Fair enough. But my point was that the analysis was the analysis of the New Testament authors. People are free to provide their own critical analysis, but they're disagreeing with Peter, Paul, and the Jesus of the Gospels even. I think people that hold this viewpoint and care to be rigorous about it would do well to review their arguments.
Regarding your first three examples, in each case the story is about God saving an imperfect group who trusts God:
1. Noah and his family
2. Lot and his family
3. Moses and the Israelites
...to back up to Romans 1, the reward for people who want to run their own show is often... their own show to run. They'll just be doing it on their own. Earth before the flood, Sodom, and recalcitrant Egyptians are all examples of this pattern. But in each of these cases, God decides not to end the story in just desserts but give people another shot to redeem themselves.
I'm refraining from commenting on example 4 mostly because I don't know exactly which even you're referring to (Israel ends up in the Promised Land). But the narrative of the Old Testament is generally Israel deciding to do its own thing over and over, asking for another chance, and getting one.
So one thing people usually have a problem with is the idea that God judges people at all. This usually stems from a belief that loving people don't judge people. This is clearly contradictory to certain tenets of the Bible, including the text of the New Testament. But I think most people, if they stop and think about it, disagree with this sentiment as well. Consider:
- A grown man kicks a toddler. The father of the toddler acts like nothing happened. Dad is a loving guy and wants peace more than judgement. No, a loving father is angry when his family is abused. He expects justice, even.
- A teacher doesn't particularly like a student so he ignores the student. The mother thinks this is messed up but understands the teacher is his own person and makes his own decisions. No, a loving mother gets angry when her kids aren't nurtured and taught properly. She expects corrective action.
In the interest of not writing a novella in an HN comment, I'll wrap it up here, so thanks for reading if you got this far. I appreciate the civil discussion.
Man, I really wish hn had a follow button so I could read more of your level headed and insightful responses :)
And he acts against the man who kicked his child. We call this normal; permitted, even recommended, by our common ideas of morality. But if he went on to commit a genocide against the man's family and every member of his tribe, young, old, and unborn, we call that "biblical". And that's why the old testament god is a genocidal maniac.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25%3A31...
Implicit in your objection is that people are basically innocent and don't have any kind of consequences coming. That's an understandable opinion. It's just not what is stated in the Bible, either testament.
The above passage is, to apply it to my "upset parents" analogy, "Hey, you all are treating my family (humanity) like garbage. Enough is enough."
What about babies and "good people" that don't have it coming? Well, that's a theological rabbit hole I'll pass on for the moment, but the fundamental characterization of the God of the Bible is that he doesn't make mistakes, so there won't be a fair complaint when everything is said and done. His punishments fit the crimes and He doesn't punish people that don't deserve it.
Maybe you don't buy that. That's fair. But it's the ultimate question of the Bible: Do you trust God? Lots of people answer, "No." or even "Hell, no."
That's not mainstream Christian opinion. It's called Marcionism and it's universally condemned by mainstream Christianity.
It's fair to say it misses many subtleties of mainstream Christian view, but it is still more true than untrue. The theology of sanctifying grace[1] and the mercy of salvation[2] are both New Testament ideals which are the core of mainstream Christian theology.
It's called Marcionism and it's universally condemned by mainstream Christianity.
Marcionism is a whole other thing, involving two gods: Marcionists believed that the wrathful Hebrew God was a separate and lower entity than the all-forgiving God of the New Testament.
The idea of there being two, separate gods is what made it heretical.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_in_Christianity
[2] https://theconversation.com/what-is-the-true-meaning-of-merc...
No, "the theology of sanctifying grace and the mercy of salvation" are as old as the hills, and core to both the Old Testament and New Testament. You see hints of God's grace and mercy as early as Genesis 3, often referred to as the Protevangelium, i.e. the first glimpse of the Gospel in the Bible.
The themes of God's perfect justice, powerful salvation, abundant grace and mercy run right the way through the Bible.
That's at least how Moses himself understood the God of the Old Testament, see Exodus 33-34:
"Then the Lord came down in the cloud and stood there with him and proclaimed his name, the Lord. And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, “The Lord, the Lord, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation.” Moses bowed to the ground at once and worshiped. “Lord,” he said, “if I have found favor in your eyes, then let the Lord go with us. Although this is a stiff-necked people, forgive our wickedness and our sin, and take us as your inheritance.”"
For David's same understanding of the God of the Old Testament, see Psalm 23:
"The Lord is my shepherd... surely your goodness and love will follow me all the days of my life"
And for Ezekiel, see Ezekiel 33:
"‘As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, people of Israel?’ “Yet your people say, ‘The way of the Lord is not just.’ But it is their way that is not just. If a righteous person turns from their righteousness and does evil, they will die for it. And if a wicked person turns away from their wickedness and does what is just and right, they will live by doing so. Yet you Israelites say, ‘The way of the Lord is not just.’ But I will judge each of you according to your own ways.”
Jesus of course is no different in his understanding of the Old Testament with reference to himself and his saving purpose, see Luke 24 and then read Isaiah 53 by way of comparison.
And Jesus' authorized representatives (the apostles) are no different, see 2 Timothy 3:15 where in context Paul is specifically referring to the Old Testament and the ability of the Old Testament to make people "wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus":
"...how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus."
