Why is the God of NT so different to God of OT?

[friardchips]

Just so I can understand what you mean here:

I mean the original OT itself. It is a literary work written by God.

You mean, the Holy Spirit through many spiritual writers?

It is a play, where reality is the stage. It is intended that you can spend much time with it to gain further insights. And since it is archetypical, those insights will be directly applicable to you personally, just as they were directly applicable to the people of the NT.

Here you are saying that the OT writings were written in such and such a way as to purposefully provoke prayerful thought and the writings were based on (real life or likely events?) with (real life characters or characters that were likely to have existed?).

 

[Frankenfurter]

You mean, the Holy Spirit through many spiritual writers?

Sure, from the Catholic perspective. But we have to remember that when reading the OT they did not have that perspective yet. They didn’t yet talk about God as a trinity openly. It was however, buried deeply and actually in there.

 

[Frankenfurter]

Here you are saying that the OT writings were written in such and such a way as to purposefully provoke prayerful thought and the writings were based on (real life or likely events?) with (real life characters or characters that were likely to have existed?).

Let me quote the catechism:

110 In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. "For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression."76

It was the custom of the Jewish writers to have many layers of meaning which made study of the scripture fruitful. This was their literary intent. Capturing the exact historical events was not their literary intent. So some of the stories may or not be real. As Catholics you are free to chose your interpretation.

Therefore, to the OP, you can simply reject the reality of all the stories where someone had a dream which said that God told them they should go kill some innocent person, etc. You will notice if you look deeper, that those kind of stories end up being relevant for describing other events later. So later they will say that if you don’t do X you will end like Y who was killed by God. SO the point of the original story was to set up the meaning for the next story where the real meaning comes out. But God never had to actually kill anyone.

Also, the Bronze-Age culture of the OT was one of punishment and retribution. God’s actions were interpreted through that culture and God acted in a way that they would understand. So for example if there was a naturally occurring storm (by our standards today) that would have to be interpreted as punishment on OT times.

Jesus was at the focal point of the transformation of culture from one of retribution to forgiveness.Historically he was a direct cause of this change. That change in our culture is what you see as the difference in how the scriptures capture what God was saying. It is us that changed. Or rather our culture changed which changed how we captured God’s message in literature.

 

[friardchips]

Sure, from the Catholic perspective…they did not have that perspective yet. They didn’t yet talk about God as a trinity openly. It was however, buried deeply and actually in there.

Exactly. This can connect back to the OP’s questions regarding what Pope Emeritus referred to as the ‘dark passages’:

• it is our perception, the perception of Israel (spiritual Israel - us) that has changed, not God (as stated). Yet, God was there in the documenting of events through the various writers with their various forms (myth or poetry or however you want to call the various forms throughout the ages). Because God does not change it is likely that in dark passages, the Jews thought that God was making them win bloodthirsty wars and that He exacted revenge on opponents in these ways. There is such a thing as a just war but whether any of these Bible wars were just, well, if not, then these people’s perception of God was obviously incomplete - as is now proven by the testimony of time! I would say that God is more likely to help people escape death then He is to cause it. This does not make these passages any less important to the whole Bible message or lessen their meaning, in fact, they invigorate the message, because they highlight how much we need Christ to complete us.

We could say that the OT is a relationship of practical and spiritual learning, often through exile and suffering, and with prophecies in there too, in various real life events with some real life characters but also some fictional archetypes (as Frankenfurter suggested) - not to be taken literally - (‘Job’ comes into this category). And we don’t just relate to the archetypal set-ups, we can relate to all of the people and the events.

So if the OT was about a topsy-turvy progression in learning and questions, and mistakes in the Jews’ understanding of God, then the NT is fulfilled with the answers to those questions and the meaning and substance that inspires those questions - in the Word of God made flesh:

OT - many questions
NT - one answer

Thus, the dark passages of war and violence can be looked upon with humility, because if we had no Christ, it would be harder for us too.

 

[friardchips]

Frankenfurter, I read your last post moments after I sent my last post! ‘Literary genre’ is the term I was missing that you have rightly used.

I think exegesis has to be carefully done. Otherwise, parts can be dismissed at a whim. Obviously, some areas, such as the Psalms, are more useful than others, but I believe, as Dei Verbum suggests, that one should venerate Holy Scripture in one’s heart by considering the time theologians and Doctors of the Church who have preceded us have spent pouring over the writings in thorough exegesis. This means, I would say, acknowledging all of the OT as a kind of testimony. And considering the literary genre shows a loving respect for our ancestors but not an excuse to just pick and choose what sections to dismiss.

I think, for the most part, we are probably saying the same thing with our posts but I would say that in the way we have approached this topic, we could conclude that it is definitely a history of the Jews, and no section, not even the dark passages, are invalid.

 

[Amandil]

I would also note here that the Hebrew meaning of “jealous” is not sinful envy but rather impassioned love for us, G-d’s human creation. Then why the apparently collective guilt, punishing the children of the fathers who hate G-d unto the third or fourth generation, something which Judaism rejects? A closer analysis of the text and context reveals that it is not G-d who directly punishes the children of the wicked but instead the parents who teach and instill evil in their children from one generation to the next.

