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

[meltzerboy]

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

The meaning of “an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth” is not one of retribution. Rather, it means NOT to extract more than what is required financially or in other areas of life. Thus responsibility for the damage inflicted upon someone can be sought but no excessive punishment meted out. Further, in Exodus, Leviticus, and Proverbs, there are verses which command one to care for, help, and treat one’s enemies fairly, as well as their animals.

 

[friardchips]

The meaning of “an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth” is not one of retribution. Rather, it means NOT to extract more than what is required financially or in other areas of life. Thus responsibility for the damage inflicted upon someone can be sought but no excessive punishment meted out. .

I agree with this. Before such time people would claim back way more than what was their due. Things were not metred out fairly or equally. And this is what I was taught too. Many people misunderstand and use ‘eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth’ as an excuse for violence or to rubbish Holy Scripture (I am not saying that is why the poster questioned it).

meltzerboy:

Further, in Exodus, Leviticus, and Proverbs, there are verses which command one to care for, help, and treat one’s enemies fairly, as well as their animals

The seven days creation story is all about treating what we have been given by God with responsibility (and giving God his due praise for these things).

 

[friardchips]

Hi. Thank you for responding.

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.

I’ve underlined where I am confused by your words…

Please can you write a real statement that you consider was said by Christ and write a statement from Christ that you think is not real? To compare.

What area of modern Christian teaching is it that you believe teaches Christ to be overly gentle? In what way do you mean ‘exaggerated’?

Achilles6129:

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.

‘Made out’ by who? What area in the NT is problematic for you?

Thanks again.

 

[Thorns]

The meaning of “an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth” is not one of retribution. Rather, it means NOT to extract more than what is required financially or in other areas of life. Thus responsibility for the damage inflicted upon someone can be sought but no excessive punishment meted out. Further, in Exodus, Leviticus, and Proverbs, there are verses which command one to care for, help, and treat one’s enemies fairly, as well as their animals.

The price to pay for sin in the OT was death. In the NT, Jesus spoke of casting first stones, forgiveness, and love of our enemies. This is a drastic change.

 

[friardchips]

The price to pay for sin in the OT was death. .

Where does it say this? Quite a statement considering the OT is a collection of loads of writings from thousands of years. A bit too general a statement, I think. Can you give specific examples?

 

[meltzerboy]

The price to pay for sin in the OT was death. In the NT, Jesus spoke of casting first stones, forgiveness, and love of our enemies. This is a drastic change.

You must admit, however, that, according to the Church, there is such a thing as a just war as well as self-defense on an individual level. It may be one loves one’s enemies but, at the same time, one sometimes must inflict harm on them.

You are correct that sometimes the punishment for sin is death according to the Hebrew Bible. But if one examines closer what the criteria are for the death penalty to be inflicted, one finds there is a high threshold. For example, in the case of adultery, it was necessary to have two valid eyewitnesses to the crime. In the modern state of Israel, while the death penalty is on the books, it is rarely executed except in extreme cases such as Nazi war criminals. Also, forgiveness is one of the central tenets of Judaism; in fact, NOT to forgive is regarded as sinful.

 

[Thorns]

Where does it say this? Quite a statement considering the OT is a collection of loads of writings from thousands of years. A bit too general a statement, I think. Can you give specific examples?

God killing off the earth’s population with The Flood for its sins.

God destroying Sodom and Gomorrah for its sins.

God commanding the tribes of Israel to kill off surrounding tribes for their unbelief, and so as to ensure that these surrounding “evil tribes” did not pollute the chosen people with their customs and evil influence.

Those are just off the top of my head, there are certainly more.

But, in the NT, God is way different. No killings, no raining fire down from heaven to kill nonbelievers etc.

 

[Thorns]

You must admit, however, that, according to the Church, there is such a thing as a just war as well as self-defense on an individual level. It may be one loves one’s enemies but, at the same time, one sometimes must inflict harm on them.

You are correct that sometimes the punishment for sin is death according to the Hebrew Bible. But if one examines closer what the criteria are for the death penalty to be inflicted, one finds there is a high threshold. For example, in the case of adultery, it was necessary to have two valid eyewitnesses to the crime. In the modern state of Israel, while the death penalty is on the books, it is rarely executed except in extreme cases such as Nazi war criminals. Also, forgiveness is one of the central tenets of Judaism; in fact, NOT to forgive is regarded as sinful.