Regarding your statement that "Marcionism is a whole other thing":
No, Marcion "rejected the Hebrew Bible and the God of Israel. Marcionists believed that the wrathful Hebrew God was a separate and lower entity than the all-forgiving God of the New Testament."
Contrary to Marcion, Jesus' (the Christ's) own view is that the Bible, from the OT to the NT, has one unified message, which is centered in himself and God's saving purpose for men and women hostile to him, which was accomplished through his sacrifice for sin (his death and resurrection), in their place, all of which was promised for centuries beforehand through the Old Testament (see Isaiah 53 again for an accessible example).
please go ahead and refute any of the following crimes against humanity which this psycho happily documented for all time.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Examples_of_God_personally_kil...
The Old Covenant was the law written on tablets of stone, see Exodus 33-34.
The New Covenant is the law written on tablets of human hearts, see Ezekiel 36.
The place changes from "tablets of stone" to "tablets of human hearts".
It's also critical to understand that both covenants were given to those who were ALREADY God's people, saved on the basis of grace, through faith. The Old Covenant was given to those who had already been saved out of Egypt by God's powerful grace. The New Covenant is written on the hearts of those who are saved through faith in Christ's suffering, death and resurrection on their behalf. The Exodus then, rightly understood, is a foreshadowing of the need to be saved from slavery to sin (Jesus' own commentary in John 8).
Salvation in both OT and NT has always been on the basis of faith, see Abraham ("and his faith was counted to him as righteousness" - and this long before the Law was given). Salvation has never been on the basis of Law-keeping since the Law was given to fallen man after the events of Genesis 3 (Romans 5). We are not sinners because we break the Law. We break the Law because we are sinners. The Law makes people conscious of sin, and drives them to the grace of God. Once there, the Law shows people how to be godly, because the Law reflects God's own character.
So the difference is where the Law is written, not the contents of the Law itself. As Jesus said, the Law is to "love the Lord with all your heart, soul, mind and strength and to love your neighbor as yourself".
But knowing that, or trying to keep the Law externally will only lead to a knowledge of sin. It's faith in Christ alone which saves. We are not saved BY works, but FOR works and then again only once we are saved (Ephesians 2), and that by grace alone, through faith alone, in Jesus Christ alone, according to God's words alone, for God's glory alone.
Many people interpret the new covenant as God's change of heart. I don't think it is internally possible to acknowledge that the new testament and old testament gods are "different", for that would be a surface violation of monotheism, which is the common understanding of Moses' "first commandment". (this is problematic on many levels, but its the state of popular Christianity). To many Christians, Moses' first commandment is still wrapped up in "put no god before me", which they interpret to mean that Buddhists and Muslims can't "get saved" or some other similar thing. Ugh. The point being that its not safe for some fearful Christians to acknowledge that in their own belief system, "god" takes radically different characters in different contexts... That's too much cognitive dissonance and flirts with a violation of monotheism. The same cognitive dissonance hovers around trinitarian theology, which people also idolize.
Whereas in popular practice, there are myths saying God changes his basic agreement with humankind, and that it represents a change of heart. That God has a moment.
Even if theologically the idea of the old and new covenants is that human beings have come to a fresh relationship with god through some realization and change in their hearts, in evangelicalism it is too commonly is unpacked as "God used to be angry, but now he forgives us. Specifically because of Jesus sacrifice, we get a 'second chance.' Don't blow it."
I understand what your saying too, and find it compelling. I just don't wanna ignore the cultural myths attached to these theologies. Those are what make it a religion... how people unpack it.
All that said, I really do like your interpretation of the kernel of these theologies.
I'd also point out that Jesus says "I came to fill up the law". Jesus emphasized the positive character of the law, whereas Moses' was prohibitive, framed in negative terms. A lot of messianic type folks miss that one. They interpret this as a statement of pending apocalypse.
But it's really just more of a throwback to the original grace, and simple righteousness, of an integrated passion for your life and the people in it.
"What does the lord require of you but to do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with your god?" says Micah as he forecasts that some of the the poorest, marginalized people will realize, in a major way, that the answer to that question is "not much else".
Marcionism is nothing like what linkregister is claiming.
IDK if he needed to. Jesus declared he brought not peace, but a sword. Ananias and Sapphira were killed outright for lying about their finances. Revelations details enormous amounts of suffering for a fallen world, perhaps more than every other book combined. The New Testament is replete with examples of God's justice.
1. The Great Flood (Genesis),
2. Sodom (Genesis),
3. The Plagues of Egypt (Exodus),
4. The Exile of the Israelites from the Promised Land (Exodus).
Redemption, mercy, and forgiveness are primary themes in the Gospels, and further continue as major themes in the rest of the New Testament. Aside from the Lake of Fire (Hell), which is worse than being killed for being a first-born Egyptian child, references to punishment are secondary.
As for Paul's opinion of the Old Testament, that is fine, he wrote that opinion. There is no shortage of contradictory and conflicting opinions and facts in the Bible since it is a work compiled, edited, and written by humans.
That said, the mainstream Christian opinion that the Old Testament is vengeful and the New Testament is merciful is prevalent for a reason. Paul cannot retcon, try as he might, the events of the Old Testament.