This is the way I have understood it since my conversion. Because of the fact that it was common that four generations of a family would exist together in the same house(son, father, grandfather and great-grandfather), that the sins of the eldest would necessarily be learned and repeated by the youngest.

As to the OP, Marcionism(the belief that the God of the OT is not the same God that Jesus proclaimed or that there is some dichotomy between them) was roundly rejected by the Church.

The idea that they are dichotomous comes not from Scripture but from false interpretations of it.

E.g.: the Passover and the Exodus.

It’s a cheap and easy thing to do to focus on the night of the Passover and see God as “evil” while yet ignoring the previous events of the 400 years leading up to that night.

Just like it’s easy to focus on God placing a ban on this Canaanite nation or another while ignoring the 400 years prior of what they did as a nation against God and the moral law. Scripture hints at the depravity of their sin by mentioning how idolatrous those nations have become.

The patience and the forbearance displayed becomes obvious when you step back and look at the events from a broader perspective.

 

[Achilles6129]

There are many instances in the Old Testament where God instructs people to kill others and/or straight up kills them himself. The final plague in Exodus, the great flood, instruction for stoning in Deuteronomy 22:20/21 etc.

While comparatively Jesus claimed that God didn’t have chosen people, he didn’t want to slaughter us en masse and he didn’t want us to stone defenceless women to death.

I have so many questions regarding this, but I guess it all boils down to:

If God is omnipotent, why did he change his mind so drastically on some of his most important teachings?

He didn’t change anything. The New Testament is an application of the Old. You should really start studying some of Christ’s real statements because I think if you do you will begin to realize that Christ’s “gentility” has been much exaggerated by modern Christianity. You should also study the Revelation of Jesus Christ.

Possible answers include:
G-d mellowed with age.
One of the depictions of G-d is incorrect.
G-d did not really change at all.

I opt for the third possibility. However, this one requires some study on your part, both of the teachings of the Torah and those of the Gospels.

The third possibility is correct. Good post. The New Testament has been made out to seem like it has this unbelievably gentle depiction of God when it does not.

 

[friardchips]

…you will begin to realize that Christ’s “gentility” has been much exaggerated by modern Christianity. You should also study the Revelation of Jesus Christ.

I’m interested in the sentence from the above post. Achilles6129, please can you give a selection of examples?

Also, who is it that you believe makes out this ‘unbelievably gentle depiction of God’?
Daryyl B:

‘He has defined Himself to us in an alternate context.’

In response to an earlier post, God never defines Himself, because He has no restrictive boundaries, He is all love, all creating and eternal. He reveals Himself, while we try and do the defining, and fail, because ultimately His nature is an undefinable mystery.

 

[ready]

There are many instances in the Old Testament where God instructs people to kill others and/or straight up kills them himself. The final plague in Exodus, the great flood, instruction for stoning in Deuteronomy 22:20/21 etc.

While comparatively Jesus claimed that God didn’t have chosen people, he didn’t want to slaughter us en masse and he didn’t want us to stone defenceless women to death.

I have so many questions regarding this, but I guess it all boils down to:

If God is omnipotent, why did he change his mind so drastically on some of his most important teachings?

Would you please kindly name one teaching which God has changed his mind about. There isn’t a single one.

God has different attributes that come out at different times, according to the needs of the times and of persons. But our Lord* always *was, is, and will be, all good, all just (all fair), all knowing, all wise, all perfect. God bless you.

 

[meltzerboy]

I mean the original OT itself. It is a literary work written by God. It is a play, where reality is the stage. It is intended that you can spend much time with it to gain further insights. And since it is archetypical, those insights will be directly applicable to you personally, just as they were directly applicable to the people of the NT.

Yes and no, in my view. I understand the value of myth, as you point out. However, I wonder whether this takes into account from both the Jewish and Christian perspectives, the DIFFERENCES in literary style of the books of the Bible, such as didactic, homiletic, or midrashic, allegorical, statutory, historical narrative, proverbial, poetic, etc. I don’t think the concept of myth encompasses all of these styles of writing.

 

[Frankenfurter]

The OP is a non-believer. So perhaps, having never experienced God, he is looking for something to hang his hat on. Some sort of proof, and is finding these violent acts of God in the OT as sort of an indicator that the scriptures are corrupt. God would not do these things.

I just wanted to give him the chance to interpret these parts of scripture as being something that does not need to be taken literally. They are literary, cultural styles of communicating that don’t work for us or the people of the NT.

Catholicism allows for a wide range of interpretations from literal to more mythological. Better that he takes the more mythical interpretation then to reject the whole thing.

 

[Mystophilus]

As an Anglican, you certainly know of God’s justice. For those who willfully choose to reject God, it is an injustice to permit them into heaven.

Since I am a sinner, I would suggest that it is an injustice to permit me into Heaven. That is apparently what Grace is about, however.

 

[po18guy]

Since I am a sinner, I would suggest that it is an injustice to permit me into Heaven. That is apparently what Grace is about, however.

The difference is that you know it and are struggling. Those who do not fear God, or have rejected Him have consigned themselves to another location.

