M
Mannyfit75
Guest
I have a question, why didn’t God made himself flesh incarnate in the OT?
I know this goes deep. I like to hear some opinions and views.
I know this goes deep. I like to hear some opinions and views.
- Status
L
leonie
Guest
God was waiting for the “fullness of time.”
- there was a relative peace in the Roman empire. There was a system of roads for travel. There was literacy. The philosophies of the Greek and Roman had prepared the mind of the people to accept the complex theology of God-Man.
- In the OT, there was much confusion about polytheism among the Hebrews. It took a long time to get the Egyptian Gods out of the Hebrew culture after the Exodus. The Israelites were constantly being inculturated by pagan societies around them.
- The Hebrews were in the Promised land in strong numbers. Even among the scattered tribes outside the land, there was a foundation for evangelization by the apostles.
- Mary was always intended to be the mother of Jesus. And, her line of birth was mapped out from the beginning of time.
B
BlaineTog
Guest
Simple answer: because he made himself incarnate in the NT.
More complicated answer: because he was getting things ready for the incarnation. Like, before the band arrives for their concert, you have advertising, selling tickets, renting an appropriately-sized space, setting up the stage, and filling the seats first to do, and you had better not forget about that bowl of blue M&Ms in the green room.
R
RavenousWolf
Guest
Well, if you’re asking strictly about OT vs. NT, then the simple answer would be that it’s just semantics…
When Jesus was made incarnate, all the preparation that had occurred in the OT culminated in His mission here on Earth. So basically, when He arrived, He brought about a “new world order.” Thus, it makes sense that when He came into the picture, we would define the scripture about His life and the change He had brought into the world as “the New Testament.”
When Jesus was made incarnate, all the preparation that had occurred in the OT culminated in His mission here on Earth. So basically, when He arrived, He brought about a “new world order.” Thus, it makes sense that when He came into the picture, we would define the scripture about His life and the change He had brought into the world as “the New Testament.”
G
GandalfTheWhite
Guest
If he made himself incarnate in the OT then he would actually do it in the NT. Get it? 
We don’t know why he came at the time he came and not few hundred years earlier or later. All we know that he came in the right time.
We don’t know why he came at the time he came and not few hundred years earlier or later. All we know that he came in the right time.
M
MH84
Guest
Were the Jews ready for Jesus? Judging by their rejection of Him, I don’t think they were.
M
Metaron
Guest
We know that God had theophanies in the O.T., such as the Three Angels, the Shikenah, the Angel of the Lord, etc. It has been suggested, since the Bible said He had no parents, that, Melchizadech was an incarnation of Jesus, or at least an angel.
G
guanophore
Guest
How do you know He did not? Who was that Son of Man in the furnace with Daniel?
It says that the Rock in the desert was Christ. Is He limited to manifesting in Human form?
P
Parysa
Guest
He did. It’s just that when he did, that ended the old and started the new. 
F
First_of_9
Guest
Very simply, the Incarnation is the dividing line between the OT and the NT. The OT is just the part of the Bible *before *Jesus.
G
Genesis315
Guest
Because, his Incarnation by definition starts the NT. So, if he was made incarnate earlier, the NT simply would have started earlier.
M
Metaron
Guest
Well, that was a theophany, but not a physical, human imcarnation.
This is an interesting theory. Although I don’t think of it as an incarnation, if it was literally Christ, it is some sort of manifestation separate from theophany or an incarnation. The Jewish Zohar and the Talmud, I think, state that the Rock literally followed them around, moving on its own.
And don’t forget Melchizekdech. Many say he was an earlier incarnation of Christ, or at least of an angel.
M
MH84
Guest
I heard he was Shem, the first-born of Noah. He basically passed on the covenantal blessing to Abram (something like that anyway).
If Melchizedek was an angel, how could an angel be a priest (Melchizedek is referred to as a priest of God Most High) Can’t only men be priests?
