Is the God of the OT the same as the God of the NT?
Published on October 15, 2006 By KFC Kickin For Christ In Religion
There seems to be some sense of belief that the God of the OT is not the same God of the NT. Is there two different concepts of God? Does the OT present only a God of wrath, while the NT deals only with God's love and mercy absent the wrath?

Well we do see OT stories of God's commanding the destruction of Sodom, the annihilation of the Canaanites, the killing of the firstborn Egyptian babies and other such stories. So the accusers claim this proves a primitive, warlike deity which totally contradicts Jesus' love and mercy. After all Jesus taught us to love one another and to turn the other cheek.

So at first glance, yes ,it does seem to be a contradiction but careful examining of the scriptures teach otherwise. Jesus himself declared that the whole OT may be summed up by the commandments to love God and love your neighbor, Matt 22:37. He also taught that the God of the OT desired love and mercy rather than sacrifice, Matthew 9:13, 12:7.

God says in Ezekiel 18:23, "Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked....and not rather that he should turn from his way and live?"

God as a God of justice could not let the nations' evil go unchecked. He could not and did not condone their behavior. Sin, in the bible is likened to yeast. Anyone who is familiar with that pantry product knows fully well what happens when yeast does its thing. It permeates the dough. It actually "sours" the dough. That's why the Jews rid their houses of all leavened products before the Passover begins. God is serious about sin and this ceremony serves as a reminder. Maybe we all need to do that once a year, rid our homes of leaven, to remind us of how God abhors sin. It wouldn't hurt.

God is always giving second, third and fourth chances. He is very patient and longsuffering. You don't hear about that attribute of God from His accusers. In the case of the Ammorites God gave them hundreds of years to repent, yet they chose not to. Noah preached for 120 years before the flood. We all know about Jonah. Do you know how evil the Assyrians were? Yet God spared them because they chose to turn around after hearing the message Jonah put out. But later on, they went back to their wicked ways, and God did eventually destroy them.

So we can see the proper OT picture of God is one of patience, giving the people numerous opportunities to repent and turn back to Him, and only when they refuse does He judge and punish them for their evil deeds.

So now let's look at the NT and Jesus. Contrary to popular belief Jesus himself was responsible for some of the strongest statements of judgment and wrath in the bible. Matt 23 is an example. He lashes out at the religious leaders, calling them hypocrites and false leaders and informing them their destiny was eternal banishment from God. Pretty strong language coming from Jesus that is not pretty to hear. The truth is not always attractive especially to one who is not practicing it. At one point he tells them they are of their father....the devil.

In Matt 10:34 Jesus said that he came to divide, not unite. He said, "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." He goes on to say that His Word will divide families. We see today that it still does.

This is a biggie in our day. We're being taught that spiritually we must all come together as "one" and be united. Where in the world does this come from? Not Jesus. Anyone familiar with the Tower of Babel knows that this is not a good thing. Eccumenicalism today is the shofar blast of old. In ancient days the blast of the ram's horn meant the gathering of all to hear what was about to be addressed to the people by their leaders and perhaps even to lead them into battle.

We find love and judgement scattered throughout the NT, and love and mercy as well as judgment throughout the OT. God does not change. He is constant and reliable. Different situations do call for different emphases and maybe that's the rub. But when the two testaments are read, as they were inteneded, you can't help but see the same God who is rich in mercy but will not allow sin to go unpunished.


Comments (Page 1)
5 Pages1 2 3  Last
on Oct 16, 2006
KFC, you refer to the Bible to validate your views, but there is nowhere in the Bible that says the Bible is infallible or inerrant. The principle that the Bible is infallible and inerrant and that certain verses must be interpreted literally, actually only exists in your mind and in the minds of those with similar beliefs to you. It’s like a little bubble, where circular reasoning abounds.

The religious fundamentalists’ message is essentially: “Come and subscribe to our model of the world: The world is 6000 years old; and open and honest scientific enquiry is ‘of the devil’. The Bible is right - inerrant and a depiction of absolute Truth. When God exercises violence, cruelty and mass extermination – including putting a man to death for gathering firewood on the Sabbath – it means that God is good, merciful and kind. All other religions are “wrong” – their religious books are errant and false, and when they die they will be punished in hellfire forever. Anyone who doesn’t agree with this model of the world will be punished in hellfire forever.”

For those living outside the bubble, and who can see things clearly, it’s not unlike being approached by a group of 3 year-olds, who are playing in a sandpit saying, “Come with us and join us wearing these nappies. You will find comfort and it be feel right for you - just as it feels right for us.”