Yes, but Jesus never promoted or participated in any just wars. Jesus in fact didnt speak of or promote self defense either. He said if someone attacks you, to turn the other cheek. Very different personalities.

 

[friardchips]

Frankenfurter, I believe there are no areas in the Bible worthy of dismissal. This is one of the things we are disagreeing on. Some areas are more relative to our lives now, but nothing is to be just dismissed without some level of regard. My reasons, as already stated, are:

• as a passage in itself, a section may not contain some revelatory meaning, but as part of the whole OT, it is a step towards people’s truer knowledge of God. So it is relevant.
• it does not show respect for Scripture to simply dismiss it. As certain Popes and their decrees have stated - we must venerate Scripture and analyse via proper means: various known methods of study - as you said - and by reading the analysis of Catholic theologians and recognised religious writers/commentators.

The other thing we are disagreeing on is making an assertion that all of the dark passages didn’t happen just because it seemingly contradicts something else. The historicity of the Bible shows - literal and not literal, from writing to writing - a growing knowledge of God, an up and down relationship as Israel moves away from, then moves towards, God. If we had a New NT, it would be similar: we worship Christ, sometimes we are with him, but sometimes we move right away, in mortal sin. In the future, people might say: “what a naughty group of people.” But hopefully they would not just disregard our lives and heritage, any part of it, even so. All is relative.

 

[meltzerboy]

God killing off the earth’s population with The Flood for its sins.

God destroying Sodom and Gomorrah for its sins.

God commanding the tribes of Israel to kill off surrounding tribes for their unbelief, and so as to ensure that these surrounding “evil tribes” did not pollute the chosen people with their customs and evil influence.

Those are just off the top of my head, there are certainly more.

But, in the NT, God is way different. No killings, no raining fire down from heaven to kill nonbelievers etc.

The New Testament also believes that G-d is a G-d of justice as well as mercy. Thus the notion of hell as a just punishment for those who do not repent of their sins and, according to their own choice, wish not to spend eternity in the presence of G-d. And the death penalty on earth, rare as it is, has not been banned by the Church. Likewise, that “raining fire down from heaven to kill nonbelievers” in the Hebrew Bible, is not something G-d inflicts lightly. The “evil tribes” were given several generations to change their sinful behavior, and sometimes they were still forgiven by G-d after all, as in the case of Jonah and the residents of Nineveh. BTW, the notion of the chosen people does NOT mean that Jews are loved more than others. Indeed G-d punishes the Jewish people when they transgress. What it means is that G-d singled them out for the challenging responsibility of being a priestly light unto the nations of the world by means of their moral behavior as reflected by their obedience to the divine commandments.

 

[meltzerboy]

Yes, but Jesus never promoted or participated in any just wars. Jesus in fact didnt speak of or promote self defense either. He said if someone attacks you, to turn the other cheek. Very different personalities.

Do you realize that to say G-d changes based on Holy Scripture is contrary to Church teaching? Do you believe that Quakers have it right regarding war and self-defense and the Church is wrong?

 

[hu324b]

No one new of god at that time except the Israelites - the rest of the world were worshiping all sorts of Idols and imaginary Gods. Do you thinks if Jesus showed up speaking peace , love and forgiveness any of them would of listened? Even the Israelites were lacking in faith and today reject Christ as the son of God.It was a violent world that only understood violent ways.Our lives are not our own they are Gods to do as he chooses - some how we think that our lives belong to us but they don’t - when the world was ready Jesus came and preached the Word of God directly. Even then it was rejected by most people.

I don’t see God as being different from the OT to the NT - all the prophets preached repentance , forgiveness - always to turn back to God and he would relent - people were warned well in advance through the prophets and did not listen rejecting and killing those that God sent - even his own son. So who really are the violent ones.

You can see in todays world there is peace , forgiveness and love - but at the same time there is a lot more greed , selfishness , violence and unbelief - a whole bunch of us still refuse to listen. Even some that claim to believe have no love in their hearts for others and put their happiness in their material wealth not understanding that true happiness comes from helping others and living Gods law of love - unconditionally.

 

[friardchips]

God killing off the earth’s population with The Flood for its sins.

God destroying Sodom and Gomorrah for its sins.

God commanding the tribes of Israel to kill off surrounding tribes for their unbelief, and so as to ensure that these surrounding “evil tribes” did not pollute the chosen people with their customs and evil influence.

Those are just off the top of my head, there are certainly more.