If he was “an earlier incarnation of Christ”, why did He need Mary then to be his human mother? What was the big significance of the God becoming man, if He did that earlier? Why did the Son of God decide to live a hidden life on earth as Jesus for 30 yrs when previously he was incarnated as Melchizedek? Couldnt He have returned as Melchizedek, amd start His mission of Redemption immediately?
I think you have put your own opinion into the texts. That is not a bad thing, but it can be misleading when you teach others. you are suggesting that the Son became two or more men. I always thought that He became a Man? Which man is He now then? Do you really believe that God took the form of the rock? Isnt that a type of pantheism belief? (Of course I have no doubt that God could do so if He so chose to).
S
spauline
Guest
Your question touches on the meaning of the whole of human history itself.
In short, Jack Nicholson puts it best, “you can’t HANDLE the truth.”
In the immediate aftermath of the Fall, humanity is incredibly primitive, both scientifically as well as religiously. They tend towards a true polytheism, a deification of themselves and of the Creation. Hence, had the Incarnation been attempted in any of the first four manifestations of the fallen nature in the OT, Catholicism could not be gotten through to humanity. Else, humanity would descend into something analagous to Mormonism.
Therefore, the ages of the Patriarchs prepare the way for the establishment of the Prefiguring Covenant. It cannot be communiciated to humanity that the spiritual is what truly lies at the depth of human history. No, humanity is still bent toward the merely material. Therefore, in any Salvation history, God must first institute a Prefiguring Covenant, one that shall use the very creation in a manner to Prefigure the mysteries of the New, and also allow the People of the Prefiguring Covenant to walk in the way of the Saint, so that, having traversed that path, it shall revealed in the COming of the Son.
This is an area of theology that yet develops, and it is nothing short of the apocalyptic mysteries themselves. WHY has God guided Salvation History in the way that He has? WHY did Christ not come until the fifth day of salvation history? Pondering these questions will lead us unto the mystery of iniquity itself, toward the meaning of ALL of Salvation history, including the Age of the Church, and not merely the OT stages.
You might consider reading this: it begins to elaborate on this question:
On the Tower of Babel
Blessings to you, Manny Fit.
scott
J
JimG
Guest
Yes. The Israelites arose from the Old Covenant, and in the fullness of time, Jesus came, thereby initiating the New Covenant. Had He come earlier, that would have been the dividing line!He did. It’s just that when he did, that ended the old and started the new.
B
Bishopite
Guest
Actually, I have read the Melchizdech was Shem, one of the sons of Noah. This supported by the Targums (Ancient Jewish literature written in Aramaic) as well as many modern scriptural scholars like Dr. Scott Hahn, Catholic theologian.
The theophanies were part of the early part of Israels history but ceased after Deuteronomic covanental law was given by Moses. Moses gave this law without any theophanies as God withdrew Himself away from Israel because they SO many times withdrew themselves away from Him, falling into the sin from their neighbors e.g., Egypt and then the Canonites; worshiping their false gods. The law was temporary and only pointed out ones sin it was very limited, it was a means of grace, but not enough of a grace to allow the people to obey God as Paul points out in Romans 7:7-23.
The short easy answer to why Jesus didn’t come earlier was answered already, that He did so in the perfect of time as it says in John 1, however one possible reason was that we need to see the many examples of Israel falling into sin and God saving them by one means or another and most of all we need to see that our fate will be the same individually and as a nation if we also fall and persist in grave sin.
I recently heard it said that God gave the law so that all the world might seek grace (because without grace we can’t obey God),
and eventually God gave us grace (Jesus) so that we could obey the law.
V
Valke2
Guest
Maybe he did.
He walked with Adam
He walked with Moses
He wrestled with Jacob
There are other examples.
D
Deacon_Ed_B
Guest
God did make himself incarnate in the Old Testament. The New did not start until Jesus died on the cross and the curtain in the temple was torn asunder. That signified the end of the Old Testament and the beginning of the New Testament.
Deacon Ed B
Deacon Ed B
- Status