Those outside the sandpit would naturally conclude, “No. That’s not for me. My model of the world is different from yours, and I can see things differently to you. I am happy to let you be, however, because that is ‘where you are at’, and it's right for you. It's not right for everyone, however."
on Oct 16, 2006
Well Andy I would respectfully disagree. When I read scripture it says quite clearly all over that the word of God is perfect, and profitable for all men, powerful and unchanging, and as you know the truth does not change. Jesus referred to scriptures repeatedly encouraging us to listen to the words written. He also told the Apostles that the HS would bring into their minds the rememberance of what they needed to write down. Paul wrote to Timothy to "Preach the Word." What word? The writer to the Hebrews said the "Word of God" is quick and powerful and reaches into the inner parts like nothing else. What else could it be? Is God not strong enough or powerful enough to make sure his scriptures, the words he wanted us to know stay undefiled?

I concure with most of our founding fathers who also felt the same way. They were not priests, or ministers but quite clearly saw the hand of God, as I do, in their lives and moving among the people. The recognized "The Book" for what it was.....here's a few quotes......

"I have examined all religions, as well as my narrow sphere, my straightened means, and my busy life, would allow; and the result is that the Bible is the best Book in the world."-- President John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, Dec. 25, 1813

I believe the Bible is the best gift God has given to man. All the good Saviour gave to the world was communicated through this Book. But for this Book we could not know right from wrong. All things most desirable for man's welfare, here and hereafter, are to be found portrayed in it." -- President Abraham Lincoln, Sept. 5, 1864


"The Bible carries with it the history of the creation, the fall and the redemption of man, and discloses to him, in the infant born in Bethlehem, the Legislator and Savior of the world." -- President John Quincy Adams, Feb. 27, 1844

"That book, Sir, is the Rock upon which our republic rests."-- President Andrew Jackson, referring to the Bible, June 8, 1845


For those living outside the bubble, and who can see things clearly


so what you're saying is......, I as well as these great men are not seeing clearly? But you are?

I am happy to let you be, however, because that is ‘where you are at’, and it's right for you. It's not right for everyone, however


this is relativism not the truth. You're making a choice. There is no moral absolutes. So what you are saying is that you will disregard the truth for an ear tickling experience? So instead of using scriptures for your guide, you use.......everything that tickles your fancy? Sounds good, so let's add it to the mix type of thing?

I do agree with you tho, "it's not right for everyone" and it's a choice.
on Oct 16, 2006
Jesus referred to scriptures repeatedly encouraging us to listen to the words written.


Which is a big reason I believe He is God of both. If Jesus, being who he and history claims him to be, God OR a man of peace, often cites and refers to the OT...then how can I not believe it?

He was quick to correct wrong behavior, I believe He would also correct wrong scripture. But He didn't. He let it stand.
on Oct 16, 2006
If Jesus, being who he and history claims him to be, God OR a man of peace, often cites and refers to the OT...then how can I not believe it?


EXACTLY.

Also another thought, I think it's in Luke 4 where Jesus stands, "opens the scroll" and reads directly from Isaiah. It is worded in such a powerful way, you can see He is clearly demonstrating the need to read the scriptures. The scripture He read pointed directly to him as the whole OT does.
on Oct 16, 2006
When I read scripture it says quite clearly all over that the word of God is perfect, and profitable for all men, powerful and unchanging, and as you know the truth does not change.


Yes but it was MEN who decided which writings should be included in our "bible". Martin Luther wanted to take James out because he considered it an epistle of straw. Do you think those MEN were perfect when they decided which writings made the cut and which didn't?

I think you can learn a lot from the bible stories but I do think that most of them are just that - stories.
on Oct 16, 2006
Yes but it was MEN who decided which writings should be included in our "bible". Martin Luther wanted to take James out because he considered it an epistle of straw. Do you think those MEN were perfect when they decided which writings made the cut and which didn't?


Yes, God ALWAYS using people for his work. We are supposed to be the hands and feet of God. You're right about ML's refusal, but if I remember right later he relented on that but it wouldn't have mattered anyhow. God directed this bible to be put together. No I do not think the men were perfect but I do think they were God directed. That's the difference.

think that most of them are just that - stories


well, which "most" are you talking about? How do you decide which? That's the problem and the reason we have so many groups out there. They take and choose what they want and throw the rest out. They build a doctrine around what they keep. As an evangelical or a fundamentalist I believe in the WHOLE counsel of God so when and if I need to look for a church that's the first thing I check on.

on Oct 16, 2006
Do you believe that there was an actual historical figure - Job? Do you believe the creation story that there actually was one man named adam and eve was made from his rib? I believe those are stories not historical events.
on Oct 16, 2006
Do you believe that there was an actual historical figure - Job? Do you believe the creation story that there actually was one man named adam and eve was made from his rib?


