the Exodus and YET he is a prophet of God. Rahab the Harlot is the mother of the line leading to Jesus. It isn’t proper, IMHO, to say that Grace was restricted to the Israelites.

The Law of God is eternal, but GOD entered a treaty with negotiations with particular men at particular times; and the fullness of meaning of God’s law lay hidden in incomplete statements and imperfect human language and in some ways, still does. The effect of “Babel” is still with us today; where man’s desire to sin is partially checked through preventing unambiguous vocabulary.

I think Sodom is one of the best examples of How God’s law does not actually change; but it sometimes hard to discern because of political “spin”. Sodom, itself, was captured and taken away into slavery worse, even, than that of the Israelites in Egypt. It is to Sodom, that God sends Abraham to free them from their slavery to other nations (all parties were pagan/none Israelite). And it is Abraham, who saves them for Free; leading to the Priest King Melchizadech giving THANKS to God; for Lot and the Sodomites are restored to their city by Abraham. There is no one who can say that isn’t a gift; and that in Melchizadech who thanks God – shows that the gift has also a thank you. Therefore it is properly “grace”. However, we all know that Sodom later chose to abuse God; God who wanted holy children for himself was met with lust and domination of sterile sex. He gave to Sodom the same as he would later give to Israel; but they rejected God’s desire for a family of Peace.

And it is in the very act of war against God – that God sets fire to Sodom’s munitions and the whole of pitch, sulfur, and wood goes up in one large explosion as the people blinded by the fire of God are destroyed by their own devices of war.

This isn’t a story about homophobia; it’s about cheating God of the loved ones he desires us to bring fourth (children) and God letting the worst possible natural consequence take place. This is the eternal Law; God wants a family in communion, and those who threaten his children destroy themselves as well.

Yes, God’s law is immutable no matter when or to whom it was given. My point was merely that God’s justice was applied to the offenders in the OT without the saving graces available to us because of the redemption Christ wrought on mankind’s behave.

In a pithy statement, God’s eternal law has been shown to us by repeated bad examples and confused languages in the Old Testament; It is in the new testament, that God reveals one solitary and perfect example of his divine law that solves all the riddles and contradictions perceived in the Old Law.

The consequence of this pithy summary is that one only perceives the law in proportion to their knowledge, wisdom, and ability to logically deduce the truth from incompletely displayed facts. It is easier to discover this law in the New Testament, than in the Old; for in the New Testament a logical solution to the meaning of many obscure passages in the Old testament are revealed.

However, even now – it takes the Spirit of God – to lead us into all Truth.

Yes indeed. The redemption by Christ informs our interpretation of the OT. It cannot help but do so since the NT completed the Old Covenant in the New Covenant of mercy and grace for all men.

 

[fred_conty]

Big difference is:
O.T. = annihilation, genocide
N.T. = none of this

It isn’t about suffering in itself, but the big wiping out kind of suffering, and innocent type.

There are different kinds of suffering, and some of it can be explained on a one on one.

But the O.T. big stuff, that is where the problem comes in, because God = LOVE, and
this is against that article of faith or so it seems.

So those who are saying they are having big trouble with the big stuff, are not denying
that God can do anything, but that GOD is not EVIL, so what is the real explaination for
the big stuff.

Has the CC really pronounced on this big stuff? Or may it be taken figuratively?

There are examples of biblical books being historical and yet containing figurative passages, or a mixture of true history yet containing fictional writing.

So may these passages, with the church’s blessing, be taken figuratively, concerning the big stuff? Or is it on a one to one basis? Or is it still up in the air? Or just still IMO.

Just a thought.

 

[Della]

Big difference is:
O.T. = annihilation, genocide
N.T. = none of this

It isn’t about suffering in itself, but the big wiping out kind of suffering, and innocent type.

There are different kinds of suffering, and some of it can be explained on a one on one.

But the O.T. big stuff, that is where the problem comes in, because God = LOVE, and
this is against that article of faith or so it seems.

So those who are saying they are having big trouble with the big stuff, are not denying
that God can do anything, but that GOD is not EVIL, so what is the real explaination for
the big stuff.

Has the CC really pronounced on this big stuff? Or may it be taken figuratively?

There are examples of biblical books being historical and yet containing figurative passages, or a mixture of true history yet containing fictional writing.

So may these passages, with the church’s blessing, be taken figuratively, concerning the big stuff? Or is it on a one to one basis? Or is it still up in the air? Or just still IMO.

Just a thought.

God can never and never has ordered anythig evil or unfair. Only he knows who and what is innocent, not us, and certainly not us removed by a few thousand years from the cultures and evils of OT times.

Even in our own day those we would normally consider innocent, such as children, have been trained by their parents/adults in their lives to make war on others. This happened in Japan and Germany in WWII. It’s happening now in many places influenced by radical beliefs. The hatreds of the parents are passed on to the children who are polluted by it. Even if the parents wish peace young people can be twisted to the designs of evil men. Right here in Minnesota several young men who parents came here from African countries to start new lives of peace for their families have seen their sons recruited by such men from their home countries. These young men left family and friends to go fight a war on another continent because they got all fired up by evil men who had no qualms about exploiting their innocence, ignorance, sense of loyalty, and lonliness.

In OT days whole cultures were based around death idols and making war, conquering in the name of their idols and gaining as much wealth as possible for themselves. They weren’t just peaceful farmers going about their own business. They were peoples who had taken over lands they had no claims to and killing their own babies to appease their gods. We cannot see them through our Christianized eyes and think that they weren’t bloody people who thrived on war and death. The times were before Christ came–before Christianity had tamed the Western world to strict codes of honor in warfare, etc. You have to put the OT in its proper historical context instead of trying to shoe horn it into modern sensibilities.