 

[friardchips]

Catholicism allows for a wide range of interpretations from literal to more mythological. Better that he takes the more mythical interpretation then to reject the whole thing.

If the OP cannot understand what is being said in these posts then he should seek instruction from local Bible study groups, Catholics who can instruct him in accurate interpretations so he can listen and understand. R.C priests are good for this and very approachable.

It is not a case of picking or choosing interpretations, although one can choose individual passages for private reading. To pick and choose interpretations for a passage is like saying ‘anything goes’. It does not. History is not only figurative and changeable to one’s own personal ideas. The literary genres are used to analyse passages - yes, but not to say after study: well, this genre seems to fit so my ideas must be right. automatically. Everything must be tested again known R.C sources.

Just to reject is not a good idea. Not least because he will then pass this idea on to others who will also then reject.

Living in the age of the New Evangelisation (although to be a Christian is to evangelise!)we are told to instruct and share our faith.

Saying, just don’t bother with it, doesn’t give a good message to spread. However, I do agree that he could possibly start by getting to grips with other easier to understand passages first and move on to those. And if his friends say: why not these uncomfortable passages here, then he could say that he wants to start from a better and more positive viewpoint.

 

[Mystophilus]

The difference is that you know it and are struggling. Those who do not fear God, or have rejected Him have consigned themselves to another location.

Could any sane human actually understand God and yet not fear God? Could any sane human understand actually understand God and yet reject God? It seems to me that any such rejection is necessarily the product of factors which will mitigate or even remove the guilt of the person in question.

Does the Catholic Church actually assert that anyone is definitely in Hell?

 

[Achilles6129]

I’m interested in the sentence from the above post. Achilles6129, please can you give a selection of examples?

Do you mean a selection of examples of Scripture passages that show a different Christ than the one that is usually portrayed, or a selection of quotes of people redefining Christ?

Also, who is it that you believe makes out this ‘unbelievably gentle depiction of God’?

I think modern Christianity as a whole - virtually all denominations. Do you disagree?

 

[Frankenfurter]

The literary genres are used to analyse passages - yes, but not to say after study: well, this genre seems to fit so my ideas must be right. automatically. Everything must be tested again known R.C sources.

Just to reject is not a good idea. Not least because he will then pass this idea on to others who will also then reject.

Please let us know if there any R.C sources that say we must accept these dark passages as something that really happened. I don’t think there are any. I think that R.C. sources will say that there is no official teaching on their reality or if they are just ancient stories

It is not a matter of picking and choosing, but applying critical thinking within the bounds established by the church. Critical thinking is how folks develop their faith and make it their own.

And please keep in mind that many people are so disgusted by these passages that they they would rather walk away from the whole thing. Personally, I don’t blame them. But I think that we misinterpret these dark passages as being history when they are not.

None of the meaning of the NT is dependent on these dark OT passages being true. They could be the oral tradition of the Jews captured in an easy to remember form (with lots of violence etc. making it easier to remember the stories, and hence principals being taught), especially considering their culture which was based on retribution instead of forgiveness.

Show me anything that says we must accept the dark passages as history. That God initiated violence against innocent people. I don’t think you can.

It is important for folks to understand not just the specific parts of the Catholic faith but also the wide range of understandings that are acceptable too. This will help folks like the OP enter into the faith rather than reject it prima facia.

 

[meltzerboy]

Please let us know if there any R.C sources that say we must accept these dark passages as something that really happened. I don’t think there are any. I think that R.C. sources will say that there is no official teaching on their reality or if they are just ancient stories

It is not a matter of picking and choosing, but applying critical thinking within the bounds established by the church. Critical thinking is how folks develop their faith and make it their own.

And please keep in mind that many people are so disgusted by these passages that they they would rather walk away from the whole thing. Personally, I don’t blame them. But I think that we misinterpret these dark passages as being history when they are not.

None of the meaning of the NT is dependent on these dark OT passages being true. They could be the oral tradition of the Jews captured in an easy to remember form (with lots of violence etc. making it easier to remember the stories, and hence principals being taught), especially considering their culture which was based on retribution instead of forgiveness.

Show me anything that says we must accept the dark passages as history. That God initiated violence against innocent people. I don’t think you can.

It is important for folks to understand not just the specific parts of the Catholic faith but also the wide range of understandings that are acceptable too. This will help folks like the OP enter into the faith rather than reject it prima facia.

The oral tradition of the Jews was codified in the Oral Torah or Talmud, not in the Torah which is part of the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible). There is plenty of G-d’s forgiveness based on human repentance found in the Hebrew Bible. The G-d of the Hebrew Bible is a G-d of justice tempered by mercy, not a G-d of retribution.

 

[Thorns]

Would you please kindly name one teaching which God has changed his mind about. There isn’t a single one.

From “eye for an eye” to “love your enemies.”

 

[Estevao]

I really don’t think this is the case after reading the Bible and trying to ignore my presuppositions. I used to think otherwise because I was influenced by dolts like the New Atheists and proof-texting, but I don’t see any difference in the God of the Bible between the testaments, even just from a purely literary analysis point of view.