Yes. One of the reasons? Jesus quoted from these books. He gave them credibility. Now the question is..."Do you believe in Jesus?" If so, do you believe in what he told us? If so, why wouldn't you believe in what He wrote?

I believe those are stories not historical events.


but....sorry for the 21 questions but it has to be asked....what do you base this belief on?

When I think of Eve being crafted from Adam's rib I think of the modern day cloning idea. It seems as tho it was started way back in Adam's day and we're just figuring it out now.
on Oct 16, 2006
"Yes. One of the reasons? Jesus quoted from these books. He gave them credibility. Now the question is..."Do you believe in Jesus?" If so, do you believe in what he told us? If so, why wouldn't you believe in what He wrote?"


I quote Shakespeare, does that mean I believe he wrote inerrant literature? I quote the Bible all the time and I don't believe it is inerrant. Yet, if Jesus quoted something, it MUST mean he thought it was completely, 100% factual, even 2000 years later translated into a language that didn't even exist then.

"but....sorry for the 21 questions but it has to be asked....what do you base this belief on? "


So you believe everything you read to be true unless you have some reason to believe it isn't? If someone said that God has a big purple nose, you'd believe it until you found scripture to prove otherwise? No, there are some things that need to be proved BEFORE you believe them, aren't there?

"When I think of Eve being crafted from Adam's rib I think of the modern day cloning idea. It seems as tho it was started way back in Adam's day and we're just figuring it out now."


But then your crossing up the explanation given by your pals over at AIG for why Adam and Eve's kids weren't inbred for having kids with their siblings. If adam and eve were genetic clones I don't see how the human race could have survived.

...but... you'd just say that God fixed it, since God can do anything. That's why it is so annoying to argue with creationists, because they can just say "All things are possible with God" with a glazed look in their eyes. They don't have to explain anything, all they have to do is believe.
on Oct 16, 2006
Yes. One of the reasons? Jesus quoted from these books. He gave them credibility. Now the question is..."Do you believe in Jesus?" If so, do you believe in what he told us? If so, why wouldn't you believe in what He wrote?


I saw a special on Discovery channel or something. Mysteries of the bible. They said that Job was not a historical figure and that Job was the oldest book in the bible. It was just a story written about someone's suffering to teach us to continue to have faith through suffering. Just like Jesus told stories about the Good Samaritan and the Prodigal Son. They were not actual people just characters in a story.

I do believe in Jesus and I know that Jesus did not write the Bible. It is what other people whote to tell us about him.

When I think of Eve being crafted from Adam's rib I think of the modern day cloning idea. It seems as tho it was started way back in Adam's day and we're just figuring it out now.


Every culture has a creation story. I don't think any of them are true accounts. Anyway it doesn't matter what we believe. What is is and maybe when we die we'll know the answers and maybe we'll just cease to exist but what we believed won't change reality.
on Oct 16, 2006
They said that Job was not a historical figure and that Job was the oldest book in the bible.


Well I'd agree with it being the oldest book but I do believe Job was a real character. James a NT writer speaks of Job and Ezekiel said Noah, Daniel and Job were in Palestine. So yes, I do believe he was a real person.

Just like Jesus told stories about the Good Samaritan and the Prodigal Son.


Now these could be real stories like you say. I believe IMO that Jesus was basing these stories off real happenings. It's not like they are far fetched at all.

I do believe in Jesus and I know that Jesus did not write the Bible. It is what other people whote to tell us about him.


well this differs from the Christian perspective. We believe the whole of scripture was written by Him using the personalities of the men who physically wrote down His words. So yes and no. The only thing we see him physically write was something in the sand one time.

There is no other explanation for the perfect continuation of all the books. It reads as tho one author was behind it. Remember he's called The Logos, which means "The Word of God."


Every culture has a creation story. I don't think any of them are true accounts.


Are they all wrong? I would think the opposite. If every culture has a story, maybe there's something to it. Every culture has a flood story too.

Anyway it doesn't matter what we believe. What is is and maybe when we die we'll know the answers and maybe we'll just cease to exist but what we believed won't change reality.


I think of eternity as a place to go to. It's a future trip. When I go on a trip now I prepare,plan and get things in order ahead of time. I don't wait until I get there to do these things. It will be too late. We will not be prepared. I believe that this life is a preparation for the next. We make our decision on where we're going from here. No decision is a decision.






on Oct 16, 2006
I quote Shakespeare, does that mean I believe he wrote inerrant literature? I quote the Bible all the time and I don't believe it is inerrant. Yet, if Jesus quoted something, it MUST mean he thought it was completely, 100% factual, even 2000 years later translated into a language that didn't even exist then.