But, in the NT, God is way different. No killings, no raining fire down from heaven to kill nonbelievers etc.

Thanks for your reply. Two topics here.

• Mercy to each other.
• God’s mercy on us.

We have to use our inspired common sense that knowledge in Christ has given us when studying the OT. Our knowledge and experience of mercy. Can I start with the NT, not the OT:

Jesus told us to love our enemies. No arguments there.
Jesus drove out idolatry in the temple. No arguments there.

…because the first commandment is to LOVE GOD (no idols!). Love your neighbour, and enemy, are not even tied up with this. This is a commandment in its own right!

To analyse your specified quotes, back to OT…

• In the OT, in the story of Noah, it was God inflicting punishment on the idol-worshipping people. It wasn’t people inflicting damage on people. Noah was saving not infliciting. The people doing the nasty stuff were the naughty destroyed ones. But God was punishing.
• Sodom and Gomorrah. You remember Abraham saying: if there are this many good people will you spare them?; until he interceded and got the number right down to one good person. God was like: yes, if there is one good person etc…God’s people were not hurting each other. The only ones being evil were the naughty destroyed ones. It was God doing the punishing.

Scripture writers may have been using these events of these deaths to convey how much God hates certain things that humans do. Like idol-worship and self-love. They are also prophecies to show the offering of sacrifice. These are prophetical writings by those close to God, prophesying Christ’s sacrifice for the sinners. (Even though they maybe did not know). In the OT days there were prophets who could intercede, but no living sacrifice for sinners. We know that Christ fulfils, by being the sacrifice who intercedes at the Father’s right hand.

So suddenly this knowledge in the light of Christ exalts the Scripture writers from mere event-writers to writers of prophecy. We are to assume that Abraham was the writer (I think?).

So did God punish in this way; did God destroy the ones who were horrible - the naughty ones - and save those who did what he asked?

Or is it a message about turning back to God because God saves us from sin. He floats our boat and calms the waters of sensuality. But to do the opposite ends in death.

Because he gave everyone in those areas plenty of warnings. Any and all could have been saved if they had turned. God said: “Yes”, remember! So in this way did he destroy them or did they destroy themselves by their evil ways? (Remember these are the Scripture writers versions of events and we should show due care because the writers of some of these could have been the prophets themselves).

In terms of warmongering, well there are dark passages, but again, because Christ is in the OT (as he said) - we need to be careful not to dismiss. In a post earlier, to Frankenfurter, I have explained my reasoning as to why I think ‘dismissal’ is not a good way to treat holy Scripture.

My opinion anyway.

 

[juliamajor]

To believe that God is different in OT as opposed to NT is heretical.
God didn’t change. Hesed- Loving -Kindness has always been an aspect of God that is which humans are supposed mimic.

As Time evolved so the way God is perceived has changed. God hasn’t changed -the way we interpret scriptural evidence of God has…

 

[Frankenfurter]

Frankenfurter, I believe there are no areas in the Bible worthy of dismissal. This is one of the things we are disagreeing on. Some areas are more relative to our lives now, but nothing is to be just dismissed without some level of regard.

I am not dismissing anything. The meaning of a dark passage may be important even if it never actually happened. The message is the same regardless if the events happened or not. I understand that to be Catholic Teaching.

The reality of the event having actually happened is not the point regarding what the scripture is teaching. In fact the point of the teaching is the same regardless of if the events happened for real or not. It is a literary technique. The OP being a nonbeliever just needs a way to reconcile this stuff. I offer him one way. The more complex ways that require years of study, maybe he can understand someday.

Perhaps internet forums are not qa good way to express these things since everyone wants to be represented simultaneously.

 

[friardchips]

Perhaps internet forums are not qa good way to express these things since everyone wants to be represented simultaneously.

I agree. There are better places to go to start one’s search for answers.

I think we are saying the same thing for the most part: to find out which parts are to be taken literally or non-literally takes study, and yet the most important thing is that as a whole they are a history, made up of various genres, and do contain Christ and His message in there, and show, as juliamajor just said: “God hasn’t changed -the way we interpret scriptural evidence of God has…” and their God, and our God, is a loving God - the same one God. I would thoroughly recommend to the OP to read Dei Verbum. This document is an absolute gem and the result of years of sweat and tears on the part of the then Cardinal Ratzinger and others - a labour of love. It lays down how each exegete should approach Scripture, on any level. It helped me.

Thanks for taking the time responding to my posts, Frankenfurter.