Jesus said the OT scriptures spoke of him. Well how could that be? How would the OT prophets have known about this Jesus if it wasn't inerrant? There was a 400 year gap between the OT and when Jesus first made himself known in the flesh. Every single OT scripture that spoke about Jesus' first coming came true. Fulfilled prophecy is a very good indication that it is inerrent. There are just as many, if not more, OT prophecies speaking of his second coming. I expect they will all come true as well.

Since you mentioned Shakespeare...let's talk about that as well. You may check this out yourself. The NT copies we have are in better texutual shape than the 37 plays of William Shakespeare written in the 17th century.....after the invention of the printing press no less. In every one of Shakespear's plays there are gaps in the printed text where we have no idea what was originally said. This forced textual scholars to make some fancy good guesses to fill in the blanks. But with the abudance of existing manuscripts of the NT we know nothing has been lost through the transmission of the text.

If you would judge the NT documents with the same standards or tests applied to any one of the Gk classics, the evidence overwhelmingly favors the NT. If someone contends that we have a reliable text of the classics then he would be forced to admit we have a reliable text of the NT.

on Oct 16, 2006
"well this differs from the Christian perspective. We believe the whole of scripture was written by Him using the personalities of the men who physically wrote down His words. So yes and no. The only thing we see him physically write was something in the sand one time."


Good lord, don't you feel kind of sick saying such a thing? The "Christian perspective" is that the Bible is inerrant and written by Jesus? I think there are innumerable Christians now and throughout history that would take offense at such an idea.

It's the fundamentalist perspective, sure, but don't claim your beliefs are somehow definitive of CHristianity, because there's quite a few Catholics out there whose beliefs look nothing like yours. Honestly what you describe might not even be the opinion of all fundamentalists, either, given the dispute about Jesus' nature within fundamentalism.

on Oct 16, 2006
"How would the OT prophets have known about this Jesus if it wasn't inerrant?"


They wouldn't, and didn't.

"Every single OT scripture that spoke about Jesus' first coming came true"


If you would, find me the word Jesus in the Old Testament, please.

"Fulfilled prophecy is a very good indication that it is inerrent."


There's not a single prophecy in the Bible that you can prove played out. The book you hold was translated, edited and compiled long after the events that were supposedly predicted. When you work backwards from event to the prophecy you can interpret it to mean what you want. Again, go talk to the Nostradamus people.

"The NT copies we have are in better texutual shape than the 37 plays of William Shakespeare written in the 17th century.....after the invention of the printing press no less"


Nope, More fundy mythology to go with your Jurassic park junk. We have First Folios in great shape printed only seven years after Shakespeare's death by Shakespeare's friends, John Heminges and Henry Condell in 1623, and proofread by the man who handled Shakespeare's scripts, Edward Knight.

The early quartos you mention had flaws, but never being authoritative texts, they were never needed to copy from. Many scripts had to be edited because some were censored before they were performed, thus there are different versions of some plays. These are things his friends, knowing his plays, had to iron out.

So, I'll agree with you. Shakespeare isn't any more inerrant than the Bible. Sadly, we have a lot more insight on Shakespeare, based upon a LOT more provenance and material than you have backing up the NT. The difference is that you bet your soul and claim doctrinal superiority based on the one and I just enjoy the other.

Find me a "first folio" contemporary copy of New Testament books, copied and compiled accurately within seven years of the authors' death by people who knew him that you can name. Give me the name of the people who copied what they compiled, and what year they copied it. You can't, so your claim falls flat.

The this is like the stuff you cut and paste from other preachers, like the one where you quoted that preacher saying Muslims believed the world rode on the back of a turtle. You aren't interested in the truth, you just cut and paste fundamentalist propaganda and then brush it off when people point out that you are wrong.
on Oct 16, 2006
I told you Baker, I'm done arguing with you. Because that's what it's turning out to be.

Believe what you will. But I know the bible has been read by more people and published in more languages than any other book in history even being the first to be printed on the Gutenberg's press. So you go and read Shakespeare and I'll stick to God's word.

Oh and BTW you may want to check out Ex 12:38 and Numbers 11:4-6.

I think you'll understand.

I said Gideon was right on your blog...or was that Jen's blog.....I'm getting confused.

You have your opinions and I have mine. You have your "experts" and I have mine.

Believe what you want.
5 Pages1 2 3  Last